60–64. Prohibition of Simony, Marriage of the
Clergy, and Lay Investiture, 1074–1123.
According to Roman ideas religion and its ministers were a part
of the state and hence under the control of the government. When
Constantine made Christianity a legal religion the state took the
same attitude toward the new religion that it had toward the old.
The emperor assumed control over the Christian clergy, and the view
soon prevailed that they were officials of the state. Their duties, which
were at first purely spiritual, were soon extended to secular matters.
For obvious reasons the bishops were given an oversight over the
administration of justice. During the invasions of the barbarians
the secular functions of the bishops were greatly increased. Karl
the Great made constant use of the bishops in the administration
of his realm. By the tenth century many bishops were intrusted
to a large extent with the secular government of their dioceses and
so were full-fledged officials of the state. Attendance on diets was
required of all officials, and eventually it was required only of officials.
So it came about that the bishops especially formed an important
part of the diet. Because of their learning they were indispensable
to the emperor in conducting the affairs of his court and
government; they naturally became his chief advisers. The bishops,
then, have two sets of functions, the one spiritual, the other secular.
Through bequests and gifts from various sources the clergy, and
especially the bishops and chief abbots, became great landholders.
Many gave to the clergy for religious reasons, such as the salvation
of their souls. But the emperors had still other motives: because
of their office as emperor they were bound to build up the church;
they felt it to be their duty to reward and to strengthen the clergy
who were their faithful officials; and, furthermore, since they frequently
met with opposition from the lay nobility, they thought it
advisable to build up a strong ecclesiastical nobility to serve as a
check upon the former.
As all other offices and relations became feudalized, so all the
clergy underwent the same process. The bishops became the vassals
of the emperor, and sustained the same feudal relations to him as
did the lay nobility.
Since the bishops were both the officials and vassals of the emperor,
it is certain that he would insist on having a voice in their
election. Although the laws of the church did not permit this, nevertheless
we find that from Karl the Great to Henry III all the emperors
exercised the right of naming or appointing the bishops.
Although at the time no objection was made to this action of the
emperors, a new party had now arisen in the church which condemned
it as simoniacal. This new party had its origin in the monastery
of Cluny, from which it took its name. It was famous for the great
reforms which it was trying to bring about. Now it was a part of
the Cluniac programme that the church should be freed from all lay
influence and that all ecclesiastical offices should be filled not by lay
appointment but by election by the clergy (canonical election). Thus
they gave simony a new meaning by declaring that every election
which was not canonical was simoniacal. For simony was originally
only the purchase or sale of any ecclesiastical office, but as the
church, under the influence of this Cluniac party, developed her laws
regarding canonical election and investiture, it came to be applied
to every form of election and investiture other than canonical. The
emperors had not only appointed the bishops, but they had also
inducted them into their office. The induction into office was called
investiture. Without it no one could fill the office to which he had
been elected. To symbolize the power of the office the emperor presented
the bishop with certain objects, such as a ring and a staff,
which represented his spiritual authority over his diocese, and with
a sceptre, which represented his temporal authority. The Cluniac
party opposed all lay investiture and insisted that all the clergy
should receive the symbols of their power from the church. But
since the emperor’s temporal interests were so largely involved, he
could not yield to the Cluniac demands without great loss of power.
He could not tamely surrender to the pope the control of the bishops
and their broad lands. Nor was it probable that the nobility would
give up their rights (as patrons, etc.) to appoint the local clergy
and to invest them with their office. So the struggle over investiture
was long and bitter.
Lay investiture had already been prohibited by Nicholas II in
the Lateran synod of 1059 but no steps had been taken to enforce
the prohibition. Gregory VII renewed the prohibition and made it
one of the prominent parts of his programme.
Although the opinion had long prevailed in the church that the
celibate life, or chastity, was more holy than the married life, and
therefore more becoming in the clergy, yet it was not uncommon for
clergymen to marry. The Cluniac party regarded this state of
affairs as especially blameworthy, and demanded that all the clergy
be required to take the vow of perpetual chastity. In this, as in
other respects, Gregory VII endeavored to carry out the Cluniac
programme and so exerted himself to suppress clerical marriage, or,
as the Cluniac party called it, clerical concubinage.
The following documents, nos. 60–64, illustrate the legislation of
the church in regard to simony, celibacy, and investiture.
Sigebert of Gembloux, ad annum 1074; M. G. SS. folio, VI, p. 362.
Pope Gregory [VII] held a synod in which he anathematized
all who were guilty of simony. He also forbade all
clergy who were married to say mass, and all laymen were
forbidden to be present when such a married priest should
officiate. In this he seemed to many to act contrary to the
decisions of the holy fathers who have declared that the
sacraments of the church are neither made more effective
by the good qualities, nor less effective by the sins, of the
officiating priest, because it is the Holy Spirit who makes
them effective.
Mansi, XX, p. 404.
Those who have been advanced to any grade of holy orders,
or to any office, through simony, that is, by the payment of
money, shall hereafter have no right to officiate in the holy
church. Those also who have secured churches by giving
money shall certainly be deprived of them. And in the
future it shall be illegal for anyone to buy or to sell [any
ecclesiastical office, position, etc.].
Nor shall clergymen who are married say mass or serve
the altar in any way. We decree also that if they refuse
to obey our orders, or rather those of the holy fathers, the
people shall refuse to receive their ministrations, in order
that those who disregard the love of God and the dignity
of their office may be brought to their senses through feeling
the shame of the world and the reproof of the people.
Mansi, XX, p. 433; Corpus Juris Can., Diet. LXXXI, e. xv.
If there are any priests, deacons, or subdeacons who are
married, by the power of omnipotent God and the authority
of St. Peter we forbid them to enter a church until they
repent and mend their ways. But if any remain with their
wives, no one shall dare hear them [when they officiate in
the church], because their benediction is turned into a curse,
and their prayer into a sin. For the Lord says through the
prophet, "I will curse your blessings" [Mal. 2:2]. Whoever
shall refuse to obey this most salutary command shall
be guilty of the sin of idolatry. For Samuel says: "For
rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as
iniquity and idolatry" [1 Sam. 15:23]. Whoever therefore
asserts that he is a Christian but refuses to obey the apostolic
see, is guilty of paganism.
Densinger, p. 106; Hefele, V, p. 194.
We forbid priests, deacons, and subdeacons to live with
wives or concubines, and no woman shall live with a clergyman
except those who are permitted by the council of Nicæa,
viz.: mother, sister, aunt, or others of such sort that no suspicion
may justly arise concerning them.
Jaffé, II, p. 332; Doeberl, III, no. 5 a.
Since we know that investitures have been made by laymen
in many places, contrary to the decrees of the holy
fathers, and that very many disturbances injurious to the
Christian religion have thereby arisen in the church, we
therefore decree: that no clergyman shall receive investiture
of a bishopric, monastery, or church from the hand of the
emperor, or the king, or any lay person, man or woman.
And if anyone has ventured to receive such investiture, let
him know that it is annulled by apostolic authority, and that
he is subject to excommunication until he has made due
reparation.
Jaffé, II, p. 174; Doeberl, III, no 6.
Until recently the Dictatus Papæ was supposed to have been
written by Gregory VII, but it is now known to have had a different
origin. In 1087 cardinal Deusdedit published a collection of the laws
of the church, which he drew from many sources, such as the actions
of councils and the writings of the popes. The Dictatus agrees so
clearly and closely with this collection, that it must have been based
on it; and so must be later than the date of its compilation, 1087.
It seems evident that some one, while reading the collection of
Deusdedit, wishing to formulate the papal rights and prerogatives,
expressed them in these twenty-seven theses. Although they were
not formulated by Gregory himself, there is no doubt that they
express his chief principles.
- That the Roman church was established by God
alone.
- That the Roman pontiff alone is rightly called universal.
- That he alone has the power to depose and reinstate
bishops.
- That his legate, even if he be of lower, ecclesiastical
rank, presides over bishops in council, and has the power to
give sentence of deposition against them.
- That the pope has the power to depose those who are
absent [i.e., without giving them a hearing].
- That, among other things, we ought not to remain
in the same house with those whom he has excommunicated.
- That he alone has the right, according to the necessity
of the occasion, to make new laws, to create new bishoprics,
to make a monastery of a chapter of canons, and
vice versa, and either to divide a rich bishopric or to unite
several poor ones.
- That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
- That all princes shall kiss the foot of the pope alone.
- That his name alone is to be recited in the churches.
- That the name applied to him belongs to him alone.
- That he has the power to depose emperors.
- That he has the right to transfer bishops from one
see to another when it becomes necessary.
- That he has the right to ordain as a cleric anyone
from any part of the church whatsoever.
- That anyone ordained by him may rule [as bishop]
over another church, but cannot serve [as priest] in it, and
that such a cleric may not receive a higher rank from any
other bishop.
- That no general synod may be called without his
order.
- That no action of a synod and no book shall be regarded
as canonical without his authority.
- That his decree can be annulled by no one, and that
he can annul the decrees of anyone.
- That he can be judged by no one.
- That no one shall dare to condemn a person who has
appealed to the apostolic seat.
- That the important cases of any church whatsoever
shall be referred to the Roman church [that is, to the pope].
- That the Roman church has never erred and will
never err to all eternity, according to the testimony of the
holy scriptures.
- That the Roman pontiff who has been canonically
ordained is made holy by the merits of St. Peter, according
to the testimony of St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, which is
confirmed by many of the holy fathers, as is shown by the
decrees of the blessed pope Symmachus.
- That by his command or permission subjects may
accuse their rulers.
- That he can depose and reinstate bishops without
the calling of a synod.
- That no one can be regarded as catholic who does
not agree with the Roman church.
- That he has the power to absolve subjects from their
oath of fidelity to wicked rulers.
Section 1 means that the Roman church received the primacy over
the whole church directly from Christ. Section 8 is based on the
forged Donation of Constantine, according to which the emperor gave
the pope the right to use the imperial insignia. In section 11 it is
not clear what name is meant. It may be "universal" as in section
2. The bishop of Rome claimed the exclusive right to call himself
pope, apostolic, and universal. Papa or pope was at first the
common title of all priests, and is still so in the Greek church. But
in the course of time it was limited in the west to the bishop of
Rome. "Apostolic" was at first applied to all bishops, but eventually
the bishop of Rome claimed the exclusive right to it and
forbade all other bishops to use it. Since the bishop of Rome was
the head of the whole church he was the only one who could call
himself "universal." The right of ordaining, section 14, that is,
of raising to the clerical rank, belonged to each bishop, but he
could exercise it only in his own diocese. But the bishop of Rome
had the whole world for his diocese, and hence he could ordain any
one, no matter to what bishopric he belonged. In explanation of
section 23 the following passage from pope Symmachus (498–514)
is offered (Hinschius, "Decretales," p. 666). "We do not judge
that St. Peter received from the Lord with the prerogative of his
chair [that is, with his primacy] the right to sin. But he passed
on to his successors the perennial dower of his merits with his
heritage of innocence. Who can doubt that he who is exalted to the
height of apostolic dignity is holy?"
Migne, 148, col. 392.
It had not been uncommon for the popes to send their legates on
missions to various parts of the world, but Gregory VII made a far
more frequent use of them than any of his predecessors. He practically
ruled the church through them and demanded that they be
received and obeyed by all. This letter shows his general attitude
on the matter, the authority he gave them, and the reception which
he expected them to have.
Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the
faithful subjects of St. Peter, to whom these presents come,
greeting and apostolic benediction.
You see that wickedness is increasing and that the wiles
of the devil are prevailing in the earth, that Christian charity
has grown cold and religious zeal has almost disappeared
within the church. But since we cannot be everywhere present
in person to attend to all these matters, we have sent
to you two beloved sons of the holy Roman church, Geizo,
abbot of St. Boniface, and Maurus, abbot of St. Sabba, who
shall represent us to you and have authority to do in our
name whatever may be to the advantage of the church. Remember
therefore that saying of the gospel: "He that heareth
you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth
me" [Luke 10:16]. As you care for the friendship and for
the favor of St. Peter, whose messengers they are, receive
them with the proper reverence and kindness, and obey them
in all matters which may arise as part of their mission or
through the exigencies of the situation among you. If it
becomes necessary or expedient for the legates to separate
and go to different regions, each one of them shall be received
and obeyed as our representative.
Mansi, XX, p 525.
Gregory VII required an oath of fidelity from all bishops. By
comparing the oath of Boniface to Gregory II (no. 40) and the oath
of Richard of Capua (no. 68) with this oath of the patriarch of
Aquileia, interesting light will be thrown on the theory and practice
of Gregory VII.
From now henceforth I will be faithful to St. Peter and
to pope Gregory [VII] and to his successors who shall be
elected by the better cardinals. Neither in counsel nor in
deed will I do anything to cause them to lose their life, or
limb, or the papacy, or that they be taken prisoner through
any treacherous trick. To whatsoever synod they, either in
person or by messenger or by letter, may call me, I will
come and I will obey them according to the law; or if I
shall not be able to come, I will send my representative.
I will aid and defend them in holding and defending the
papacy and the regalia of St. Peter, saving the duties of my
position. If they, either in person or by messenger or by
letter, shall intrust me with a secret, I will not knowingly
reveal it to anyone to their harm. I will treat with honor
a papal legate, whether coming [from Rome] or going [back
to Rome], and I will give him my aid whenever he needs it.
I will not wittingly associate with any whom the pope has
excommunicated. Whenever I shall have been called on I
will aid the Roman church with my military forces. All
these duties I will perform unless I shall have been excused
from them.
68–73. Gregory VII Exercises Secular Authority.
Migne, 148, col. 304.
Gregory VII, in accordance with his political pretensions, endeavored
to compel all rulers of the Christian world to acknowledge his
supremacy over them. He made the broadest claims to the proprietorship
of all kingdoms, duchies, counties, etc., and tried to compel
all rulers of every rank to take an oath of vassalage to him and to
receive their lands from him as fiefs. Nos. 68–73 illustrate this
feature of his policy.
I, Richard, by the grace of God and St. Peter prince of
Capua, from this time forth will be faithful to the holy
Roman church, to the apostolic see, and to you, pope Gregory.
I will have no share in any plan or any deed to injure
you in life or limb or to make you captive. Any plan which
you may confide to me, wishing it to be kept secret, I will
never divulge consciously to your injury. I will faithfully
aid you and the holy Roman church to keep, acquire, and
defend the regalia and the possessions of St. Peter against
all men and I will assist you to hold the papacy and the
lands of St. Peter in peace and honor. I will never attempt
to attack, seize, or devastate any lands without the express
permission of you or your successors, except such lands as
you or your successors may have given to me. I promise to
pay to the Roman church the legal tribute from the lands
of St. Peter, which I hold or shall hold. I will surrender
to your authority all the churches which are in my lands,
with all their goods, and I will defend them in their fidelity
to the holy Roman church. I will swear fidelity to king
Henry whenever I shall be commanded to do so by you or
your successors, always saving my fidelity to the holy Roman
church. If you or any of your successors shall die before
I do, I will support the better part of the cardinals and the
clergy and the people of Rome in the election and establishment
of a new pope to the honor of St. Peter. I will keep
all the above promises to you and to the holy Roman church
in good faith, and I will keep my oath of fidelity to your
successors who shall be ordained popes, if they are willing
to confirm the investiture which you have conferred
upon me.
Migne, 148, cols. 289 f.
See introductory note to no. 68.
Gregory, pope elect, to all the princes desiring to go into
Spain, perpetual greeting in the Lord Jesus Christ.
We suppose you know that the kingdom of Spain belonged
of old to St. Peter, and that this right has never been lost,
although the land has long been occupied by pagans. Therefore
the ownership of this land inheres in the apostolic see
alone, for whatever has come into the possession of the
churches by the will of God, while it may be alienated from
their use, may not by any lapse of time be separated from
their ownership except by lawful grant. Count Evolus of
Roceio, whose fame you must know, wishes to attack that
land and rescue it from the heathen. Therefore we have
granted him the possession of such territory as he may win
from the pagans by his own efforts or with the aid of allies,
on conditions agreed upon by us as the representative of
St. Peter. You who join him in this undertaking should
do so to the honor of St. Peter, that St. Peter may protect
you from danger and reward your fidelity to him. But if
any of you plan to attack that land independently with your
own forces, you should do so in a spirit of devotion and
with righteous motives. Beware lest after you have conquered
the land you wrong St. Peter in the same way as
the infidels do who now hold it. Unless you are prepared
to recognize the rights of St. Peter by making an equitable
agreement with us, we will forbid you by our apostolic authority
to go thither, that your holy and universal mother,
the church, may not suffer from her sons the same injuries
which she now suffers from her enemies, to the loss not only
of her property, but also of the devotion of her children.
To this end we have sent to Spain our beloved son, Hugo,
cardinal priest of the holy Roman church, and he will inform
you more fully of our terms and conditions.
Migne, 148, cols. 299 f.
See introductory note to no. 68.
Gregory, etc., to Wratislav, etc. We give thanks to omnipotent
God that you have been led by your devotion and
reverence for the apostles Peter and Paul, princes of the
apostles, to receive our legates with kindness and treat them
with the graciousness which is becoming to your majesty.
Receive the assurance of our good-will in return for this
evidence of your fidelity. It has not been usual for papal
legates to visit your land; this, however, is partly the fault
of your forefathers, as well as of our predecessors, for the
dukes of Bohemia should have requested the pope to send
them legates. But some of your subjects have regarded our
sending of legates as an innovation, and have treated them
with contempt, forgetting the word of God: "He that receiveth
you receiveth me" [Matt. 10:40]; "and he that
despiseth you despiseth me" [Luke 10:16]. So in failing
to show due reverence to our legates, they have not so much
despised them, as they have despised the word of truth....
Migne, 148 col. 339.
See introductory note to no. 68.
Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Sancho,
king of Aragon, greeting and apostolic benediction.
We received your gracious letter with great joy, because
of the evidence which it contained of your fidelity to the
princes of the apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the holy
Roman church. But indeed even if we had not received
your letter we should have been well aware of your fidelity
through the report of our legates. By enforcing the observances
of the Roman form of service in the churches of your
kingdom you have shown that you are a true son of the
Roman church and that you bear the same friendship to us
that former kings of Spain have borne to the Roman pope.
Be firm and constant in the faith and complete the good
work which you have begun; then the blessed St. Peter,
whom our Lord Jesus Christ has made ruler over the kingdoms
of this world, will bring to pass the desires of your
heart and will make you victorious over your enemies, because
of the trust which you have placed in him....
Migne, 148, col. 373.
See introductory note to no. 68.
Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Solomon,
king of Hungary, greeting and apostolic benediction.
Your letter was late in reaching us because of the delay
of the messenger, but when it did come we were displeased
with it because its terms were offensive to St. Peter. For
the kingdom of Hungary, as you can learn from your own
princes, belongs of right to the holy Roman church, having
been offered and surrendered to St. Peter with all its rights
and powers by the former king Stephen. And when the
emperor Henry [II] of blessed memory, attacked the kingdom
in the defense of the honor of St. Peter and captured
the king, he forwarded to the grave of St. Peter the lance
and crown, the insignia of kingship. But we hear that you
have accepted the kingdom as a fief from the king of the
Germans, thereby infringing the rights and the honor of
St. Peter and acting in a manner incompatible with the
virtue and character of a king. If you wish to have the
favor of St. Peter and our good will, you must correct your
faults; you know yourself that you cannot hope for justice,
that, indeed, you cannot reign any length of time, unless
you admit that you hold the sceptre of your kingdom from
the pope and not from the king. As far as God shall give
us strength, we will never through fear or affection or any
personal consideration consent to the diminishing of the
honor of him whom we serve. But if you are willing to
mend your ways and act as a king should, you may easily
win the love of your mother, the holy Roman church, and
our friendship in Christ.
Migne, 148, col. 425.
See introductory note to no. 68.
Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Demetrius,
king of the Russians, and to his wife, the queen,
greeting and apostolic benediction.
Your son has visited us at Rome, and has asked that we
invest him with the kingdom of the Russians in the name
of St. Peter. He has given sufficient evidence of his fidelity
to St. Peter, and has assured us that he is acting with your
consent in making the petition. We have felt justified in
granting his petition because of your consent and of the
devotion which he has evidenced; therefore we have conferred
upon him in the name of St. Peter the government
of your kingdom. We pray that St. Peter may protect you
and your kingdom and all your possessions by his intercession
with God, that he may cause you to hold your kingdom
in peace, glory, and honor, all your days, and that at the
end of this life he may obtain for you an eternal glory with
the King of Heaven. We shall always be ready to grant
your request whenever you call upon us in any righteous
cause. In regard to this matter of the investiture and other
affairs not mentioned in this letter, we have sent you these
legates, one of whom is a well-known and faithful friend of
yours. Treat them kindly out of reverence for St. Peter,
whose legates they are; listen to them and believe without
hesitation whatever they may say on our behalf. Do not
allow them to be hindered in the discharge of any of the
duties with which we have intrusted them, but give them
your faithful assistance. May omnipotent God illumine your
soul and lead you through this temporal life to his eternal
glory.
74–81. Conflict between Henry IV and Gregory VII.
Jaffé, II, pp. 218 ff; Doeberl, III, no. 7.
Gregory VII met with vigorous opposition from the German clergy
as well as from the king when he attempted to enforce his laws
against simony and the marriage of the clergy. In a synod at Rome,
1075, Feb. 24–28, Gregory excommunicated five of Henry’s intimate
advisers for the sin of simony. Henry refused to recognize the
validity of this excommunication, and, regardless of papal protests,
persisted in his policy of disposing of bishoprics (Milan, Fermo,
Spoleto, for example) as he chose. Gregory determined to proceed
to extreme measures. He sent messengers to Henry, bearing this
letter (no. 74) in which he defended his decrees against simony
and the marriage of the clergy, and announced his determination
to hold fast to them and to compel the whole world to accept them.
He also intrusted an oral message to the bearers of the letter to the
effect that if Henry did not mend his evil life, and drive his
excommunicated counsellors from his court, Gregory would not only
excommunicate him but also depose him.
Henry’s answer to this message and letter was given at a national
synod at Worms, Jan. 24, 1076. This synod deposed Gregory and
informed him of their action by two letters, one by Henry (no. 75),
and the other by the German bishops (no. 76). Gregory replied by
excommunicating and deposing the king (no. 77).
Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Henry,
the king, greeting and apostolic benediction—that is, if he
shall prove obedient to the apostolic see as a Christian king
should.
We have sent you our apostolic benediction with some
hesitation, knowing that we must render account to God, the
severe judge, for all our acts as pope. Now it is reported that
you have knowingly associated with men who have been excommunicated
by the pope and the synod. If this is true, you
know that you cannot receive the blessing either of God or
of the pope until you have driven them from you and have
compelled them to do penance, and have yourself sought
absolution and forgiveness for your transgressions with due
penance and reparation. Therefore, if you realize your guilt
in this matter, we counsel you to confess straightway to some
pious bishop, who shall absolve you with our permission, enjoining
upon you suitable penance for this fault, and who
shall faithfully report to us by letter, with your permission,
the character of the penance prescribed.
We wonder, moreover, that you should continue to assure
us by letter and messengers of your devotion and humility;
that you should call yourself our son and the son of the holy
mother church, obedient in the faith, sincere in love, diligent
in devotion, and that you should commend yourself to
us with all zeal of love and reverence—whereas in fact you
are constantly disobeying the canonical and apostolic decrees
in important matters of the faith. For, to say nothing
of the rest, in the case of Milan, concerning which you gave
us your promise through your mother and through our
fellow-bishops whom we sent to you, the event has shown
how far you intended to carry out your promise [that is, not
at all] and with what purpose you made it. And now, to
inflict wound upon wound, contrary to the apostolic decrees
you have bestowed the churches of Fermo and Spoleto—if
indeed a church can be bestowed by a layman—upon certain
persons quite unknown to us; for it is not lawful to ordain
men before they have been known and proved.
Since you confess yourself a son of the church, you should
treat with more honor the head of the church, that is, St.
Peter, the prince of the apostles. If you are one of the
sheep of the Lord, you have been intrusted to him by divine
authority, for Christ said to him: "Peter, feed my sheep"
[John 21:16]; and again: "And I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [Matt.
16:19]. And since we, although an unworthy sinner, exercise
his authority by divine will, the words which you address
to us are in reality addressed directly to him. And
although we only read or hear the words, he sees the heart
from which the words proceed. Therefore your highness
should be very careful that no insincerity be found in your
words and messages to us; and that you show due reverence,
not to us indeed, but to omnipotent God, in those things
which especially make for the advance of the Christian faith
and the well-being of the church. For our Lord said to
the apostles and to their successors: "He that heareth you
heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me"
[Luke 10:16]. For no one will disregard our admonitions
if he believes that the decrees of the pope have the same
authority as the words of the apostle himself. For if
our Lord commanded the apostles out of reverence for the
seat of Moses to observe the sayings of the scribes and Pharisees
who occupied that seat, then surely the faithful ought
to receive with all reverence the apostolic and evangelical
doctrine through those who are chosen to the ministry of
preaching.
Now in the synod held at the apostolic seat to which the
divine will has called us (at which some of your subjects
also were present) we, seeing that the Christian religion
had been weakened by many attacks and that the chief and
proper motive, that of saving souls, had for a long time been
neglected and slighted, were alarmed at the evident danger
of the destruction of the flock of the Lord, and had recourse
to the decrees and the doctrine of the holy fathers; we
decreed nothing new, nothing of our invention [that is,
against simony and the marriage of the clergy]; but we
decided that the error should be abandoned and the single
primitive rule of ecclesiastical discipline and the familiar
way of the saints should be again sought out and followed.
For we know that no other door to salvation and eternal
life lies open to the sheep of Christ than that which was
pointed out by him who said: "I am the door, by me if
any man enter in he shall be saved, and find pasture" [John
10:9]; and this, we learn from the gospels and from the
sacred writings, was preached by the apostles and observed by
the holy fathers. And we have decided that this decree—which
some, placing human above divine honor, have called an
unendurable weight and an immense burden, but which we
call by its proper name, that is, the truth and light necessary
to salvation—is to be received and observed not only
by you and your subjects, but also by all princes and peoples
of the earth who confess and worship Christ; for it is
greatly desired by us, and would be most fitting for you,
that, as you are greater than others in glory, in honor, and
in virtue, so you should be more distinguished in devotion
to Christ.
Nevertheless, that this decree may not seem to you beyond
measure grievous and unjust, we have commanded you by
your faithful ambassadors to send to us the wisest and most
pious men whom you can find in your kingdom, so that if
they can show or instruct us in any way how we can temper
the sentence promulgated by the holy fathers without offence
to the eternal King or danger to our souls, we may consider
their advice. But, even if we had not warned you in so
friendly a manner, it would have been only right on your
part, before you violated the apostolic decrees, to have asked
justice of us in a reasonable manner in any matter in which
we had injured or affected your honor. But it is evident
in what you have since done and decreed how little you care
for our warnings or for the observance of justice.
But since we hope that, while the long-suffering patience
of God still invites you to repent, you may become wiser
and your heart may be turned to obey the commands of
God, we warn you with fatherly love that, knowing the rule
of Christ to be over you, you should consider how dangerous
it is to place your honor above his, and that you should not
interfere with the liberty of the church which he has deigned
to join to himself by heavenly union, but rather with faithful
devotion you should offer your assistance to the increasing
of this liberty to omnipotent God and St. Peter, through
whom also your glory may be amplified. You ought to recognize
what you undoubtedly owe to them for giving you victory
over your enemies, that as they have gladdened you
with great prosperity, so they should see that you are thereby
rendered more devout. And in order that the fear of God,
in whose hands is all power and all rule, may affect your
heart more than these our warnings, you should recall what
happened to Saul when, after winning the victory which he
gained by the will of the prophet, he glorified himself in his
triumph and did not obey the warnings of the prophet, and
how God reproved him; and, on the other hand, what grace
king David acquired by reason of his humility, as well as
his other virtues.
Finally, in regard to those matters in your letter which
we have not yet touched upon, we will not give a definite
answer until your ambassadors, Rapoto, Adelbert, and Wodescalc,
and those whom we have sent with them, shall return
to us and shall make known more fully your intention in
regard to the matters which we committed to them to be
discussed with you. Given at Rome, the 6th of the Ides of
January, the 14th indiction.
M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 47 ff; Doeberl, III, no. 8 b.
See introductory note to no. 74.
Henry, king not by usurpation, but by the holy ordination
of God, to Hildebrand, not pope, but false monk.
This is the salutation which you deserve, for you have
never held any office in the church without making it a
source of confusion and a curse to Christian men instead
of an honor and a blessing. To mention only the most
obvious cases out of many, you have not only dared to touch
the Lord’s anointed, the archbishops, bishops, and priests;
but you have scorned them and abused them, as if they were
ignorant servants not fit to know what their master was
doing. This you have done to gain favor with the vulgar
crowd. You have declared that the bishops know nothing
and that you know everything; but if you have such great
wisdom you have used it not to build but to destroy. Therefore
we believe that St. Gregory, whose name you have presumed
to take, had you in mind when he said: "The heart
of the prelate is puffed up by the abundance of subjects,
and he thinks himself more powerful than all others." All
this we have endured because of our respect for the papal
office, but you have mistaken our humility for fear, and have
dared to make an attack upon the royal and imperial authority
which we received from God. You have even threatened
to take it away, as if we had received it from you, and as
if the empire and kingdom were in your disposal and not
in the disposal of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ has called
us to the government of the empire, but he never called you
to the rule of the church. This is the way you have gained
advancement in the church: through craft you have obtained
wealth; through wealth you have obtained favor; through
favor, the power of the sword; and through the power of
the sword, the papal seat, which is the seat of peace; and
then from the seat of peace you have expelled peace. For
you have incited subjects to rebel against their prelates by
teaching them to despise the bishops, their rightful rulers.
You have given to laymen the authority over priests, whereby
they condemn and depose those whom the bishops have put
over them to teach them. You have attacked me, who, unworthy
as I am, have yet been anointed to rule among the
anointed of God, and who, according to the teaching of the
fathers, can be judged by no one save God alone, and can
be deposed for no crime except infidelity. For the holy
fathers in the time of the apostate Julian did not presume
to pronounce sentence of deposition against him, but left
him to be judged and condemned by God. St. Peter himself
said: "Fear God, honor the king" [1 Pet. 2:17]. But
you, who fear not God, have dishonored me, whom He hath
established. St. Paul, who said that even an angel from
heaven should be accursed who taught any other than the
true doctrine, did not make an exception in your favor, to
permit you to teach false doctrines. For he says: "But
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed" [Gal. 1:8]. Come down, then, from
that apostolic seat which you have obtained by violence; for
you have been declared accursed by St. Paul for your false
doctrines and have been condemned by us and our bishops
for your evil rule. Let another ascend the throne of St.
Peter, one who will not use religion as a cloak of violence,
but will teach the life-giving doctrine of that prince of the
apostles. I, Henry, king by the grace of God, with all my
bishops, say unto you: "Come down, come down, and be
accursed through all the ages."
Codex Udalrici, no. 162; M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 44 ff; Doeberl, III, no. 8 a.
See introductory note to no. 74.
Siegfried, archbishop of Mainz, Udo, bishop of Trier, William,
bishop of Utrecht, etc. [a list of names of bishops,
twenty-six in all], to brother Hildebrand.
At first when you made yourself pope we thought it better
to ignore the illegality of your action and to submit to
your rule, in the hope that you would redeem your bad
beginning by a just and righteous government of the church,
although we realized even then the enormity of the sin which
you had committed. But now the lamentable condition of
the whole church shows us only too well how we were deceived
in you; your violent entrance into office was but the
first in a series of wicked deeds and unjust decrees. Our
Lord and Redeemer has said, in more places than we can
well enumerate here, that love and gentleness are the marks
of his disciples, but you are known for your pride, your
ambition, and your love of strife. You have introduced
worldliness into the church; you have desired a great name
rather than a reputation for holiness; you have made a
schism in the church and offended its members, who before
your time were living together in peace and charity. Your
mad acts have kindled the flame of discord which now rages
in the churches of Italy, Germany, France, and Spain. The
bishops have been deprived of their divine authority, which
rests upon the grace of the Holy Spirit received through
ordination, and the whole administration of ecclesiastical
matters you have given to rash and ignorant laymen. There
is nowhere in the church to-day a bishop or a priest who
does not hold his office through abject acquiescence in your
ambitious schemes. The order of bishops, to whom the government
of the church was intrusted by the Lord, you have
thrown into confusion, and you have disturbed that excellent
coördination of the members of Christ which Paul in
so many places commends and inculcates, while the name
of Christ has almost disappeared from the earth; and all
this through those decrees in which you glory. Who among
men is not filled with astonishment and indignation at your
claims to sole authority, by which you would deprive your
fellow-bishops of their coördinate rights and powers? For
you assert that you have the authority to try any one of our
parishioners for any sin which may have reached your ears
even by chance report, and that no one of us has the power
to loose or to bind such a sinner, but that it belongs to you
alone or to your legate. Who that knows the scriptures does
not perceive the madness of this claim? Since, therefore,
it is now apparent that the church of God is in danger of
destruction through your presumption, we have come to the
conclusion that this state of things can no longer be endured,
and we have determined to break our silence and to make
public the reasons why you are unfit and have always been
unfit to rule the church as pope. These are the reasons:
In the first place, in the reign of emperor Henry [III] of
blessed memory, you bound yourself by oath never to accept
the papacy or to permit anyone else to accept it during the
life of that emperor or of his son without the consent of
the emperor. There are many bishops still living who can
bear witness to that oath. On another occasion, when certain
cardinals were aiming to secure the office, you took an
oath never to accept the papacy, on condition that they
should all take the same oath. You know yourself how
faithfully you have kept these oaths! In the second place,
it was agreed in a synod held in the time of pope Nicholas
[II] and attended by 125 bishops, that no one, under penalty
of excommunication, should ever accept the papacy who
had not received the election of the cardinals, the approbation
of the people, and the consent of the emperor. You
yourself proposed and promoted that decree and signed it
with your own hand. In the third place, you have filled
the whole church with the stench of scandal, by associating
on too intimate terms with a woman who was not a member
of your family [the countess Matilda]. We do not wish to
base any serious charge on this last accusation; we refer to
it because it outrages our sense of propriety. And yet the
complaint is very generally made that all the judgments and
acts of the papacy are passed on by the women about the
pope, and that the whole church is governed by this new
female conclave. And finally, no amount of complaint is
adequate to express the insults and outrages you have heaped
upon the bishops, calling them sons of harlots and other
vile names. Therefore, since your pontificate was begun in
perjury and crime, since your innovations have placed the
church of God in the gravest peril, since your life and conduct
are stained with infamy; we now renounce our obedience,
which indeed was never legally promised to you. You
have declared publicly that you do not consider us to be
bishops; we reply that no one of us shall ever hold you to
be the pope.
Greg VII. Reg., III, no. 10 a; Jaffé, II, pp. 223 ff; Doeberl, III, no. 9.
See introductory note to no. 74.
St. Peter, prince of the apostles, incline thine ear unto
me, I beseech thee, and hear me, thy servant, whom thou
hast nourished from mine infancy and hast delivered from
mine enemies that hate me for my fidelity to thee. Thou
art my witness, as are also my mistress, the mother of God,
and St. Paul thy brother, and all the other saints, that thy
holy Roman church called me to its government against my
own will, and that I did not gain thy throne by violence;
that I would rather have ended my days in exile than have
obtained thy place by fraud or for worldly ambition. It
is not by my efforts, but by thy grace, that I am set to rule
over the Christian world which was specially intrusted to
thee by Christ. It is by thy grace and as thy representative
that God has given to me the power to bind and to loose in
heaven and in earth. Confident of my integrity and authority,
I now declare in the name of omnipotent God, the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that Henry, son of the emperor
Henry, is deprived of his kingdom of Germany and
Italy; I do this by thy authority and in defence of the honor
of thy church, because he has rebelled against it. He who
attempts to destroy the honor of the church should be deprived
of such honor as he may have held. He has refused
to obey as a Christian should, he has not returned to God
from whom he had wandered, he has had dealings with excommunicated
persons, he has done many iniquities, he has
despised the warnings which, as thou art witness, I sent to
him for his salvation, he has cut himself off from thy
church, and has attempted to rend it asunder; therefore,
by thy authority, I place him under the curse. It is
in thy name that I curse him, that all people may know
that thou art Peter, and upon thy rock the Son of the living
God has built his church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.
M. G. LL. 4to, IV, I, nos. 64, 65; Codex Udalrici, nos. 145,155; Doeberl, III,
no. 12.
Various parts of Germany were already in revolt against Henry
IV, and the immediate effect of the papal excommunication was to
strengthen the rebellious party. Being almost deserted, Henry found
himself unable to refuse the demands of the rebels. He agreed to
submit to Gregory in all things, and rescinded the edicts by which
he had deposed him. He also called on all his subjects to submit to
the pope (no. 79).
Promise of king Henry to pope Hildebrand, also called
Gregory.
In accordance with the advice of my subjects, I hereby
promise to show henceforth fitting reverence and obedience
to the apostolic office and to you, pope Gregory. I further
promise to make suitable reparation for any loss of honor
which you or your office may have suffered through me.
And since I have been accused of certain grave crimes, I
will either clear myself by presenting proof of my innocence
or by undergoing the ordeal, or else I will do such penance
as you may decide to be adequate for my fault.
Cf. reference to no. 78.
Henry, by the grace of God king, to the archbishops,
bishops, margraves, counts, and to his subjects of every rank
and dignity, greeting and good will. Our faithful subjects
have convinced us that in our recent controversy with pope
Gregory we were led astray by certain evil counsellors.
Therefore we now make known to all, that we have repented
of our former actions and have determined henceforth to
obey him in everything, as our predecessors were wont to do
before us, and to make full reparation for any injury which
we may have inflicted upon him or his office. We command
all of you to follow our example and to offer satisfaction to
St. Peter and to his vicar, pope Gregory, for any fault you
may have committed, and to seek absolution from him, if
any of you are under his ban.
Greg. VII. Reg., IV, nos 12, 12 a; Jaffé, II, pp. 256 ff: Doeberl, III, no. 13.
At Oppenheim Henry IV had been temporarily deposed. He sent
away his counsellors who had been excommunicated, gave up all participation
in the affairs of government, laid aside all the royal insignia,
and withdrew to the city of Speier, which he was not to
leave until the matter was adjusted by the pope, who was to come
to Germany and hold a diet in February, 1077. But Henry did not
keep his word. Fearing that he would be permanently deposed if the
pope should come to Germany and sit with his rebellious subjects in
judgment on him, he determined to forestall matters by going to see
the pope in Italy. So he fled from Speier and hastened as rapidly as
possible into Italy. He came to Canossa, where he humbled himself
before Gregory and received absolution. It was at least a diplomatic
triumph for Henry, because he had kept the pope from coming to
Germany and uniting with his rebellious nobles, who would have
labored hard to secure the permanent deposition of Henry. The
final decision of the matter was indeed left to the pope and the diet
which was to be held in Germany, but the pope did not go to Germany,
and Henry was able to point to the fact that he had received
papal absolution. The oath which Gregory VII required of Henry
is given in no. 81.
Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the
archbishops, bishops, dukes, counts, and other princes of the
German kingdom, defenders of the Christian faith, greeting
and apostelic benediction.
Since you have made common cause with us and shared
our perils in the recent controversy, we have thought it only
right that you should be informed of the recent course of
events, how king Henry came to Italy to do penance, and
how we were led to grant him absolution.
According to the agreement made with your representatives
we had come to Lombardy and were there awaiting
those whom you were to send to escort us into your land.
But after the time set was already passed, we received word
that it was at that time impossible to send an escort, because
of many obstacles that stood in the way, and we were greatly
exercised at this and in grave doubt as to what we ought to
do. In the meantime we learned that the king was approaching.
Now before he entered Italy he had sent to us and
had offered to make complete satisfaction for his fault,
promising to reform and henceforth to obey us in all things,
provided we would give him our absolution and blessing.
We hesitated for some time, taking occasion in the course
of the negotiations to reprove him sharply for his former
sins. Finally he came in person to Canossa, where we were
staying, bringing with him only a small retinue and manifesting
no hostile intentions. Once arrived, he presented
himself at the gate of the castle, barefoot and clad only in
wretched woollen garments, beseeching us with tears to grant
him absolution and forgiveness. This he continued to do for
three days, until all those about us were moved to compassion
at his plight and interceded for him with tears and
prayers. Indeed, they marvelled at our hardness of heart,
some even complaining that our action savored rather of
heartless tyranny than of chastening severity. At length his
persistent declarations of repentance and the supplications
of all who were there with us overcame our reluctance, and
we removed the excommunication from him and received
him again into the bosom of the holy mother church. But
first he took the oath which we have subjoined to this letter,
the abbot of Cluny, the countess Matilda, the countess Adelaide,
and many other ecclesiastic and secular princes going
surety for him. Now that this arrangement has been reached
to the common advantage of the church and the empire,
we purpose coming to visit you in your own land as soon as
possible. For, as you will perceive from the conditions stated
in the oath, the matter is not to be regarded as settled until
we have held consultation with you. Therefore we urge you
to maintain that fidelity and love of justice which first
prompted your action. We have not bound ourself to anything,
except that we assured the king that he might depend
upon us to aid him in everything that looked to his salvation
and honor.
Cf. reference to no. 80.
See introductory note to no. 80.
I, Henry, king, promise to satisfy the grievances which
my archbishops, bishops, dukes, counts, and other princes
of Germany or their followers may have against me, within
the time set by pope Gregory and in accordance with his
conditions. If I am prevented by any sufficient cause from
doing this within that time, I will do it as soon after that
as I may. Further, if pope Gregory shall desire to visit
Germany or any other land, on his journey thither, his
sojourn there, and his return thence, he shall not be molested
or placed in danger of captivity by me or by anyone whom
I can control. This shall apply to his escort and retinue
and to all who come and go in his service. Moreover, I will
never enter into any plan for hindering or molesting him,
but will aid him in good faith and to the best of my ability
if anyone else opposes him.
M. G. LL. 4to, IV, 1, p. 654, no. 444.
The countess Matilda supported the papacy in its claims of temporal
sovereignty, and, when she died, left it all her lands. The
emperors did not recognize the validity of the legacy, and declared
that she had no right to give away what belonged to the empire. The
quarrel about these lands was often renewed.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity....
In the time of Gregory VII, in the Lateran palace, in the
chapel of the holy cross, in the presence of [witnesses],...
I, Matilda, by the grace of God countess, for the
salvation of my soul and the souls of my parents, gave to the
church of St. Peter and to Gregory VII all my possessions,
present and future, by whatever title I may hold them. I
gave all my lands in Italy and Germany, and I had a document
drawn up to that effect. But now the document has
disappeared, and I fear that my gift may be questioned.
Therefore, I, countess Matilda, again give to the church of
Rome, through Bernard, cardinal and legate of the same
holy church of Rome, just as I did in the time of Gregory
VII, all my possessions, present and future, in both Italy
and Germany, by whatever right I hold them, for the salvation
of my soul and the souls of my parents. All these
possessions, which belong to me, with all that pertains to
them, in all their entirety, I give to the said church of Rome,
and by this deed of gift I confirm the church in the possession
of them. As symbols and evidences that I have surrendered
these lands I have given a knife, a knotted straw,
a glove, a piece of sod, and a twig from a tree....
M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 68 ff; Doeberl, III, no. 20 a.
In the struggle about the election and investiture of bishops,
which was begun by Gregory VII, Henry V pursued the same policy
as his father, Henry IV. He was so vigorous in pushing his claims
that Paschal II (1099–1118) yielded and in 1111 decreed that the
high clergy should give up all their fiefs and temporal offices, and
exercise only spiritual functions. But this action met with a storm
of opposition. The bishops refused to give up their temporal possessions,
and resisted with such determination that Paschal was compelled
to cancel his agreement with Henry V. But the king would
not be denied. He brought such pressure to bear on the pope that
he made a complete surrender and granted Henry the control of the
elections of bishops and the unconditional right to invest them with
their office (no. 84).
Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his
beloved son Henry, and to his successors forever.
Priests are forbidden by the scriptures and by the canons
of the church to occupy themselves with secular affairs or
to attend the public courts, except in the exercise of their
office, such as the saving of the souls of the condemned or
the assisting of the injured. In regard to this St. Paul
says: "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to
this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the
church" [1 Cor. 6:4]. But in your kingdom bishops and
abbots regularly attend the courts and perform military service,
which duties necessarily bring them into contact with
rapine, sacrilege, and violence. The ministers of the altar
are made ministers of the royal court, and are given cities,
duchies, marks, mints, and other offices to hold and to rule.
As a result an unbearable custom has arisen that bishops elect
cannot be consecrated until they have been invested with office
by the king. Simony and worldly ambition have thereby
become so prevalent that men are sometimes placed in control
of the episcopal properties who have not been elected
bishops; and are sometimes invested with them while the
true bishops are still alive. Our predecessors, pope Gregory
VII and pope Urban II, of blessed memory, were impelled
by the many evils resulting from this practice to condemn
lay investiture in several councils, decreeing that those who
obtained ecclesiastical offices by these means should be forced
to surrender them and that those who conferred the investiture
should be excommunicated. This was based on the
chapter of the apostolic canons which reads: "If a bishop
makes use of the secular powers to obtain a diocese, he shall
be deposed and those who supported him shall be cast out
of the church." [See no. 33.] Following their example,
we have confirmed the present decree, which has been passed
by a council of bishops.
All the royal offices and benefices which belonged to the
empire in the time of the emperors Karl, Ludwig, and your
other predecessors, and which are now held by the church,
we order to be restored to you. We forbid any bishop or
abbot, under pain of anathema, to hold any of these regalia;
that is, cities, duchies, marks, counties; rights of minting,
markets, or tolls; offices of advocate or hundred-man; estates
which belong to the empire, with any of their appurtenances,
the right to hold castles or to do military service. They
shall not henceforth have anything to do with these regalia,
except at the request of the king. And our successors are
forbidden to disturb this arrangement or to molest you or
any of your kingdom in the peaceful possession of the regalia.
On the other hand, we decree that the churches shall have
absolute control of their free-will offerings and their private
possessions, which is in keeping with the promise which you
made in your coronation oath.
For it is necessary that the bishops be free from secular
duties that they may give their time to the care of their
flocks, and not be too long absent from their churches; as
St. Paul says of the bishops: "They watch for your souls,
as they that must give account" [Heb. 13:17].
M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 72 ff; Doeberl, III, no. 20 b.
See introductory note to no. 83.
Paschal, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his
beloved son, Henry, by the grace of God king of the Germans
and emperor of the Romans, Augustus, greeting and
apostolic benediction. It is the will of God that your kingdom
should be closely bound to the holy Roman church.
Your predecessors obtained the crown and empire of the
Roman world because of their wisdom and virtue; you also
have been exalted to that dignity by the will of God working
through us. And so we confer upon you the prerogatives
which our predecessors granted to former emperors.
By this document we concede to you the right of investing
the bishops and abbots of your kingdom with the ring and
the staff, if their election has been conducted canonically
and without simony or other illegality. After their investiture
they are to be consecrated in due canonical form by
their bishops. If the clergy and people elect a bishop or an
abbot without first gaining your consent, he shall not be
consecrated until you have invested him with his office. The
right of consecrating such bishops and abbots as have received
investiture from you shall belong to the archbishops
and bishops of your kingdom. For your predecessors endowed
the churches of their realm with so many benefices
from their own lands and offices that it became necessary for
them to control the elections of bishops and abbots, and to
put down the popular disturbances that frequently arose in
these elections.
As a result of this concession you ought to be the more
zealous in the defence and in the enrichment of the church
of Rome and the other churches of God. If any person,
ecclesiastic or layman, shall knowingly violate this decree, he
shall be accursed and deprived of his office and rank. But
may God reward those who keep it, and grant that you may
rule happily to his honor and glory. Amen.
85–86. Concordat of Worms, 1122.
M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 75 ff; Doeberl, III, no. 21 a.
The victory won by Henry V over Paschal II (no. 84) was of
short duration because the Cluniac party refused to submit. They
renewed the struggle with great bitterness. The contest lasted to
1122, when a compromise was agreed upon. In general it may be
said that the compromise was a sensible one, in that the king was
recognized as having the right to invest the bishops with their fiefs
and secular authority, while the pope was to invest them with their
spiritual office and authority. This settlement of the principle did
not entirely end the struggle, because, in the first place, neither party
observed it perfectly, and, besides, it occasionally happened that there
was some doubt as to how the principle was to be applied.
Calixtus, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his
beloved son, Henry, by the grace of God emperor of the
Romans, Augustus.
We hereby grant that in Germany the elections of the
bishops and abbots who hold directly from the crown shall
be held in your presence, such elections to be conducted
canonically and without simony or other illegality. In the
case of disputed elections you shall have the right to decide
between the parties, after consulting with the archbishop of
the province and his fellow-bishops. You shall confer the
regalia of the office upon the bishop or abbot elect by giving
him the sceptre, and this shall be done freely without exacting
any payment from him; the bishop or abbot elect on his
part shall perform all the duties that go with the holding
of the regalia.
In other parts of the empire the bishops shall receive the
regalia from you in the same manner within six months of
their consecration, and shall in like manner perform all the
duties that go with them. The undoubted rights of the
Roman church, however, are not to be regarded as prejudiced
by this concession. If at any time you shall have
occasion to complain of the carrying out of these provisions,
I will undertake to satisfy your grievances as far
as shall be consistent with my office. Finally, I hereby
make a true and lasting peace with you and with all of your
followers, including those who supported you in the recent
controversy.
M. G. LL. folio, II, p. 76; Doeberl, III, no. 21 b.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity.
For the love of God and his holy church and of pope
Calixtus, and for the salvation of my soul, I, Henry, by the
grace of God, emperor of the Romans, Augustus, hereby
surrender to God and his apostles, Sts. Peter and Paul, and
to the holy Catholic church, all investiture by ring and
staff. I agree that elections and consecrations shall be conducted
canonically and shall be free from all interference.
I surrender also the possessions and regalia of St. Peter
which have been seized by me during this quarrel, or by my
father in his lifetime, and which are now in my possession,
and I promise to aid the church to recover such as are held
by any other persons. I restore also the possessions of all
other churches and princes, clerical or secular, which have
been taken away during the course of this quarrel, which I
have, and promise to aid them to recover such as are held by
any other persons.
Finally, I make true and lasting peace with pope Calixtus
and with the holy Roman church and with all who are or
have ever been of his party. I will aid the Roman church
whenever my help is asked, and will do justice in all matters
in regard to which the church may have occasion to make
complaint.
All these things have been done with the consent and
advice of the princes whose names are written below:
Adelbert, archbishop of Mainz; Frederick, archbishop of
Cologne, etc.
Jaffé, V, pp. 396 ff; Doeberl, IV, no. 1.
On the death of a king of Germany, it was the duty of the archbishop
of Mainz, as archchancellor of Germany, to call a diet for the
purpose of electing his successor. He did this by writing a letter in
practically the same terms to each of the important men of the kingdom
who were members of the diet. These letters were then delivered
by special messengers. The diet which met in response to this call
in 1125 elected Lothar of Saxony. The tone of the letter reveals the
fact that Adelbert of Mainz was inclined rather to the side of the
pope. The "yoke of servitude" which was oppressing the church
was the imperial control which Henry V had exercised over the
ecclesiastical elections.
Adelbert, archbishop of Mainz; Frederick, archbishop of
Cologne; Udalric, bishop of Constance; Buco, bishop of
Worms; Arnold, bishop of Speier; Udalric, abbot of Fulda;
Henry, duke of Bavaria; Frederick, duke of Suabia; Godfrey,
count palatine; Berengar, count of Sulzbach, along
with the other princes, ecclesiastical and secular, who were
present at the funeral of the late emperor, send their greeting
and most faithful services to their venerable brother,
Otto, bishop of Bamberg.
After the burial of our late lord and emperor, we who
were there present thought it expedient to counsel together
in regard to the condition of the state. We were unwilling
to make any definite plans, however, without your presence
and advice, and so we determined to call a diet to meet at
Mainz on St. Bartholomew’s Day [August 25], hoping that
this decision would meet your approval. It is our thought
that the princes should meet then and take the necessary
action in regard to the serious problems that confront us:
the general state of the kingdom, the question of a successor,
and other matters. In thus calling a diet without first
gaining your approval, we have not meant to infringe in
any way upon your rights or to arrogate to ourselves any
peculiar authority in this matter. We ask you to bear in
mind the oppression of the church in these days and to pray
earnestly that in the providence of God this election may
result in the freeing of the church from its yoke of servitude
and in the establishing of peace for us and for our
people. You are instructed to declare a special peace for
your lands, to be kept during the time of the diet and four
weeks thereafter, so that all may come and return in perfect
security; and to come to the diet yourself in the customary
manner, that is, at your own expense and without
inflicting any burden upon the poor of the realm.
Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vitæ, II, pp. 193 ff; Doeberl, IV, no. 4.
The Norman adventurers in southern Italy were successful beyond
all expectation. In 1059 Nicholas II made a duke of Roger Guiscard
(see no. 58). He and his successors labored hard to advance
the interests of their family, and in 1130 Roger, duke of Sicily, had
the satisfaction of receiving the royal title from Anaclete II. There
had been a disputed papal election that year, and Anaclete II, one of
the rival claimants, needed all the help he could get. So he bought
the support of Roger, giving him in return the title of king.
It is fitting that the pope should generously reward those
that love the Roman church. And so, because of the labors
and services of your father and mother, and because of your
own efforts in behalf of the church, we have given and
granted to you, Robert, by the grace of God duke of Sicily,
and to your son Robert and your other children and
heirs, the crown of Sicily, Apulia, and Calabria, and
of all the lands given by us or our predecessors to your
ancestors, Robert Guiscard and Robert his son, dukes
of Apulia. You shall have and hold this kingdom,
which shall take its name from the island of Sicily, with
all the royal authority and dignity forever. We also grant
that you and your heirs may be anointed and crowned
by the archbishops of your lands whom you choose for that
purpose, assisted by such bishops as you may desire. We
hereby renew all gifts, concessions, and authority conferred
upon you and upon your predecessors, Robert Guiscard,
Robert his son, and William, dukes of Apulia, to be held and
possessed by you forever. We give and grant to you and
to your heirs the principality of Capua in its full extent as
held now or in the past by the prince of Capua; we confer
upon you the lordship over Naples and its dependencies, and
the right to demand aid from the inhabitants of Benevento
against your enemies. At your request we also grant to the
archbishop of Palermo and to his successors the right to
consecrate the three bishops of Syracuse, Girgenti, and Catania,
on the condition that the authority and possessions
of these churches shall not be in any way diminished by
the archbishop and the church of Palermo. We reserve our
decision as to the consecration of the other two bishops of
Sicily for more mature deliberation. We have granted all
the above concessions on the condition that you and your
heirs take the oath of fidelity to us and to our successors at
a place agreed upon by both parties, and that you and your
heirs shall pay a tax of 600 "schifates" [a gold coin] a year
to the Roman church upon demand....
M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 82 ff; Doeberl, IV, no. 6 a.
Every king, on his coronation as emperor, was required to take an
oath to the pope, the character of which may be seen from the oath
of Lothar.
This is the oath which king Lothar swore to pope Innocent
in the time of the schism of the son of Pierreleone. The
oath was taken by Lothar on the day of his imperial coronation
before he received the crown, and was administered by
Cencio Frangipani in the presence of the Roman nobles,
before the basilica of the Holy Saviour, which is also called
the basilica of Constantine.
I, king Lothar, promise and swear to you, pope Innocent,
that I will never injure you or your successors in any way
or place you in danger of captivity. I further promise to
defend the honor of the papacy, and to restore the regalia
of St. Peter which I may have in my possession, and to
aid you in recovering such as may be held by any other
persons.
Theiner, Cod. Dom. Temp., I, 12; Doeberl, IV, no. 6 c.
Matilda, countess of Tuscany, espoused the cause of the pope, and,
on her death, willed all her lands to him. The emperor refused to
acknowledge the validity of this will, declaring that her holdings
were feudal, and hence must revert to the crown, because they could
not be disposed of without imperial consent. [See no. 82.] Lothar
here gives up the imperial claim to them and yields them to the pope,
but receives them back as a fief. The question was not thereby
settled forever, because later emperors refused to be bound by the
action of Lothar, and renewed the imperial pretensions. These lands
were a fruitful source of contention between the popes and the
emperors. This document, as here given, is probably an abstract of
two documents, (1) the one by which the lands were conferred on
Lothar, and (2) that by which they were later transferred to Lothar’s
son-in-law, Henry, duke of Bavaria.
(The document begins with a general exordium, setting forth the
common interests of papacy and empire, recalling the services of
Lothar in behalf of the church, and stating the obligation of the
pope to reward such services.)
It is on these considerations, therefore, that we now grant
you by our apostolic authority the allodial lands which the
countess Matilda formerly gave to St. Peter. In the presence
of our brothers, the archbishops, bishops, and abbots,
and princes and barons, we now confer them upon you by
the investiture of the ring, on the following conditions: you
shall pay 100 pounds of silver annually to us and to our
successors; after your death the property shall revert unimpaired
and without hindrance to the possession of the holy
Roman church; we and our brothers shall always have safe-conduct
and suitable entertainment whenever we pass through
or visit the land; and, finally, your representative in the
government of the land shall take an oath of fidelity to St.
Peter and to the pope.
Because of our love for you we graciously concede this
land on the same conditions to your son-in-law, Henry, duke
of Bavaria, and his wife, your daughter. It is further stipulated
that the duke shall do homage to us and take an oath
of fidelity to St. Peter and to the pope; and that after their
death the land shall revert to the possession of the Roman
church, as said above. In all this there shall be no derogation
of the rights and ultimate ownership of the holy Roman
church.
Migne, 182, cols. 293 ff; Doeberl, IV, no. 7.
In 1130 there was a disputed papal election. Innocent II, on being
driven from Rome by his rival, Anaclete II, went to France, where
he enlisted Bernard of Clairvaux in his favor. Through the efforts
of Bernard the kings of France and Germany were persuaded to
support him. Lothar led an army into Italy, established Innocent
in Rome, and received the imperial crown. He failed, however, to
conquer Roger, who had been made king of Sicily by the antipope,
Anaclete II (see no. 88). Bernard wrote this letter to congratulate
Lothar on his success in Italy, to urge him to renew the war on
Roger because he was still supporting the antipope, and to rebuke
Lothar for opposing some decision of the pope in regard to a trouble
that had arisen in the church at Toul.
To Lothar, by the grace of God emperor of the Romans,
Augustus, Bernard, called abbot of Clairvaux, sends his
blessing, if the prayer of a sinner is of any avail.
Blessed be God, who has chosen you and exalted you
for a horn of salvation unto us, to the glory of his name,
the restoration of the empire, the preservation of his church
in this evil time, and the working of his salvation in the
midst of the earth. For it is by his will that you are daily
growing in strength, in honor, and in glory. And when
you recently undertook the hazardous expedition to Rome
to secure the peace of the empire and the liberty of the
church, it was by his aid that you were able to carry
it through successfully, obtaining the crown of the empire
without the aid of a large army. But if the earth
trembled and was silent before that little band, think what
great terror will strike the hearts of the enemy when the
king shall proceed against him in the greatness of his power.
Moreover, the justice of your cause, nay, more, a double
necessity, will inspire you. It is not my duty to incite
princes to war; but it is the duty of the defender of the
church to ward off all danger of schism; it is the duty of
the emperor to recover his crown from the Sicilian usurper.
Just as that Jew [that is, Anaclete II] rebelled against
Christ when he seized the papal chair, so anyone who would
make himself king in Sicily rebels against Cæsar.
But if we are commanded to render unto Cæsar the things
which are Cæsar’s and unto God the things which are God’s,
why is it that you have permitted the church of God in
Toul to be robbed, especially as Cæsar profits not thereby?
... For it is said that you have interfered with the pope
in his efforts to bring the oppressors of that church to justice.
I beseech you to act more circumspectly and to recall
your intercession and let justice take its course, before that
church be destroyed to its foundations. I am a poor person,
but a faithful subject, and if I seem importunate it is
because of my fidelity. Greet my lady the empress for me
in the love of Christ.
Migne, 182, no. 183; Doeberl, IV, no. 11.
Because Roger of Sicily had supported the antipope, Bernard had
urged Lothar to make war on him. [See no. 91.] But Innocent had,
in the meantime, without consulting the emperor, made a treaty with
Roger and won his support by also granting him the royal title
(1139). Conrad III was offended by this and protested against it.
Conrad declared that the kingdom which Roger held, that is, Sicily
and southern Italy, was a part of the empire, and therefore the pope
had no right to recognize Roger as king there. Conrad regarded
Roger as a usurper. He wrote a letter to Bernard complaining of
the action of the pope. But Bernard had changed his sentiments since
Roger had espoused the cause of Innocent and had received papal
confirmation. In a somewhat curt manner he tells Conrad to obey
the pope.
I, unworthy person that I am, have received your letter
and greeting with gratitude and devotion. The complaints
of the king are ours also, especially in regard to the usurpation
of the Sicilian.
I have never desired the disgrace of the king nor the
diminution of his realm; my soul hates such as do desire
these things. But I read: "Let every soul be subject unto
the higher powers; whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth
the ordinance of God" [Rom. 13:1, 2]. Hearken to
this admonition, I pray you, and show such reverence to St.
Peter and to his vicar as you wish to be shown to you by
the whole empire. There are certain other matters which
I have thought better not to put in writing; perhaps it
would be better to speak of them to you personally when I
see you.
Otto Fris. Gesta Frid., I, c. 25; M. G. SS. folio, XX; Doeberl, IV, no. 12.
Although the German and Greek emperors had not adjusted their
conflicting claims to southern Italy and Sicily (see no. 58, introductory
note), they were agreed in regarding the Normans as usurpers
and a common enemy. In order to destroy them the emperors
determined to make common cause against them, as is apparent from
the following letter. John Comnenus, wishing to strengthen the alliance
with Conrad, asked him to choose some German princess for his
son, Manuel. Conrad chose his sister-in-law, Bertha von Sulzbach,
who, at the time of her marriage with Manuel, assumed the name
Irene.
Conrad, by the grace of God emperor of the Romans,
Augustus, to John, by the same grace emperor of Constantinople,
greeting and fraternal love.
As our predecessors, the Roman emperors, made friendship
with your predecessors and established the honor and
glory of the kingdom of the Greeks, we desire to do the same;
and as they defended it, so we will defend it. It is known
of all men that your new Rome [Constantinople] is the
daughter of our Rome, the root from which have come your
branches and fruits. Therefore we are determined to maintain
toward you the attitude of a kind mother to her daughter,
all the more that we perceive in you a desire to act as
a dutiful daughter. We two should have the same interests,
the same friends, and the same enemies, on land and
sea. Anyone who fails to honor the daughter shall have
occasion to know and fear the strength of the mother, be
he Norman or Sicilian, or any other. For we have not forgotten
the attacks which our enemy has made upon our own
empire. With the help of God, we shall repay to every one
according to the measure of his guilt. Then the whole
world shall see how easily those who have dared to rebel
against us both are overwhelmed and cast down; for if we
cut his wings, we shall, as it were, take the enemy flying, and
cut out of his heart that arrogance which has caused him to
revolt against us. It is our firm purpose to maintain friendly
relations toward you, and we are sure you hold the same
purpose toward us, all the more now that we are bound
together by the approaching marriage of your son and the
sister of our wife, the empress....
Jaffé, I, p. 372; Doeberl, IV, no. 24 a.
The following letter shows (1) the mismanagement of the affairs
of a great monastery, (2) the troubles which might arise in connection
with the election of an abbot, (3) the influence which Conrad
III exercised on such elections, and (4) the method of procedure in
elections. It will be remembered that the concordat of Worms was
now in force.
To his reverend father and lord, pope Eugene, Wibald
[abbot of Stablo], sends his reverence and respect.
Our beloved brother Henry, abbot of Hersfeld, who had
also been placed in charge of the abbey of Fulda, was called
from this earth by God soon after our lord Conrad returned
from his expedition to Jerusalem. The king was prevented
from immediately settling the affairs of the monastery of
Fulda by the evil state into which its affairs had fallen and
by the violence of party strife within it. This delay was
unfortunate, because the king was not able either to recover
its possessions which had been squandered or to provide for
the performance of the spiritual functions of the church,
that is, the care of souls. Therefore we and our brothers,
the abbot of Eberach and other clergymen, urged upon him
the necessity of settling its affairs as soon as possible.
Finally he came to Fulda on the 5th of April and held a
diet there, which was attended by your venerable sons, the
archbishop of Bremen, and the bishops of Würzburg and
Halberstadt, and many secular princes and nobles. Among
other things, the king sought their advice in regard to the
affairs of Fulda, seeking to reach a settlement by which he
might render unto God the things which are God’s and unto
Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s. After a long and fruitless
debate ... the king said that a certain man had
been suggested to him as being of good character and holy
reputation. This man, it was said, had been successful in
the administration of a small monastery, which had prospered
under his rule both spiritually and materially, and
there was no reason for doubting that he was well fitted by
his zeal and ability to govern the monastery of Fulda. If
they voted to elect this man, he was sure that the monastery
would recover its former honor and dignity under his wise
and mild administration. All those present were delighted
with this speech, as showing the interest of the king in the
welfare of the church, and the matter was reported by some
of us to those who had the authority to elect the abbot.
They in turn were rejoiced at this turn of the affair and
begged to be told the name of the man. And when it was
told to them they proceeded to elect him as their abbot. This
man is Mainward, abbot of Deggingen, ... who has
ruled that monastery for eight years and has been very successful
in his administration. We beseech you to confirm his
election, for he is recommended by those who know him best,
and his election took place without his knowledge, and indeed
against his will. We believe that by confirming his election
and giving him your benediction you will do much to
heal the wounds of the distressed congregation of Fulda.
We ourselves bear witness that all the brothers of the congregation
have promised obedience and devotion to their
abbot elect.
May God keep you safe and unharmed to rule his holy
church.
Jaffé, I, Wibaldi Epp., no. 372; Doeberl, IV, no. 25 a.
During the Middle Age there were many constitutional questions
which had not been decided. On many points no theory had been
formulated, and the practice varied. Thus it had not been clearly
determined how far the pope might control the election of the German
king. In 1125 Lothar had asked the pope to confirm his election;
Frederick I merely informs the pope of his election and tells
him the policy which he intends to pursue. Eugene III "approves"
his election, but does not use the more technical word, "confirm."
To his most beloved father in Christ, Eugene, pope of
the holy Roman church, Frederick, by the grace of God
king of the Romans, Augustus, [sends] filial love and
reverence.
... Following the custom of the Roman emperors, we
have sent to you as ambassadors, Eberhard, venerable bishop
of Bamberg, Hillo, bishop elect of Trier, and Adam, abbot of
Eberach, to notify you of our election and of the condition
of the church and the realm.
After the death of Conrad, king of the Romans, all the
princes of the kingdom came together at Frankfurt, and on
the day of their assembling elected us king. The princes
displayed complete harmony in this election and the people
received it with the greatest approval and delight. Five days
later, just after the middle of Lent, we were anointed at
Aachen by your beloved sons, the archbishop of Cologne, and
other venerable bishops, and were raised to the throne with
their solemn benediction. And now that we have been invested
with the royal authority and dignity by the homage
of the secular princes and the benediction of the bishops, we
intend to assume the royal character, as set forth in our
coronation oath; namely, to love and honor the pope, to
defend the holy Roman church and all ecclesiastical persons,
to maintain peace and order, and to protect the widows and
the fatherless and all the people committed to our care. God
has established two powers by which this world should be
ruled, the papacy and the empire; therefore we are prepared
to obey the priests of Christ, in order that, through our zeal,
the word of God may prevail during our time, and that no
one may disobey with impunity the laws of the holy fathers
or the decrees of the councils, and that the church may enjoy
her ancient honor and dignity and the empire be restored
to its former strength. We know that you were greatly distressed
at the death of our uncle and predecessor Conrad,
but we assure you, beloved father, that we have succeeded
him not only in the kingdom, but also in the love which he
bore you. We undertake his work of defending the holy
Roman church, and we intend to carry on the plans which
he made for the honor and liberty of the apostolic see. Your
enemies shall be our enemies, and those that hate you shall
suffer our displeasure.
Jaffé, I, Wibaldi Epp., no. 382; Doeberl, IV, no. 25 e.
See introductory note to no. 95.
Eugene, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his
beloved son in Christ, Frederick, illustrious king of the Romans,
greeting and apostolic benediction.
We have received the messengers and the letter which you
sent to inform us of your election by the unanimous vote of
the princes.... We give thanks unto God, from whom
cometh every good and perfect gift, for this good news, and
we heartily approve your election. We are confident that
you intend to take upon yourself the fulfilment of the promise
which your uncle and predecessor, Conrad, gave to us
and to the holy Roman church. We, on our part, shall labor
for your advancement and exaltation, as is the duty of our
office. We have sent you an ambassador, who will disclose
to you our purpose and intention. In the meantime, we
admonish you to bear in mind your oath to defend the
church and the clergy of God, to keep peace and order, and
to protect the widows and the fatherless, and all your people,
that those who obey you and trust in you may rejoice,
and that you may win glory with men and eternal life with
the king of kings.
Jaffé, I, Wibaldi Epp., no. 417; Doeberl, IV, no. 27 a.
The situation of the pope was precarious. In the first place, the
Romans had rebelled against him and his rule, and had set up a
government of their own. Since 1143 he had been compelled to
spend most of his time outside of the city. In the second place,
Roger of Sicily was in rebellion against him and threatened the papal
lands with invasion from the south. And lastly, the Greek emperor
was now following a vigorous policy to secure land in Italy. The
pope was in sore need of help, especially against the Romans and
Normans. Hence he insisted that Frederick should promise to aid
him, as well as not to make peace with his enemies without papal
consent. Frederick wished the imperial crown, and the papal blessing
and support. He was planning the conquest of the Normans,
whose territory he regarded as a part of the empire. But in this
agreement it will be observed that nothing is said about who owns
Sicily and southern Italy, nor is it stipulated that the pope shall
not make terms with the Normans without the emperor’s consent.
Frederick feared that the pope, who wished to gain control of the
Greek church, might make terms with the Greek emperor and help
him in his efforts to regain a foothold in Italy.
In the name of the Lord, amen. This is a copy of the
agreement and convention made between the pope, Eugene
III, and Frederick, king of the Romans, by their representatives;
on the part of the pope: cardinals Gregory of Santa
Maria in Trastevere, Ubald of San Prassede, Bernard of
San Clemente, Octavian of Santa Cecilia, Roland of San
Marco, Gregory of Sant Angelo, Guido of Santa Maria in
porticu, and Bruno, abbot of Chiaravalle; on the part of the
king: Anselm, bishop of Havelberg; Hermann, bishop of
Constance; Udalrich, count of Lenzburg; Guido, count of
Guerra, and Guido, count of Bianderati.
The king will have one of his ministerials to swear for
him that he will not make a peace or a truce either with the
Romans or with Roger of Sicily without the consent of the
pope. The king will use all the power of his realm to reduce
the Romans to subjection to the pope and the Roman church.
He will protect the honor of the papacy and the regalia of
St. Peter against all men to the best of his ability, and he
will aid the church in recovering what she has lost. He will
never grant any land in Italy to the king of the Greeks, and
will use all his power in keeping him out. All these things
the king promises to observe and to do in good faith.
The pope, on his part, promises on his apostolic faith,
with the consent of the cardinals, that he will ever honor
the king as the most dearly beloved son of St. Peter, and
that he will give him the imperial crown whenever he shall
come to Italy for it. He will aid the king in maintaining
and increasing the honor of his realm, as his office demands.
If anyone attacks the honor or the authority of the king, the
pope at the request of the king will warn him to make satisfaction,
and will excommunicate him if he refuses to heed
the warning. The pope will not grant any land in Italy to
the king of the Greeks, and will use all the resources of St.
Peter to drive him out if he invades that land. All these
things shall be observed in good faith by both parties, unless
they are changed by mutual consent.
Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vitæ, II, pp. 327 ff.
This account of the stirrup episode illustrates the growing pretensions
of the papacy, the temper of both Frederick I and the new
pope, Adrian IV, and the importance which the Middle Age attached
to matters of ceremony.
The king [Frederick] advanced with his army to the
neighborhood of Sutri and encamped in Campo Grasso. The
pope, however, came to Nepi, and on the day after his arrival
was met there by many of the German princes and a great
concourse of clergy and laymen, and conducted with his
bishops and cardinals to the tent of the king. But when
the cardinals who came with the pope saw that the king did
not come forward to act as the esquire of the pope [i.e., to
hold his stirrup while he dismounted], they were greatly
disturbed and terrified, and retreated to Civita Castellana,
leaving the pope before the tent of the king. And the pope,
distressed and uncertain what he should do, sadly dismounted
and sat down on the seat which had been prepared
for him. Then the king prostrated himself before the pope,
kissing his feet and presenting himself for the kiss of peace.
But the pope said: "You have refused to pay me the due
and accustomed honor which your predecessors, the orthodox
emperors, have always paid to my predecessors, the Roman
popes, out of reverence for the apostles, Peter and Paul;
therefore I will not give you the kiss of peace until you have
made satisfaction." The king, however, replied that he was
not under obligations to perform the service. The whole of
the following day was spent in the discussion of this point,
the army in the meantime remaining there. And after the
testimony of the older princes had been taken, especially of
those who had been present at the meeting of king Lothar
and pope Innocent (II), and the ancient practice had been
determined, the princes and the royal court decided that the
king ought to act as the esquire of the pope and hold his
stirrup, out of reverence for the apostles, Peter and Paul.
On the next day the camp of the king was moved to the
territory of Nepi, on the shores of lake Janula, and there
king Frederick, in accordance with the decision of the
princes, advanced to meet the pope, who was approaching by
another way. And when the pope came within about a
stone’s throw from the emperor, the emperor dismounted and
proceeded on foot to meet the pope, and there in the sight
of his army he acted as the pope’s esquire, holding his stirrup
for him to dismount. Then the pope gave him the kiss
of peace.
Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vitæ, II, pp. 352 ff; Doeberl, IV, no. 34.
By this document the long struggle between the popes and the
kings of Sicily was brought to an end. The terms of the treaty
were very favorable to the pope, but William retained as privileges
certain things which were in other countries generally regarded as
belonging to the pope. For the effects of this treaty on the relations
between Adrian IV and Frederick I, see no. 100, introductory note.
In the name of the Lord, the eternal God, and of our
Saviour, Jesus Christ, amen. To Adrian, by the grace of
God, pope of the holy Roman church, his most beloved lord
and father, and to his successors, William, by the same grace
king of Sicily, duke of Apulia, and prince of Capua.
(Introduction reviewing the differences between the pope and the
king of Sicily, and relating the course of the negotiations.)
We agree, therefore, to this treaty of peace as drawn up
by the representatives of both of us.
- Concerning appeals to the pope. In Apulia and its
dependencies and in Calabria, appeals in ecclesiastical matters
which cannot be settled by the regular ecclesiastics of
those lands may be made freely to Rome. If it seems advantageous
or necessary to transfer priests from one church
to another, this may be done with the consent of the pope.
The Roman church shall have the right to consecrate and
to make visitations throughout our whole realm. The Roman
church shall have the right to hold councils in any of
the cities of Apulia or its dependencies or Calabria, except
that a council may not be held in any city in which the king
is staying, without his consent. The Roman church shall
have the right to send its legates into Apulia and its dependencies
and into Calabria, but those legates shall not
waste the possessions of the churches to which they are sent.
The Roman church shall have the same right of consecration
and visitation in the island of Sicily.... The Roman
church shall have in Sicily all the rights which it has in
other parts of our kingdom, except the right of hearing
appeals and sending legates, which shall be exercised only at
the request of the king.
- Concerning those churches and monasteries which
have been in dispute between us. You and your successors
shall have in them the rights which you exercise in
other churches of our lands, which are accustomed to
receive their consecration and benediction from the Roman
church, and these churches shall pay the legal taxes to the
Roman see.
- Concerning elections. The clergy shall elect a suitable
person, keeping his name secret until they have notified
you. The name shall then be reported to us, and we will
give our consent to the election, unless the person is one of
our enemies or a traitor, or for some other good reason is
displeasing to us.
- You shall confer upon us and upon our son Roger,
and our heirs, the kingdom of Sicily, the duchy of Apulia,
and the principality of Capua, with all the lands which belong
to them as follows: Naples, Salerno, and Amalfi, with
their dependencies; Marsia and all that we hold beyond
Marsia; and all the other possessions which we now hold,
or which have been held by our predecessors. You promise,
moreover, to aid us in good faith to hold them against all
men.
- In consideration of these concessions, we have taken
the oath of fidelity to you and to your successors and to
the Roman church, and the oath of liege homage to you.
Two copies of this oath have been made, one of which
has been signed and sealed by us and given into your keeping,
and the other sealed by you and given to us. We agree
also to pay an annual tribute of 600 "schifates" for Apulia
and Calabria, and 500 from Marsia.... You agree
to grant all these things also to our heirs and successors,
on condition that they do homage to you and your successors,
and keep the promises which we have made to you....
100–102. The Besançon Episode, 1157.
Ragewin, Gesta Friderici, III, ch. 9; M. G. SS. folio, XX; Doeberl, IV, no. 35a.
Frederick I had been deeply offended by the treaty which Adrian
IV made with William of Sicily (no. 99), because it had been made
without his consent, and without in any way considering the claims
which the emperor laid to Sicily. In making the treaty of Constance
(no. 97) Frederick had undoubtedly been outwitted by the
papal diplomacy. He had been led to promise not to make peace
with the Normans without the consent of the pope. He apparently
took it for granted that the pope was bound in the same way not
to make peace with the Normans without the imperial consent,
although it was not stipulated in the agreement. While Frederick
had promised certain definite things, the pope’s promise was couched
in general terms. He had promised to "aid the king in maintaining
and increasing the honor of his realm as his office demands. If anyone
attacks the honor or the authority of the king, the pope will
warn him to make satisfaction," etc. The pope denied that William
of Sicily was "attacking the honor or authority of the king" because
the lands which William held did not belong to Frederick; they were
the property of the pope himself, and therefore he might make terms
with William without consulting Frederick. Frederick complained
that the pope had acted in bad faith in making peace with William,
and that he had broken the treaty of Constance. The pope, however,
maintained that he had in no way infringed the treaty, and that
Frederick had no grounds for complaint. This is the general background
for the Besançon episode, the chief features of which will be
clear from the following documents.
Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved
son Frederick, illustrious emperor of the Romans,
greeting and apostolic benediction. We wrote to you a few
days ago recalling to your mind that execrable crime which
was recently committed in Germany and expressing our
grief that you had allowed it to go unpunished. For our
venerable brother, Eskil, archbishop of Lund, on his return
from the apostolic seat, was seized and made captive in your
land by certain impious and wicked persons, who even threatened
him and his companions with drawn swords and subjected
them to dishonor and indignity.
Not only are these facts well known to you, but the report
of them has spread to the most distant regions. It was your
duty to avenge this wicked deed and to draw against its
perpetrators the sword intrusted to you by God for the punishing
of evil-doers and the protection of good men. But
it is reported that you have palliated this offence and allowed
it to go unpunished, so that those who committed the sacrilege
are unrepentant and believe that they have done this
with impunity. We are entirely at a loss to understand this
negligence of yours, for our conscience does not accuse us
of having offended you in any way. Indeed we have always
regarded you as our most beloved son and as a Christian
prince established by the grace of God upon the rock of the
apostolic confession. We have loved you with sincere affection
and have always treated you with the greatest kindness.
You should remember, most glorious son, how graciously
your mother, the holy Roman church, received you last year,
how kindly she treated you, and how gladly she conferred
upon you the imperial crown, the highest mark of dignity
and honor; how she has always fostered you on her kindly
bosom, and has always striven to do only what would be
pleasing and advantageous to you. We do not regret having
granted the desires of your heart; nay, we would be glad
to confer even greater benefits (beneficia) upon you, if that
were possible, because of the advantage and profit that you
would be able to confer upon the church of God and upon
us. But the fact that you have allowed this terrible deed,
which is an offence against the church and the empire, to go
unpunished has made us fear that you have been led by evil
counsellors to imagine that you have some grievance against
your mother, the holy Roman church, and against us. In regard
to this matter and other important affairs, we have sent
you these legates, two of the best and dearest of those about
us, namely, our beloved sons, Bernard, cardinal priest of
Santa Clara, and Roland, chancellor and cardinal priest of
San Marco, men conspicuous for their piety, wisdom, and
honesty. We beseech you to receive them honorably and
kindly, to treat them justly, and to give full credence to the
proposals which they make, as if we were speaking in
person.
Ragewin, Gesta Friderici, III, ch. 11; M. G. SS. folio, xx; Doeberl, IV, no. 35 b.
God, from whom proceeds all authority in heaven and in
earth, has intrusted the kingdom and the empire to us, his
anointed, and has ordained that the peace of the church be
preserved by the imperial arms. Therefore it is with great
sorrow that we are forced to complain to you of the head of
the church which Christ intended should reflect his character
of charity and love of peace. For the actions of the pope
threaten to produce such evils and dissensions as will corrupt
the whole church and destroy its unity, and bring about
strife between the empire and the papacy, unless God should
intervene. These are the circumstances: We held a diet at
Besançon for the purpose of considering certain matters
which concerned the honor of the empire and the security of
the church. At that diet legates of the pope arrived, saying
that they came on a mission that would redound greatly to
the honor and advantage of the empire. We gave them an
honorable reception on the first day of their arrival, and on
the second day, as is the custom, we called together all the
princes to listen to their message.... Then they delivered
their message in the form of a letter from the pope,
of which the general tenor was as follows: the pope had
conferred the imperial crown upon us and was willing to
grant us even greater fiefs (beneficia). This was the message
of fraternal love which was to further the union of the
church and the empire, and bind them together in the bonds
of peace, and to inspire the hearts of its hearers with love
and fidelity for both rulers! Not only were we, as emperor,
incensed by this false and lying statement, but all the princes
who were present were so enraged that they would undoubtedly
have condemned the two priests to death off-hand had
they not been restrained by our presence. Moreover, we
found in their possession many copies of that letter, and
blank forms sealed by the pope to be filled out at their discretion,
with which they were intending to spread this venom
throughout the churches of Germany, as is their custom
from of old, and to denude the altars, rob the houses of God,
and despoil the crosses. Therefore, in order to prevent their
further progress, we compelled them to return to Rome by
the way they had come. We hold this kingdom and empire
through the election of the princes from God alone, who by
the passion of his Son placed this world under the rule of
two swords; moreover, the apostle Peter says: "Fear God,
honor the king" [1 Pet. 2:17]. Therefore, whoever says
that we hold the imperial crown as a benefice from the pope
resists the divine institution, contradicts the teaching of
Peter, and is a liar....
Ragewin, Gesta Friderici, III, chs. 22, 23; M. G. SS. folio, xx; Doeberl, IV, no. 35 e.
Ever since we were called by the will of God to the government
of the universal church, we have tried to honor you
in every way, in order that your love and reverence for the
apostolic seat might daily increase. Therefore we were
greatly astonished to learn that you were incensed at us and
that you had treated with such scant respect the legates ...
whom we had sent to you for the purpose of learning your
wishes. We are informed that you were enraged because
we used the word beneficium, at which surely the mind of
so great a person as yourself should not have been disturbed.
For although with some that word has come to have a meaning
different from its original sense, yet it ought to be taken
in the sense in which we have used it and which it has had
from the beginning. For beneficium comes from bonum
and factum, and we used it to mean not a feudum (fief), but
a "good deed," in which sense it is used throughout the holy
Scriptures; as when we are said to be guided and nourished
by the beneficium of God, which means not the "fief,"
but the kindness of God. You surely admit that in placing
the imperial crown upon your head we performed an act
that would be regarded by all men as a "good deed."
Moreover, if you misunderstood the phrase "we conferred
the imperial crown upon you," and distorted it from its ordinary
meaning, it could only be because you wished to misunderstand
it or because you accepted the interpretation of
persons who wished to disturb the peace existing between the
church and the empire. For we meant by the words "we
conferred" no more than "we placed," as we said above. In
ordering the recall of the ecclesiastics whom we sent to make
a visitation of the churches in Germany according to the
right of the Roman church, you must surely recognize that
you acted unwisely, for if you had any grievance you should
have informed us, and we would have undertaken to satisfy
your honor. Now by the advice of our beloved son Henry,
duke of Bavaria and Saxony, we have sent you two legates,
our brothers Henry, cardinal priest of San Nereo and Sant
Achilleo, and Hyacinth, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in
Cosmedin, both wise and honorable men, and we urge you
to receive them honorably and kindly, and to accept the
message which they deliver as coming from the sincerity of
our heart; so agreeing with them through the mediation of
our son the duke, that no discord may remain between you
and your holy mother, the Roman church.
M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 111 f; Doeberl, IV, no. 37 a.
The rights of the crown were called "regalia." When Frederick I
went into Italy (1158) he found that the royal rights had been
usurped by the cities and nobles. At the diet which he held on the
Roncalian plain he consulted lawyers who had been trained in the law
of Justinian, and asked them what the imperial rights in Italy were.
Their decision, which is here given, was largely influenced by their
study of the Roman law. The account which Ragewin (IV, 7) gives
of this diet is as follows: "Frederick then examined into the matter
of the royal jurisdiction and the regalia, which for a long time had
been lost to the empire because they had been usurped and the kings
had neglected to recover them. The bishops, the nobles, and the
cities, since they could find no excuse for retaining these rights,
resigned them to the emperor. Milan was the first to surrender
them. When the emperor asked what these rights were, the decision
was given that they were the right to appoint dukes, marquises,
counts, and consuls [in the cities]; to coin money; to levy tolls; to
collect the fodrum [a tax in provisions for the support of the emperor
and his army when passing through the territory]; to collect customs
and harbor dues; to furnish safe-conducts; to control mills, fish-ponds,
bridges, and all the water-ways, and to demand an annual tax
not only from the land, but also from each person."
These are the regalian rights or rights of the crown:
Arimanniæ,{72} public roads, navigable rivers and those which
unite to form navigable rivers, harbors, and the banks of
rivers; tolls, coinage, profits from fines and penalties; ownerless
and confiscated lands, and the property of those who
have contracted incestuous marriages or have been outlawed
for crimes mentioned in the Novellæ of Justinian; rights of
conveyance on direct routes and cross-roads{73} (angariæ and
parangariæ), and the prestation of ships;{74} the special taxes
for the royal expedition; the appointment of officials for the
administration of justice; mines; royal palaces in the customary
cities; the profits of fisheries and salt-works; the
property of those who are guilty of offence against the majesty
of the emperor; half the treasure discovered in places
belonging to the emperor or dedicated to religious purposes,
and all of it if the finder was aided by the emperor.
Ragewin, Gesta Frid., IV, c. 34; M. G. SS. folio, XX; Doeberl, IV, no. 38.
Although the stirrup episode and the Besançon episode were ended
without a rupture between Frederick and Adrian, the fundamental
question between them was not yet settled. Frederick continued to
act in accordance with his ideas of what his office demanded, thus
giving deep offence to the pope. The various matters in which the
pope felt that Frederick had offended are set forth in this letter.
They involve the deeper question of supremacy. The relations
between the pope and emperor were becoming more and more strained.
Although Frederick had previously refused to consider the propositions
of the commune of Rome, he now received their ambassadors
courteously. The people of the city wished to obtain his recognition
of their government. Since the pope was obdurate Frederick threatened
to make common cause with the rebellious city, hoping, no doubt,
that Adrian would thereby be compelled to sue to him for terms.
To his reverend father and lord, Eberhard, archbishop of
Salzburg, Eberhard, by the grace of God bishop of Bamberg.
... That perilous time seems near at hand when strife
shall arise between the king and the pope. The cardinals
Octavianus and William, former archdeacon of Pavia, were
sent by pope Adrian to the emperor with a message which
began with a conciliatory introduction but which contained
most vexatious matter. For instance, they said: the emperor
must not send ambassadors to the city of Rome without
the consent of the pope, as all the magisterial power in
Rome and all the regalian rights there belong to St. Peter;
the fodrum must not be collected from the papal estates
except at the time of the imperial coronation; Italian bishops
should take only the oath of fidelity to the emperor and
not the oath of homage [see no. 214]; bishops shall not be
required to entertain the ambassadors of the emperor in
their palaces; the following possessions, belonging of right
to the Roman church, must be restored: Tivoli, Ferrara,
Massa, Fiscaglia, all the lands of the countess Matilda, all
the land from Aquapendente to Rome, the duchy of Spoleto,
and the islands of Sardinia and Corsica. The emperor was
willing to do justice in these matters if the pope would give
him justice in return [that is, the emperor was willing to
submit each matter to trial and abide by the decision, if the
pope would do the same], but the cardinals were only empowered
to receive justice and not to give it, for they said that
they could not bind the pope. The emperor on his part then
made the following complaints: that the treaty of Constance
had not been kept by the pope in the matter of his promise
not to make peace with the Greeks, the Sicilians, or the Roman
people without the consent of both parties [see no. 97];
that cardinals were sent through Germany without the emperor’s
consent, and that they entered the palaces of bishops
who possessed regalian rights from the emperor; that the
pope heard unjust appeals; and many similar matters. The
emperor agreed that the pope should be notified of these
demands by the aforesaid cardinals, but the pope refused
to send other cardinals empowered to treat of these things,
as the emperor had requested. In the meantime ambassadors
came from the Roman people to make a treaty of peace with
the emperor, and were favorably received and dismissed with
honor. The emperor is about to send ambassadors both to
the pope and to the city of Rome; if possible, he will make
a treaty of peace with the pope, but if this fails, he will ally
himself with the Romans....
105–107. The Disputed Papal Election of 1159.
M. G. SS. folio, XVIII, pp, 28 f; Doeberl, IV, no. 39 a.
When Adrian IV died, 1159, the quarrel between him and the
emperor had reached such a pitch of bitterness that he was about to
excommunicate Frederick. But there was a party in the college of
cardinals which was heartily supporting the emperor against the
pope. The members of this German party, as it was called, had
opposed the treaty which Adrian had made with William of Sicily
(see no. 99) and had sympathized with Frederick in the Besançon
episode and in his later contentions with the pope (see nos. 100–102).
They believed that the pope was transcending his powers, and usurping
authority which belonged to the emperor alone. But this German
party, of which Octavian was the head, was hopelessly in the
minority. When the cardinals met to elect a successor to Adrian IV,
it was not able to secure the unanimous election of its candidate.
Two popes were elected, and a schism ensued which lasted for seventeen
years. Alexander III was very clever and succeeded in uniting
all of Frederick’s enemies against him. Under the pope’s leadership
and by his diplomacy, the Lombard league was formed. It completely
defeated the emperor at Legnano, 1176 (see nos. 108–109).
We give first a letter of Alexander III, which contains an account of
his election. Then Victor’s letter follows (no. 106). And finally
a brief account of the election by Gerhoh of Reichersberg is given
(no. 107).
Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his
venerable brothers, Syrus, archbishop of Genoa, and his suffragans,
greeting and apostolic benediction.
The eternal and unchangeable will of the Creator provided
that his holy and immaculate church from its very
foundation should be ruled by one pastor and governor, to
whom all prelates should be obedient. As members are
united to one head, so they should be joined to him in perfect
unity and never separate themselves from him. And
Christ, who confirmed the faith of his disciples by saying:
"Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world"
[Matt. 28:20], will without doubt keep his promise to his
church which he put under the control of his apostle [Peter].
And although his church, like the little boat of St. Peter,
may sometimes be tossed about by the waves, he will preserve
it in safety.
Three false brothers have gone out from us, but they were
not of us, and, transforming themselves into angels of light,
although they are servants of Satan, they are trying to rend
and tear the church, the seamless robe of Christ, which he,
in the person of the Psalmist, prayed might be delivered
from the lion’s mouth, and from the sword and from
the power of the dog [Ps. 22:20]. Nevertheless Christ, the
founder and head of the church, is carefully guarding her,
his only spouse, and he will not permit the little boat of
St. Peter to suffer shipwreck, although it may often be tossed
about by the waves.
Our predecessor, Adrian IV, of blessed memory, died September
1, while we were at Anagni, and his body was brought
to Rome and honorably buried in the customary manner in
St. Peter’s Church, on September 4. Nearly all the cardinals
were present, and after the burial they began to take
steps to elect his successor. After three days of discussion
all the cardinals except three elected us, although we are
not sufficient for this burden and not worthy of so high an
office. The three who opposed our election were Octavian,
John of St. Martin’s, and Guido of Crema. God is our witness
that we are telling the exact truth when we say that all
the others unanimously elected us, and the other clergy and
the people of Rome assented to it. But two, John and Guido,
voted for Octavian and stubbornly insisted on his election.
The prior of the cardinal deacons was putting the papal
mantle on us in the customary manner, although we were
reluctant to receive it because we saw our insufficiency for
the high office. When Octavian saw this he was almost beside
himself with rage, and with his own hands snatched
the mantle from our neck and took it away. This caused a
great tumultuous outbreak. Some of the senators were present
and saw it, and one of them, inspired by the spirit of
God, snatched the mantle from the hands of Octavian, who
was now raging. Then Octavian, with angry face and fierce
eye, turned to one of his chaplains who had come prepared
for this, upbraided him, and ordered him hastily to fetch
him the mantle which he had brought with him. The mantle
was brought without delay, and while all the cardinals
were trying to get out of the room, Octavian removed his
hat, bowed his head, and received the mantle from his chaplain
and another clergyman. And because there was no one
else there, he had to assist them himself to put it on him.
But the condemnation of God was seen in the fact that he
put the mantle on with the wrong side in front. Those
who were present saw it and laughed. And as he was of a
crooked mind and intention, so the mantle was put on
crooked as an evidence of his condemnation. When this was
done, the doors of the church, which had been closed, were
opened and bands of armed men with drawn swords entered
and made a great noise. But they had been hired by Octavian
to do this. And because that pestilential Octavian
had no cardinals and bishops he surrounded himself with a
band of armed knights....
Ragewin, Gesta Frid., IV, ch. 60; M. G. SS. folio, XX; Doeberl, IV, no. 39 b.
See introductory note to no. 105.
Victor, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable
brothers, the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and his
dear sons, the abbots, dukes, marquises, counts, and other
princes, and the imperial family who are connected with the
most holy court of Frederick, the most serene and unconquered
emperor of the Romans, greeting and apostolic benediction.
We believe that you cannot have forgotten how sincerely
we have loved the empire and how we have labored in support
of its honor and dignity. And now that we have been
elevated to a higher dignity we wish to do even more for
you and the empire. We therefore confidently beseech you,
for the reverence which you have for St. Peter and for your
love to us, to ask the emperor to take immediate steps to
come to the aid and protection of the empire, which God
has committed to him, and of the church of God, the bride
of Christ, of which God has made him advocate and defender.
If he does not, there is danger that his malicious
enemies may prevail in this great struggle, and the little
boat of St. Peter be overwhelmed by winds and storms, and
the imperial dignity be humiliated.
We wish to inform you that under the Lord’s guidance
we have been elected pope. After our predecessor, Adrian
IV, of blessed memory, had gone the way of all flesh and
been buried in the church of St. Peter, we all came together
to elect his successor. After long discussion and mature
deliberation, God graciously inspired our brothers, the cardinal
bishops, priests, and deacons of the holy Roman church,
and the other clergy of Rome, to elect us. The people of
Rome asked for our election and the senators and other
nobles assented to it. We were canonically elected and then
elevated to the throne of St. Peter. And on the first Sunday
in October we were consecrated and received the full
power of our office.
We humbly beseech you to aid us with your prayers to
Him from whom come all power and dignities. Now the
former chancellor, Roland, who was bound by oath in a conspiracy
against the church of God and the empire in support
of William of Sicily, had himself thrust into the papal
office twelve days after we were elected. Such a thing had
never been heard of before. If he should send you letters,
you should refuse to receive them, because they are full of
lies and he is a schismatic and a heretic. Pay no attention
whatever to his letters.
Doeberl, IV, no. 39 d.
See introductory note to no. 105.
When Adrian IV died, all the cardinal clergy of the holy
Roman church met to elect his successor. A secret ballot
was taken and the result announced. It was found that a
majority of the cardinals had voted for Roland, the chancellor
of Adrian IV. A few had voted for Octavian, and
some also for Magister Bernard. Since there could not be
three popes, the majority tried to persuade the minority to
give up their candidates and make the election of Roland
unanimous. Those who had voted for Bernard then deserted
him and some of them joined the party of Roland. The
others said that they had no preference but would support
either Octavian or Roland, provided the election of either
were unanimous, and the church should not be divided on
account of it. The number of cardinals who supported
Octavian, or were willing to support him if elected, was seven.
But a much larger number supported Roland. The majority
then tried hard to persuade these seven to unite in electing
Roland, and won over all but three of them. Two of these,
John of Pisa, and Guido of Crema, were very contentious and
declared that they would never desert Octavian. So they with
the bishop of Tusculum made Octavian pope.
Kehr, Vertrag von Anagni. in Neues Archiv, XIII, pp. 109 ff; Doeberl, IV
no. 46 a.
The quarrel between the pope and emperor increased in bitterness.
At the same time the Italian cities rebelled against Frederick and
joined the pope. The Lombard league was formed and at Legnano,
1176, the emperor was utterly defeated. He then sent ambassadors
to the pope at Anagni to discuss the terms of a treaty of peace. They
agreed on the following articles which were afterward incorporated
in the peace of Venice, 1177. The final treaty was made in
1183 and is called the treaty of Constance (see no. 109).
1. The emperor and the empress, and their son, king
Henry, and all the princes promise to accept pope Alexander
III as the catholic and universal pope, and to show him such
reverence as their predecessors were wont to show to his
predecessors.
2. The emperor promises to keep peace faithfully with
pope Alexander and his successors and with the whole Roman
church.
3. All the regalia and other possessions of St. Peter as
held by the Roman church in the time of pope Innocent II,
which have been seized by the emperor or his allies, shall be
restored to pope Alexander and to the Roman church, and the
emperor engages to aid the church in retaining possession
of them.
4. The emperor restores to the pope and to the Roman
church the control of the office of prefect of the city of Rome;
the pope shall see to it that justice shall be done the emperor
when he has occasion to seek his rights in the city.
5. All vassals of the church won over by the emperor to
his side during the late quarrel, shall be released from their
allegiance to him and restored to the pope and to the Roman
church.
6. The emperor will restore to the pope and to the church
the lands of the countess Matilda as they were held by the
church in the time of the emperor Lothar and king Conrad
and the present emperor Frederick.
7. The pope and the emperor will mutually aid one another
in maintaining the honor and the rights of the empire
and the church.
8. Everything unjustly taken from the churches by the
emperor or his followers during the schism shall be restored
to them.
9. The emperor will make peace with the Lombards on
the terms to be agreed upon by representatives appointed for
this purpose by the emperor and the pope and the Lombards.
In case any difficulty arises in the course of these negotiations
which the representatives cannot settle, it shall be
decided by the majority of the special commissioners to be
appointed for this purpose by the emperor and the pope in
equal numbers.
10. The emperor will make peace with the king of Sicily
and with the emperor of Constantinople and with all the
allies of the pope, and he will not take revenge for any wrongs
which they may have committed in assisting the Roman
church.
11–22. Articles referring to individuals and lesser details.
23. Pope Alexander and the cardinals on their part make
peace with the emperor and the empress and their son, king
Henry, and all their party. This, however, shall not prejudice
those rights of controlling and judging ecclesiastical persons
which are herein surrendered to the pope and to the
Roman church, nor the rights of the Roman church over the
lands of St. Peter now withheld by other persons, nor the
special exceptions made in this document in favor of the
pope and the Roman church, on one side, and the emperor
and the empire, on the other.
24. The pope and the cardinals will take their oath to
keep this peace, the oath to be drawn up in writing and
signed by the cardinals.
25. The pope shall immediately call together as large a
council as possible, and with the cardinal bishops and other
clergy who may be present, shall excommunicate all who break
this peace. Afterward he shall do the same in a general
council.
26. Many of the nobles of Rome and the great vassals of
Campania shall also take oath to keep this peace.
27. The emperor and the princes of the empire will also
take their oaths to keep this peace, the oath to be drawn up
in writing and signed by the emperor and the princes.
28. If the pope should die first, the emperor and his
son, king Henry, and the princes shall observe these terms
of peace with his successors and all the cardinals and the
whole Roman church, and with the Lombards and the king
of Sicily and all the allies of the church. If the emperor
should die first, the pope and the cardinals and the Roman
church shall observe these terms with the empress Beatrice,
and her son, king Henry, and with all the German people
and their allies, as written above.
29. In the meantime the emperor shall not attack the
land of St. Peter, whether held by the pope in person or by
the king of Sicily or other vassals of the pope.
30. If the negotiations for peace are broken off by either
side before they are completed, which God forbid, truce shall
be kept for three months after the notification of withdrawal.
Muratori, IV, pp. 307 ff; M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 175 ff; Doeberl, IV, no. 51 c.
See introductory note to no. 108.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick,
by divine mercy emperor of the Romans, Augustus,
and Henry VI, his son, king of the Romans, Augustus....
- We, Frederick, emperor of the Romans, and our son
Henry, king of the Romans, hereby grant to you, the cities,
territories, and persons of the league, the regalia and other
rights within and without the cities, as you have been accustomed
to hold them; that is each member of the league shall
have the same rights as the city of Verona has had in the
past or has now.
- The members of the league shall exercise freely and
without interference from us all the rights which they have
exercised of old.
- These are the rights which are guaranteed to you: the
fodrum, forests, pastures, bridges, streams, mills, fortifications
of the cities, criminal and civil jurisdiction, and all
other rights which concern the welfare of the city.
- The regalia which are not to be granted to the members
of the league shall be determined in the following manner:
in the case of each city, certain men shall be chosen for
this purpose from both the bishopric and the city; these men
shall be of good repute, capable of deciding these questions,
and such as are not prejudiced against either party. Acting
with the bishop of the diocese, they shall swear to inquire
into the questions of the regalia and to set aside those that
by right belong to us. If, however, the cities do not wish to
submit to this inquisition, they shall pay to us an annual
tribute of 2000 marks in silver as compensation for our
regalia. If this sum seems excessive, it may be reduced.
- If anyone appeals to us in regard to matters which are
by this treaty admitted to be under your jurisdiction, we
agree not to hear such an appeal.
- The bishops, churches, cities, and other persons, clerical
and lay, shall retain possession of the property or rights
which have been granted to them before this war by us or by
our predecessors, the above concessions excepted. The accustomed
dues for such holdings shall be paid to us, but not the
tax.
- Such possessions as we have granted to members of the
league, inside or outside of cities, shall not be included
among those regalia for which taxes are to be paid to us.
- All privileges, gifts, and concessions made in the time
of the war by us or our representatives to the prejudice or
injury of the cities, territories, or members of the league are
to be null and void.
- Consuls of cities where the bishop holds the position
of count from the king or emperor shall receive their office
from the bishop, if this has been the custom before. In all
other cities the consuls shall receive their office from us, in
the following manner: after they have been elected by the
city they shall be invested with office by our representative
in the city or bishopric, unless we are ourselves in Lombardy,
in which case they shall be invested by us. At the end of
every five years each city shall send its representative to us
to receive the investiture.
- This arrangement shall be observed by our successor,
and all such investitures shall be free.
- After our death, the cities shall receive investiture
in the same way from our son and from his successors.
- The emperor shall have the right of hearing appeals
in cases involving more than 25 pounds, saving the right
of the church of Brescia to hear appeals. The appellant
shall not, however, be compelled to come to Germany, but
he shall appeal to the representative of the emperor in the
city or bishopric. This representative shall examine the case
fairly and shall give judgment according to the laws and
customs of that city. The decision shall be given within two
months from the time of appeal, unless the case has been
deferred by reason of some legal hindrance or by the consent
of both parties.
- The consuls of cities shall take the oath of allegiance
to the emperor before they are invested with office.
- Our vassals shall receive investiture from us and shall
take the vassal’s oath of fidelity. All other persons between
the ages of 15 and 70 shall take the ordinary oath of fidelity
to the emperor unless there be some good reason why this
oath should be remitted.
- Vassals who have failed to receive investiture from
us or to render the services due for their fiefs, during the
war or the truce, shall not on this account lose their fiefs.
- Lands held by libelli and precariæ shall be held
according to the customs of each city, the feudal law of Frederick
I to the contrary notwithstanding.
- All injuries, losses, and damages which we or our
followers have sustained from the league or any of its members
or allies are hereby pardoned, and all such transgressors
are hereby received back into our favor.
- We will not remain longer than is necessary in any
city or bishopric.
- It shall be permitted to the cities to erect fortifications
within or without their boundaries.
- It shall be permitted to the league to maintain its
organization as it now is or to renew it as often as it desires.
Wattenbach, Die ost. Freiheitsbriefe; Doeberl, IV, no. 31 a.
The nobles of Germany early showed the desire to free themselves
from the control of the emperor and to acquire independence at the
expense of the crown. The document by which Frederick I created
the duchy of Austria out of the Bavarian east mark and gave it to
his uncle, Henry, contains some concessions which tended to weaken
the crown. Instead of binding the new duke closely to the crown
and compelling him to render services commensurate with his high
position, the emperor excused him from attending diets which were
not held near his lands, and from military service except in the lands
which adjoined his. He also gave the duke the complete administration
of justice in his territory. Other princes were not slow to
demand similar privileges, and the crown was gradually stripped of
its powers and prerogatives. See nos. 136, 139, 153, 160. The duchy
of Austria, created by this grant, came into the possession of the
Hapsburg family, and formed the centre of the Hapsburg lands, the
present Austro-Hungarian empire. See no. 150.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick,
by divine mercy emperor of the Romans, Augustus.
... Know all our faithful subjects, present and future,
that with the aid of him who sent peace on earth, we have
been able to settle the long quarrel between our beloved uncle
Henry, duke of Austria, and our beloved nephew, Henry,
duke of Saxony, over the possession of the duchy of Bavaria.
This was accomplished at the diet of Regensburg on the day
of the Nativity of the blessed Virgin Mary in the presence
of many pious catholic princes. This is the way in which
the settlement was reached: The duke of Austria resigned
the duchy of Bavaria into our hands, and we immediately
granted it in fief to the duke of Saxony. Then the duke of
Bavaria [Henry of Saxony] surrendered to us the mark of
Austria with all its rights and all the fiefs which the former
margrave Luitpold held of the duchy of Bavaria, and we
have made the mark of Austria a duchy with the consent of
the princes, Wadislaus, duke of Bohemia, putting the motion
and the other princes agreeing to it. This was done in order
that our beloved uncle should not lose in rank by the transfer.
We have now granted the duchy of Austria in fief to our
uncle Henry and to his wife Theodora, decreeing by this
perpetual edict that (1) they and their children after them,
whether sons or daughters, shall hold and possess it by
hereditary right. If our uncle and his wife should die without
children, they may leave the duchy by will to whomsoever
they desire. (2) We decree also that no person, great or
small, shall presume to exercise any of the rights of justice
within the duchy, without the consent and permission of the
duke. (3) The duke of Austria does not owe any services to
the empire, except to attend, when summoned, such diets as
may be held in Bavaria. (4) He is not bound to join the
emperor on any campaign except such as may be directed
against parts of the kingdom neighboring to Austria.
Bresslau, Diplomata Centum, no. 72; Doeberl, IV, no. 44.
The old duchy of Franconia disappeared with Conrad II (1024–39).
The Staufer, who inherited the family lands of Conrad II, called
themselves dukes of Rothenburg, and not of Franconia. A large part
of the original duchy went to make up the bishoprics of Mainz,
Bamberg, and Würzburg. In time the bishops of Würzburg put forth
the claim that they had received the ducal office in Franconia. In
a diet at Würzburg, 1168, Herold, the ambitious bishop of Würzburg,
presented some forged documents to Frederick I to prove that the
bishops of Würzburg were also dukes and had ducal authority in the
duchy of Würzburg, which was identical with the bishopric. Frederick
was deceived by these forgeries and confirmed the bishop in his
usurped title and authority. The bishops of Würzburg now received
the highest jurisdiction over their territory.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick,
by the mercy of God emperor of the Romans, Augustus....
Be it known to all the faithful subjects of God
and of our empire, both present and future, that we held a
diet at Würzburg recently, where with the aid of God we
were able to reconcile the differences which had arisen among
the princes of Saxony. At that diet also Herold, venerable
bishop of Würzburg, attended by his whole chapter and by
a large following of freemen and ministerials, besought us
to confirm by our imperial authority the jurisdiction over
the church and duchy of Würzburg, which has belonged to
his predecessors since the time of Karl the Great. We
always delight to grant the reasonable requests of suppliants,
and we have no wish to disturb the arrangements made by
former emperors, unless there is some need of correction. In
this case it is apparent that the settlement made by the former
emperors is just, and that the lands have been held unquestioned
for a long time by the church and the duchy of
Würzburg. Therefore, influenced by the fidelity and devotion
of the bishop and by the intercessions of the chapter of
his church, whose devotion to him has touched our heart, we
give and grant to the venerable bishop Herold and to his successors
forever the jurisdiction and right of administering
justice in the whole bishopric and duchy and all its counties;
that is, the right to punish cases of rapine and incendiarism,
to exercise authority over freeholds, fiefs, and vassals, and
to inflict capital punishment. By our imperial authority expressed
in this perpetual decree, we forbid any person,
ecclesiastical or secular, to exercise any jurisdiction in these
matters within the bishopric and duchy of Würzburg and its
counties; except that the counts should have jurisdiction
within their counties over those freemen who are known as
bargaldi. If anyone acts contrary to this he is guilty of violating
the decrees of former emperors, the rights of the
church of Würzburg, and this our decree. We also forbid
anyone to create hundred-courts or appoint centgrafs (hundred-courts)
within this bishopric and duchy and its counties,
except by the grant of the bishop-duke of Würzburg. Further,
we have destroyed the castle of Bamberg, which has
been the cause of so much trouble to the church and the
whole province, and have given the hill upon which it stood
to the church of Würzburg, forbidding the erection of a castle
or fortification again upon it. We have destroyed also the
castle of Frankenberg, which menaced the neighboring monastery
of Amerbach and imperilled the peace of the church of
Würzburg, and have given it under similar conditions to that
church.
Heinemann, Cod. Anhalt., no. 1 c; Doeberl, IV. no. 5O.
As early as 953 Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, received the ducal
authority over Lothringen. This gave him the power to hold local
diets and to summon both the bishops and secular nobles to attend
them. The Gelnhausen decree, so named because it was published in
a diet held at Gelnhausen, is important because it contains an official
account (1) of the trial of Henry the Lion, and (2) of the
partition of the duchy of Saxony. The archbishop of Cologne now
receives the ducal authority over a part of the duchy of Saxony.
There is here a good illustration of the policy which Frederick I
followed of weakening the great duchies by dividing them.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick,
by divine mercy emperor of the Romans, Augustus....
Know all faithful subjects of the empire, both present and
future, that Henry, former duke of Bavaria and Westphalia,
has oppressed the churches of God and the nobles of the empire
by seizing their lands and violating their rights, has
refused to obey our summons to present himself before us
and has therefore incurred the ban, and even after that has
continued to injure the churches and nobles. Now therefore
on account of the injuries which he has inflicted upon these
persons, and on account of the contempt which he has so
often shown to us, and especially on account of his violation
of feudal law, in that he refused to obey the three summonses
to present himself before us, he has been judged contumacious
and by the unanimous sentence of the princes in
the diet held at Würzburg has been deprived of the duchies
of Bavaria, Westphalia, and Engria [that is, Bavaria and
Saxony] and of all the fiefs which he held of the empire,
and these territories have been restored to our control.
Now by the advice of the princes we have divided the
duchy of Westphalia and Engria [Saxony] into two parts and
have conferred that part which is included in the dioceses of
Cologne and Paderborn upon our beloved prince, Philip,
archbishop of Cologne, because of his conspicuous merits, and
of his labors and expenditures for the crown. We have given
and granted this territory to the church of Cologne with the
counties, advocates, rights of safe-conduct, domains, farms,
fiefs, ministerials, serfs, and all other things which belong
to that duchy; and we have solemnly invested the aforesaid
Philip by the banner [flag] of the empire with that portion
of the duchy which is given to his church. This was done
by the decision of all the princes of the diet, and with the
public consent of our relative, duke Bernard, to whom we
have given the other part of the duchy of Westphalia and
Engria....
Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vitæ, II, pp. 644 f; Doeberl, IV, no. 49.
Disputed elections might easily take place, because there was no
clear law governing them. It was not the majority of the cardinals
who could elect, but those of the "better and wiser counsel." No
matter how small the number of cardinals who might vote for a
particular candidate, he could easily claim to be elected because he
could say that his supporters were of the "better and wiser counsel."
To prevent such occurrences, Alexander III decreed that the votes of
two-thirds of the cardinals were necessary to elect.
Concerning the election of the pope. Although our predecessors
have issued decrees intended to prevent disputed elections
in the papacy, nevertheless, the unity of the church has
frequently been imperilled by the wicked ambition of men.
We have decided with the advice of our brothers and the
approval of the council that something further must be done
to prevent this evil. Therefore we have decreed that when
the cardinals cannot come to a unanimous vote on any candidate,
that person shall be regarded as pope who receives
two-thirds of the votes, even if the other one-third refuse
to accept him and elect a pope of their own. If anyone who
has been elected by only a third of the cardinals shall presume
to act as pope he and his followers shall be excommunicated
and deprived of all ecclesiastical rank; they shall not
be allowed to take communion, unless it be extreme unction,
and unless they repent they shall have their part with Dathan
and Abiram [Num. 16], whom the earth swallowed alive.
No one who has been elected by less than two-thirds, shall
presume to act as pope, and if he does he shall suffer the same
penalty. This decree shall not be to the prejudice of the
canon law or of the practice in other churches where the voice
of the majority is declared to be decisive in elections, because
any dispute arising in these churches can be settled by appeal
to higher authority. The Roman church requires a special
law, because there is in her case no higher authority to
appeal to.
114–115. Supremacy of the Papal Power.
Migne, 214, col. 377.
Innocent III here gives an interesting statement of the theory of
papal supremacy and of the relations existing between papacy and
empire.
Innocent III to Acerbius, prior, and to the other clergy in
Tuscany. As God, the creator of the universe, set two great
lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule
the day, and the lesser light to rule the night [Gen. 1:15,16],
so He set two great dignities in the firmament of the universal
church, ... the greater to rule the day, that
is, souls, and the lesser to rule the night, that is, bodies.
These dignities are the papal authority and the royal power.
And just as the moon gets her light from the sun, and is
inferior to the sun in quality, quantity, position, and effect,
so the royal power gets the splendor of its dignity from the
papal authority....
Migne, 215, col. 294.
To the honor of omnipotent God, and of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, and of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and
of pope Innocent and of the Roman church, as well as of
the church committed to you, we give you the pallium. It
was first placed on the tomb of St. Peter, from which place
we have taken it to send it to you. It is the symbol of the
full power of the bishop’s office. You shall wear the pallium
only when you celebrate mass in the churches of your own
diocese on the following days: Christmas, St. Stephen’s, Circumcision,
Epiphany, Purification of the Virgin Mary, Palm
Sunday, Thursday and Saturday of Passion week, Easter
Sunday, Monday after Easter, Ascension of our Lord, Pentecost,
the three feasts of St. Mary, the birthday of John the
Baptist, the feast days of all the apostles, All Saints’ day,
and when a church is to be dedicated, or bishop consecrated,
or clergy ordained, on the principal feast days of your own
church, and on the anniversary of your consecration.
The bishop of Rome alone always wears the pallium when
celebrating mass because he has the plentitude (fullness) of
ecclesiastical power, which is symbolized by the pallium.
Others wear it only on certain days, and in that diocese over
which they have received ecclesiastical authority, because they
are called to have authority over only a part of the church,
and not over all of it [as the pope is].
116–118. The Punishment of Heretics.
Migne, 214, col. 71.
Many heresies were appearing in various parts of Europe, and
Innocent III made special efforts to suppress them. The three following
documents illustrate the means by which he hoped to destroy
them. These letters are directed to Spain and to Gascony, where
the Albigensian heresy was flourishing.
The little boat of St. Peter is beaten by many storms and
tossed about upon the sea, but it grieves us most of all that,
against the orthodox faith, there are now arising more unrestrainedly
and with more injurious results than ever before,
ministers of diabolical error who are ensnaring the souls of
the simple and ruining them. With their superstitions and
false inventions they are perverting the meaning of the Holy
Scriptures and trying to destroy the unity of the catholic
church. Since we have learned from you and others that this
pestilential error is growing in Gascony and in the neighboring
territories, we wish you and your fellow bishops to resist
it with all your might, because it is to be feared that it will
spread and that by its contagion the minds of the faithful
will be corrupted. And therefore by this present apostolical
writing we give you a strict command that, by whatever
means you can, you destroy all these heresies and expel from
your diocese all who are polluted with them. You shall exercise
the rigor of the ecclesiastical power against them and all
those who have made themselves suspected by associating with
them. They may not appeal from your judgments, and if
necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress
them with the sword.
Migne, 214, col. 142.
See introductory note to no. 116.
In order to catch the little foxes which are destroying the
vineyard of the Lord [Song of Sol. 2:15], and to separate
heretics from the society of the faithful, we have sent to you
our beloved son and brother, Rainerius, who, by the divine
aid, is powerful in both word and deed, and with him our
beloved son and brother, Guido, who fears God and is devoted
to works of love. We ask, warn, exhort, and for the forgiveness
of your sins command you to receive them kindly
and render them assistance against the heretics by giving
them advice and aid. We have ordered Rainerius to go on
into Spain on certain important ecclesiastical matters, and
so we order all archbishops and bishops to use, at the command
of Guido, the spiritual sword against all heretics whom
he shall name to you. And we order the laymen to confiscate
their goods and drive them out of your territories, and thus
separate the chaff from the wheat. Moreover to all who
faithfully and devoutly aid the church in preserving the faith
in this time of great danger which is threatening her, we
grant the same indulgence of sins as to those who make a
pilgrimage to the churches of St. Peter or of St. James.
Migne, 215, col. 915 f.
See introductory note to no. 116.
Since according to the gospel, the "laborer is worthy of his
hire" [Luke 10:7], and in another place it is said, "Thou
shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn" [1 Cor. 9:1], it is certainly even more fitting that a
proper reward should be given those who, zealous for the
divine law, labor to destroy the little foxes which are ruining
the vineyard of the Lord [Song of Sol. 2:15]; we mean those
who are endeavoring to pervert the Christian faith. Their
reward should be all the greater, because if these foxes are
killed the vineyard will be able to bear much greater fruit
in works of piety. Led by such considerations, we concede
to you, by this present writing, the right to reserve for your
own use all the movable as well as immovable goods of heretics
and of their supporters, of which you are able to get
possession.
Migne, 214, col. 376.
The code of Justinian permitted the taking of interest, but the
Biblical view of the matter prevailed and in the Middle Age to
accept interest in any form on loans was usury. The church often
renewed her prohibitions of the custom, but was unable to abolish it.
Finally in the sixteenth century the distinction was made between a
reasonable and just rate of interest, which was permissible, and an
excessive rate, which was declared to be usury, and therefore prohibited.
We believe that you know how pernicious the vice of usury
is, since, in addition to the ecclesiastical laws which have
been issued against it, the prophet says that those who put
their money out at interest are to be excluded from the tabernacle
of the Lord [Ps. 15:5]. And the New Testament, as
well as the Old, forbids the taking of interest, since the Truth
[Christ] himself says: "Lend, hoping for nothing again"
[Luke 6:35]. And the prophet says: "Thou shalt not receive
usury or increase" [Ezek. 18:17]. We command you
all by this apostolical writing not to permit those who are
known as usurers to clear themselves by any subterfuge or
trick when they are charged with the crime.
Migne, 214, col. 864.
During the Middle Age the Jew received no protection from the
law. It took no account of him. He was compelled to pay for the
permission to live in a Christian state or in a Christian town. Such
a permission was often revoked at the will of the government (emperor,
duke, bishop, city council, etc.), and the Jews were then
plundered by the government or the mob, and made to pay well to
have the permission renewed. Although the government often robbed
them, they had more to fear from the fanaticism and covetousness
of the mob, against which the government was generally helpless to
protect them. The more enlightened of the clergy tried to shield
them, but generally without success. This document gives an idea
of the ways in which they were commonly molested, as well as of
the enlightened humanity of Innocent III. See also nos. 299, 300.
... We decree that no Christian shall use violence to
compel the Jews to accept baptism. But if a Jew, of his own
accord, because of a change in his faith, shall have taken
refuge with Christians, after his wish has been made known,
he may be made a Christian without any opposition. For
anyone who has not of his own will sought Christian baptism
cannot have the true Christian faith. No Christian shall
do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments
of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or
change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed
to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no
one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing
stones at them. No one shall compel them to render
any services except those which they have been accustomed to
render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked
men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries
or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the
bodies of their dead....
Migne, 214, col. 93.
It was not uncommon for clergymen to hold livings or benefices
(receive an income) from different churches at the same time. In
such cases, they of course found it impossible to live in all the
parishes from which they received money or support. And some
clergymen, although supported by some church, cared little for their
clerical duties and evaded them by living in some other parish. This
letter to the archbishop of Rouen represents a part of the reforming
work of Innocent III. He endeavored to correct these abuses, as is
apparent from this letter.
Since it is written that whoever does not work shall not eat
[2 Thess. 3:10], we believe it wrong that clergymen do not
serve those churches from which they have their livings.
You have informed us that certain canons of the church of
Rouen receive incomes and livings from the church, but do
not live there, as they should, and that the church of Rouen
is thereby unjustly deprived of the services of the clergy
whom she supports. Therefore we grant your petition, venerable
brother in Christ, and by our apostolic authority give
you full power to use ecclesiastical discipline to compel them
to live in their churches, as the law and custom of the church
require.....
Migne, 214, col. 433 f.
This letter does not differ materially from the bull "Clericis
laicos," no. 162. See the introductory note to it.
Since it is improper and contrary to reason that laymen,
who are bound to pay tithes to the clergy, should presume to
extort tithes from them, to the utter confusion of the established
order of things, we grant your petition, and give all
the monasteries, churches, and clergy of your diocese the permission
to refuse to pay any tithes which may be demanded
of them by laymen, no matter under what pretext such a
demand may be made. And if laymen, contrary to this writing,
shall attempt to collect such tithes by violence, you shall
put them under ecclesiastical interdict and deprive them of
the right to appeal.
123–125. The Secular Power of Innocent III.
Migne, 214, cols. 18 and 529.
Innocent III attempted to build up a system of papal government
in all the lands which he claimed. This document shows how his
authority in Rome was recognized. No. 124 is an illustration of
the oath which he required of the local princes in Italy who held
lands from him. No. 125 is offered as an evidence of his government
in Sicily.
The next day after the coronation of Innocent III, Peter,
prefect of the city of Rome, in the consistory of the Lateran
palace, publicly took the oath of fidelity to Innocent and his
successors, against all men, and received from the pope a robe
as the symbol of his investiture, with the prefecture. And
then he did Innocent liege homage and the pope gave him
a silver cup as the sign of his favor.
The oath. In the name of Christ. I, Peter, prefect of the
city, swear that the land which the pope has given me to govern,
I will govern to the honor and profit of the church. I will
neither sell, nor hire out, nor enfeoff, nor pawn, nor alienate in
any other way, any part of it. I will carefully find out and
maintain all the rights of the Roman church, and I will endeavor
to recover those rights which she has lost; and when I
have recovered them, I will preserve and defend them as long
as I shall hold this office. I will guard the roads and administer
justice. I will give diligent zeal and attention to the
guarding of the defences in order that they may be guarded
well and to the honor of the church and in accordance with her
wishes. I will neither change nor cause to be changed those
who have charge of the fortresses, nor will I introduce, or
cause to be introduced, others into the fortresses, contrary to
the command of the pope. The faithful subjects and vassals
of the pope, who live on the patrimony of the church, I will
not permit to take the oath of fidelity and homage to me
without the special command of the pope. Nor shall any of
them be required to be faithful to me except during my governorship.
In the territory committed to me I will not cause
any strongholds to be built without the command of the pope.
I will give a faithful account of my governorship whenever
the pope may demand it. And I will freely resign my office
whenever the pope or the holy Roman church may command
me to do so. All these things I swear that I will faithfully
observe without fraud, to the best of my ability, the command
of the pope being supreme in all things. So help me
God and these holy gospels of God.
Migne, 217, col. 286.
See introductory note to no. 123.
In the fourth year of the pontificate of Innocent III, in the
papal palace at Anagni, a nobleman, John of Ceccano, took
an oath of fidelity to pope Innocent for Ceccano and for all
the land which he holds. The oath was taken in the presence
of cardinal bishops, priests, and deacons; there were present
also many other clergy and nobles of Anagni and of other
places, as well as the knights of John of Ceccano. And he
admitted that he held Ceccano and all the rest of his land
from the Roman church. And this was his oath:
I, John of Ceccano, swear that from this hour on I will be
faithful to St. Peter, the Roman church, and my lord pope
Innocent and his successors. I will have no share in any
counsel or deed, either by word or act, to deprive them of life
or limb or to capture them by fraud. Any plan which they
may reveal to me either in person or by messenger or by
letter I will not wittingly make known to their hurt. If I
learn of an impending injury to them I will prevent it if
possible; if I cannot prevent it I will inform them of it
either in person or by letter or by messenger, or I will tell
it to some person who, I believe, will tell them of it. I will
aid them in defending Ceccano and all the land which I hold,
and the other regalia of St. Peter which they hold. If they
have lost any regalia, I will aid them in recovering, keeping,
and defending it against all men. These things I will keep
in good faith, without fraud or deceit. So help me God and
these holy gospels.
After these things he put his hands into the hands of the
pope and did him liege homage. And the pope graciously
gave him a silver cup overlaid with gold. And afterward,
in the same year, the same pope, because of his faithfulness
and services of John of Ceccano and his ancestors, gave him
the castle of Sitense as a fief.
Migne, 215, col. 55.
See introductory note to no. 123. This document is an evidence
that the government of Sicily was administered by the pope.
According to the Constitutions of Sicily, 1231, the bailiffs had
jurisdiction over thefts, the use of false weights and measures, and
the less important civil cases.
Knowing your orthodoxy and your faithfulness we do not
hesitate to commit to your charge those things which will
advance the honor of the apostolic see. Accordingly, by this
apostolic writing, we command you to demand and receive, in
our name, the bailiff’s oath from all counts, barons, citizens,
and others who have not yet taken it.
Migne, 217, col. 248.
Innocent III presumed to dictate to the whole Christian world in
all matters, temporal as well as spiritual. The following documents,
nos. 126–129, are offered merely to illustrate by a few specific cases
the authority which he assumed. They explain themselves.
Innocent .... to his beloved sons, the great nobles,
barons, and knights in England, greeting and apostolic benediction.
Our most dear son, John, the illustrious king of
England, has informed us that, although your ancestors were
accustomed from ancient times to pay the king scutage for
the baronies which they held from him, and although you
yourselves have paid this scutage up to very recent times,
you have now arbitrarily refused to pay scutage for the army
which he led last year into Poitou. In order that your king’s
plans may not be interfered with by such action, we earnestly
admonish and exhort you, and by this letter we command you
to pay promptly and without further resistance or objection
the said scutage in accordance with your obligation. For
without judicial procedure he cannot be despoiled of this
scutage because his ancestors and he have been accustomed
to receive it, and besides, provided his right to it is admitted,
he is ready to hear any just complaints that may be made to
him about it.
Migne, 216, col. 404 f.
See introductory note to no. 126.
Since you say that while you were still a minor you did
yourself great damage by making grants which now involve a
large part of your income, and that, although you are very
poor, you incur heavy expenses in fighting the enemies of
Christianity [that is, the Mohammedans in Spain], I hereby
give you the authority to revoke all the grants you made during
your minority; but with this proviso, that if you wish to
revoke any grants which you made to churches or to other
places which are put to a religious use, such revocations shall
be passed on by an ecclesiastical judge.
Migne, 215, col. 333 f.
See introductory note to no. 126 and to no. 56.
Although there have been many in Bohemia who have
worn a royal crown, yet they never received the papal permission
to call themselves king in their documents. Nor have
we hitherto been willing to call you king, because you were
crowned king by Philip, duke of Suabia, who himself had
not been legally crowned, and therefore could not legally
crown either you or anyone else. But since you have
obeyed us, and, deserting the duke of Suabia, have gone over
to the illustrious king, Otto, emperor elect, and he regards
you as king, we, at his request and out of consideration of
your obedience, are willing hereafter to call you king. Now
that you know why this favor has been granted you, strive to
shun the vice of ingratitude. And show that you have deserved
our favor which we have so graciously shown you, and
try also to retain it. See to it that you are solemnly crowned
by Otto as soon as possible.
Migne, 217, col. 245 f.
See introductory note to no. 126.
Innocent, etc., to his beloved sons, the magnates and barons
of England, greeting and apostolic benediction.
We are gravely troubled to learn that a quarrel has arisen
between our most beloved son, John, king of England, and
some of you, about certain questions that have recently been
raised. Unless wise counsel prevails and diligent measures
are taken to end this quarrel, it will cause injury. It is currently
reported that you have rashly made conspiracies and
confederacies against him, and that you have insolently,
rebelliously, presumptuously, and with arms in your hands,
said things to him, which, if they had to be said, should have
been said humbly and submissively. We utterly condemn
your conduct in these matters. You must no longer try, by
such means, to hinder the king in his good plans. By our
apostolic authority we hereby dissolve all conspiracies and
confederacies that have been made since the quarrel between
the crown and the church began, and forbid them under
threat of excommunication. We order you to endeavor by
clear proofs of humility and devotion to placate your king
and to win his favor by rendering him those customary
services which you and your ancestors have paid him and his
predecessors. And in the future, if you wish to make a
request of him, you shall do it, not insolently, but humbly
and reverently, without offending his royal honor; and thus
you will more readily obtain what you wish. We ask and
beseech the king in the Lord and command him, in order to
obtain forgiveness of his sins, to treat you leniently, and graciously
to grant your just petitions. And thus you yourselves
may rejoice to know that he has changed for the better,
and on this account you and your heirs may serve him and
his successors more promptly and devotedly. We ask, and,
by this apostolic writing, command you to bear yourselves in
such a way that England may obtain the peace she so
earnestly longs for, and that you may deserve our aid and
support in your times of trouble.
Reg. d. Innoc. III. p. super neg. Rom. imp., no. 29; Huillard-Bréholles, I,
70–76; Böhmer-Ficker-Winkelmann, no. 5724 a; Doeberl, V, no. 8.
At the death of Henry VI, 1197, his brother, Philip of Suabia,
tried to persuade the princes to elect the infant son of Henry, Frederick,
as king. While some were in favor of this, others refused on
the ground that it would be ruinous to elect a child king. They
offered the crown to Philip, but he refused it because he was unwilling
to appear to be false to his little nephew. In spite of Philip’s
persistent refusal a party of the princes elected him. The Guelf
party elected Otto, son of Henry the Lion. Under these circumstances
Innocent III declared that it was his right as pope to decide the
disputed election. His reasons for deciding in favor of Otto are
given in the following document.
In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It is the business of the pope to look after the interests of
the Roman empire, since the empire derives its origin and its
final authority from the papacy; its origin, because it was
originally transferred from Greece by and for the sake of
the papacy, the popes making the transfer in order that the
church might be better protected; its final authority, because
the emperor is raised to his position by the pope who blesses
him, crowns him, and invests him with the empire. Henry
[VI] recognized this truth in respect to our predecessor, pope
Celestine of blessed memory, for although for a little while
after he had received the crown from the pope, he refused to
admit this, later he came to his senses and besought the pope
to invest him with the golden mantle of the empire. Therefore,
since three persons have lately been elected king by different
parties, namely, the youth [Frederick II], Philip, and
Otto, so also three things must be taken into account in
regard to each one, namely: the legality, the suitability, and
the expediency of his election.
In respect to the youth, the son of emperor Henry, at first
glance it does not seem lawful to oppose his election, because
it was supported by the oaths which his father received from
the princes before his death. For although that oath may
have been extorted from them by force, nevertheless it is not
thereby rendered void; in the case of the oath which the children
of Israel swore to Gibeon, they decided that, although
it had been secured by fraud, it ought still to be kept. Moreover,
if the oath of the princes was originally extorted from
them, the emperor later recognized his sin, and released them
from their oath, sending back the letters in which they promised
to elect his son; then the princes, in the emperor’s
absence, of their own accord elected his son, and almost all
of them promised him fidelity and some did him homage.
Therefore it does not appear that they may lawfully break
that oath. It does not seem proper for us to deprive him of
his kingdom, because he has been intrusted to our guardianship
and protection, and moreover it is written: "Defend
the fatherless" [Ps. 82:3]. It does not seem expedient
to oppose him, because, when the youth shall arrive at years
of discretion and shall learn that he was deprived of his kingdom
by the pope, not only will he not show us reverence, but
even as far as he is able he will attack the church, and withhold
from her the allegiance and dues which she should receive
from the kingdom of Sicily. On the other hand, there are
good reasons why it should be lawful, fitting, and expedient to
oppose his election. It is lawful because the oaths of the
princes were illegal, and the election was unwise. For they
elected as emperor a person unsuited not only to that, but to
any other office, for he was then scarcely two years old and
was not yet baptized. It appears then that such illegal and
unwise oaths should not be kept. The case of the oath sworn
to Gibeon does not apply, for that oath could be kept without
working injury to the people of Israel, while the observance
of these oaths will not only injure one race, but will cause
great loss and damage to the church and the whole Christian
people. Nor can it be said that these oaths are legal if interpreted
according to the intention of the princes who swore
them. They meant that if they elected him emperor, he was
not to rule immediately, but later when he came of age. But
how then could they judge of his fitness to rule? Might he
not turn out to be so foolish and simple as to be utterly unworthy
even less honor? Suppose that they meant he should
rule only when he was fitted to, and that in the meantime his
father should govern the state. But later an event occurred
which the princes had not thought of, and which made it
neither right nor possible for the princes to keep their oaths;
that is, the sudden death of the father. Now since the
empire cannot be governed by a deputy, and an emperor
cannot be elected for a temporary term, and since the church
neither wishes nor is able to do without an emperor, it is
lawful to elect some one else. It is not fitting that he should
rule. For how can he rule who is himself under the rule of
others? How can he protect the Christian people who is
himself under the tutelage of others? It is no sufficient
answer to this to say that it was to our guardianship that he
was intrusted, because this was done not that we might give
him the empire, but that we might hold the kingdom of Sicily
for him. The Scripture says: "Woe to thee, oh land, when
thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning" [Eccles.
10:16]. It is not expedient that he should become emperor,
because thereby the kingdom of Sicily would be united
with the empire to the danger of the church; for, to say
nothing of other dangers, he would, like his father before
him, be unwilling to prejudice the dignity of the empire by
taking the oaths of fidelity and homage to the pope for the
kingdom of Sicily. And it is no answer to this to say that
he would later oppose the church if we deprived him of the
empire, for it is not we who are depriving him of his empire,
but his uncle [Philip] who has attempted to seize not only
the empire, but his maternal possessions as well, while we
have been defending them for him at great expense and with
great labor.
As to Philip, it does not seem lawful to oppose his election.
In deciding the legality of elections, account has to be taken
of the zeal, the rank, and the number of the electors. It is
not easy to determine the zeal, but, in respect to the other
considerations, it is clear that Philip was elected by many
princes of high rank, and that many others have since given
him their support. Therefore his election seems to be legal,
and not to be opposed. It would seem also that it is not
proper for us to oppose his election, for we would appear
thereby to be taking revenge for our injuries, if, because his
father [Frederick I] and his brother [Henry VI] persecuted
the church, we should persecute him and visit upon him the
punishment incurred by the sins of others; whereas our Lord
has said: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you" [Matt. 5:44]. It would seem also not to be
expedient to oppose his election. To oppose a man so strong
in wealth and supporters is like battling with the torrent with
the bare arms. We would only make an enemy of him and
create even greater strife in the church. We ought rather to
seek peace and pursue it, which we could do by supporting
him. But on the other hand it seems lawful to oppose his
election, for he was excommunicated lawfully and in solemn
form by our predecessor. Lawfully, because he had seized the
lands of St. Peter [Tuscany], and ravaged and burned them,
refusing to make satisfaction after being warned to do so
once and again by our brothers; in solemn form, for it was
done at mass in the church of St. Peter on a great feast-day,
and he himself recognized the validity of the excommunication
by sending a messenger to us to beseech absolution, and
by having himself absolved later after his election, by our
legate, although contrary to our commands. So it is evident
that he was elected while under sentence of excommunication,
and some believe that he is not yet released from it. For in
giving him absolution, the former bishop of Sutri did not
observe the conditions laid down by us; namely, that Philip
should first release the archbishop of Salerno from captivity,
and should then be freed from the necessity of coming to
Rome for absolution if he would take oath publicly to obey
us in respect to the deeds for which he had been excommunicated,
and then only should be given absolution. But
the bishop of Sutri attempted to absolve him secretly while
the said archbishop was still a prisoner, and without requiring
any oath at all; for which disobedience he was deprived
of his bishopric by us and ended his days in a monastery.
Moreover, since we have frequently excommunicated Markwald
and all other German and Italian supporters of Philip,
Philip himself, the author of their sins, is surely subject to
the same sentence. Moreover, it is notorious that he swore
fidelity to the youth [Frederick], and yet has seized his kingdom
and tried to seize the empire; therefore he is guilty of
perjury. It is objected that we have already declared such
oath to be illegal, and that he is not guilty of perjury in not
keeping it, because we have said it ought not to be kept. But
even if the oath was unlawful, he should not have broken it
on his own authority, but should first have consulted us, after
the example of the children of Israel, in the case of the oath
which they swore to Gibeon; for although the oath had been
won from them by fraud they did not break it of their own
accord, but decided to consult the Lord. Moreover since
whatever is done against the conscience leads to hell (according
to the words of the apostle: "Whatsoever is not of
faith is sin" [Rom. 14:23]), and since Philip excuses himself
in this matter by saying that he would not have taken
the kingdom if he had not known that otherwise some other
persons would have seized it, it is clear that he believed he
ought to have kept the oath, and that in violating it he went
against his own conscience. So it seems that we ought to
oppose him and resist his attempt to hold the empire, since
he is legally under excommunication and is guilty of perjury.
It appears also that we may properly oppose his election, for
by his succession, brother will be succeeding brother, just as
formerly son succeeded father when Frederick handed on the
crown to his son [Henry VI] and Henry tried to do the same
for his son [Frederick II]; and thus the empire tends to
become hereditary, the abuse becoming law by long custom.
Also it appears expedient to oppose him, for he is a persecutor,
and of a race of persecutors, and if we do not oppose
him now we shall be arming our enemy against ourselves.
As for Otto, at first it does not seem lawful to favor him,
because he was elected by only a few electors; it does not
seem fitting, because we should have the appearance of supporting
him out of hate to another; it does not seem expedient,
because in comparison to the other his party is small
and weak. But there are better reasons on the other side.
In the first place, the rank of the electors and the fitness of
the candidate must be considered, as well as the number of
electors; and Otto was elected by as many or more of those
princes that have the best right to elect the emperor, and is
himself much better fitted to rule than is Philip. Then
again the Lord visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate him; that is, upon those that continue in the evil way
of their fathers, and Philip has certainly persisted in the
wicked persecution of the church which his father began.
Finally, although we ought not to return evil for evil, but
ought rather to bless them that curse us, yet we should not
return good for injury to those who persist in their wickedness
or put weapons in the hands of those who rage against
us, for God himself exalted the lowly to overthrow the
mighty. Therefore it is lawful, proper, and expedient for
the pope to favor the election of Otto.
Far be it from us that we should defer to man rather than
to God, or that we should fear the countenance of the powerful,
since, according to the apostle, we should abstain not
only from evil, but also from all appearance of evil [1 Thess.
5:22]. For it is written: "Cursed be the man that trusteth
in man, and maketh flesh his arm" [Jer. 17:5]. On the
foregoing grounds, then, we decide that the youth should not
at present be given the empire; we utterly reject Philip for
his manifest unfitness, and we order his usurpation to be
resisted by all. As to the rest, we have commanded our
legate to persuade the princes either to choose some suitable
person or to refer the matter to us for final decision. If they
cannot come to a decision, since we have waited long, have
frequently urged them to agree, have instructed them as to
our desires by letters and legates [we shall take the matter
into our own hands], that we may not seem to foster discord,
and that we may say with Hezekiah: "There shall be peace
and truth in my days" [Is. 39:8], and that we may not be
forced, like Peter, to deny the truth, which is Christ, by following
afar off, to see the end [Matt. 26:58]. But since the
affair will not brook delay, and since Otto is not only himself
devoted to the church, but comes from devout ancestors on
both sides (on his mother’s side from the kings of England,
and on his father’s from the dukes of Saxony, all of whom
were faithful servants of the holy see, especially his great-grandfather
the emperor Lothar, who twice came down to
Apulia on behalf of the papacy and died in the service of the
Roman church), therefore we decree that he [Otto] ought to
be accepted and supported as king, and ought to be given the
crown of the empire, after the rights of the Roman church
have been secured.
M. G. LL. 4to, IV, 2, no. 1.
About 1200 Europe was divided into two hostile camps, as is
apparent from this and the following number. They also show the
parties to this struggle which culminated in the battle of Bouvines,
1214.
Philip, by the grace of God, king of the Romans, Augustus.
Let all men know that because of the love which existed
between our father, Frederick [I] and our brother, Henry
[VI], emperors of the Romans, and Philip, king of France,
and for the sake of peace, and for the public good, we have
made the following peace with the said Philip, king of
France.
(1) We will aid him especially against Richard, king of
England, and his nephew, Otto [IV], and Baldwin of Flanders,
and Adolf, archbishop of Cologne, and against all his
other enemies. We will aid him in good faith and without
treachery, whenever the opportunity is offered, if it is not
against our honor.
(2) If any of our subjects wrongs him, or his kingdom,
we will warn him to make reparation within forty days after
we hear of it. If we are in Italy, the bishop of Metz shall
warn him. If he does not make good the damage which he
has inflicted on the king or his realm within the forty days,
the said king may take vengeance on him and we will aid
him to do so.
(3) We will not keep in our realm any vassal, whether lay
or cleric, of the king of France, contrary to the will of the
said king.
(4) The said king, whenever he wishes, may take vengeance
on the count of Flanders, by attacking the lands of the said
count which he holds in the empire, whether they are fiefs
or allodial lands.
(5) We promise in good faith that, if we learn that anyone
is trying to injure the king of France or his realm, we will
try to prevent him from doing so. If we cannot, we will
inform the king of France about it....
M. G. LL. 4to, IV, 2, no. 25.
See introductory note to no. 131.
John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland,
duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, etc.
... We wish all to know that, in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ, we have made a league with our beloved
nephew, Otto, by the grace of God illustrious king of the
Romans, Augustus, for the purpose of guarding and defending
his empire and his rights, and of giving him faithful
counsel and aid in maintaining his rights. By this league
all quarrels and differences which existed between us have
been settled and we have mutually pardoned each other....
Migne, 217, col. 295 ff; M. G. LL. folio, II, p. 208.
In the beginning of the war between Philip of Suabia and Otto IV,
it seemed that Philip would easily be the victor. But things began
to go against him and toward the end of 1202, he secretly sent messengers
to the pope to see what terms he could secure. Innocent was
at least willing to negotiate and sent Martin to him to discuss the
situation. In the presence of Martin, Philip drew up the concessions
which he was willing to make. These concessions were not sufficient
for Innocent, and, besides, Otto IV began to have greater success in
the field against Philip. So Innocent repudiated what Martin had
done and gave his support to Otto again. But the success of Otto
was brief. In 1204–5, Philip began to prevail over Otto, who soon
found himself without support. Then Innocent, deserting Otto for
his more successful rival, renewed the negotiations with Philip. In
1208 they agreed to a treaty, but its terms were not made public,
and the negotiations were not entirely completed when Philip was
murdered.
I, Philip, king of the Romans, Augustus, etc. Before
Martin, Camaldolensian prior, and brother Otto, monk of
Salem, came to me to negotiate about making peace with the
church, I had already vowed to God and to his saints to go
across the sea to liberate the land of promise from the cruelty
of the Gentiles [Turks]; and again after they came and told
me of the peace negotiations and of the concessions which
the pope was willing to make, I vowed and promised to God
and to his saints and to the said prior and brother, representatives
of the pope, that, at a suitable time, in good faith
and without fraud, I would go on a crusade, to the support
of the church and of the empire, and do all I could to
liberate the said land. The following persons were witnesses
of my vow: Diethelm, bishop of Constance, etc. Besides, I
promised that I would do all the following things: I will
restore to all churches all the possessions which my predecessors,
or I, have unjustly seized or held, and I will no longer
disturb them in their possessions. I will cease from all the
abuses which my predecessors have practised toward the
church, as for example, when a bishop or abbot dies, I will
not seize his possessions [spolia]. I will permit the elections
of bishops and other prelates to take place in a canonical
way, and I surrender control in spiritual matters to the pope.
With the help of the pope I will endeavor, as far as my
imperial office will permit, to subject all independent monasteries
to some one of the regular orders, such as the Cistercian,
Camaldolensian, or Premonstratensian. And I will try
to compel the clergy as well as the monks to lead a decorous
life, such as is becoming to their profession. As far as I
can, I will compel advocates and patrons of churches to cease
from oppressing the churches with exactions, such as angariæ
and parangariæ.{75} If God shall subject the empire of the
Greeks to me or to my brother-in-law, I will subject the Greek
church to the Roman church. I will always be a faithful and
devoted son and defender of the Roman church. I will make
a general law and cause it to be observed always and everywhere
in my empire that whoever shall be excommunicated by
the pope shall be under the ban of the empire. Furthermore,
in order that this league of peace and friendship between the
pope and me may be observed forever, and that all grounds
for suspicion may be removed, and that he may always be
to me a most gracious father and I a most faithful son to
him, I will give my daughter to his nephew in marriage, and
any other members of my family, male or female, I will cause
to be joined in marriage to members of his family, as the
pope may desire. I will make full satisfaction to God and
to the church for all my offences, as the pope may command.
These things were done in the presence of the bishop of Constance,
etc.
Migne, 217, cols. 301 ff.
The powerful personality of Innocent III impressed itself deeply
on the young king, Frederick II. The boy was truly devoted to
Innocent, who was his guardian, and was willing to do whatever the
pope required of him. In 1213 he wrote the following letter to
Innocent in which he concedes practically everything for which the
popes had been struggling. If the emperor had kept these promises,
there would have been no further contest between the papacy and
the empire. But as he grew older, and became conscious of his
position, and learned what the imperial claims were, he gradually
reasserted them and so renewed the conflict which ended in the
destruction of his family.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick
II, etc.... To you, most holy father, and to all your
successors, and to the holy Roman church, who has been a
true mother to us, with a humble heart and devout spirit we
will always show all obedience, honor, and reverence, such
as our ancestors, catholic kings and emperors, have shown
your predecessors. And in order that our devotion to you
may be shown to be greater than theirs we will pay you
greater obedience, honor, and reverence than they did. Wishing
therefore to abolish that abuse which some of our predecessors
are said to have practised, we grant that the election
of bishops may be free and canonical, so that he whom the
whole chapter, or the majority of it, may elect may be established
over the vacant church, provided there is nothing in the
canon law against his election. Appeals in all ecclesiastical
matters may freely be made to Rome, and no one shall attempt
to interfere with them. We also will cease from that
abuse which our predecessors practised, and will no longer
seize the property [spolia] of deceased bishops or of vacant
churches. Jurisdiction in all spiritual matters we yield to you
and the other bishops, that those things which are Cæsar’s may
be rendered to Cæsar, and those which are God’s to God.
Moreover we will give our best help and aid in the destruction
of heresy. We grant to the Roman church the free and undisturbed
possession of all those lands which she has recovered
from our predecessors who had despoiled her of them. If
there are any such lands which she has not yet succeeded
in recovering, we will, with all our strength, aid her to
recover them; and if any of them shall fall into our hands
we will freely restore them to her. In this we understand
that the following lands are included: All the land from
Radicofano to Ceperano, the march of Ancona, the duchy of
Spoleto, the land of the countess Matilda, the county of
Bertinoro, the exarchate of Ravenna, the Pentapolis, with
the other lands lying adjacent to them, as described in many
documents given by kings and emperors from the time of
Ludwig, in which it is said that these lands shall belong
forever to the jurisdiction and control of the Roman church.
And whenever we shall be called by the pope to come and
receive the imperial crown or to render any service to the
church, we will receive from them fodrum and other entertainment
only as the pope shall give his consent. As a devoted
son and catholic prince we will aid the Roman Catholic
church to keep and defend the kingdom of Sicily and all
other rights which she possesses....
Migne, 217, cols. 305 f; M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 228 f; Böhmer-Ficker, no. 866;
Doeberl, V, no. 13 b.
The pope had with difficulty succeeded in maintaining his ownership
of Sicily. Now a new danger was threatening. He feared that,
if Sicily should be held by the emperor, it would lead to the revival
of the imperial claims to Sicily. In order to prevent this he persuaded
Frederick II to promise that as soon as he should be crowned
emperor he would resign Sicily to his little son, Henry.
To his most holy father in Christ, Innocent, bishop of the
holy Roman church, Frederick, by the grace of God and of
Innocent king of the Romans, Augustus, and king of Sicily,
offers due obedience in all things, and reverence with filial
subjection.
Desiring to provide for the welfare of both the Roman
church and the kingdom of Sicily, we firmly promise that as
soon as we shall be crowned emperor we will release from
our paternal authority our son Henry, whom we, at your
command, have had crowned king [of Sicily], and we will
entirely relinquish all the kingdom of Sicily on both sides
of the strait [of Messina] to be held by him from the Roman
church alone, just as we have held it from her. From that
time we will neither regard nor call ourselves king of Sicily,
but until our son becomes of age we will have the kingdom
ruled by some suitable person who shall in all respects be
subject to the Roman church, because the government of that
kingdom is known to belong to her. We promise to do this
because, if we should become emperor and at the same time
be king of Sicily, it might be inferred that the kingdom of
Sicily belonged to the empire. And such an inference would
do injury to the Roman church as well as to our heirs. In
order that this our promise may be carried into effect we have
caused a golden seal to be affixed to this document.
M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 236 f; Böhmer-Ficker, no. 114; Doeberl, V, no. 14.
Frederick II had agreed that Sicily and Germany should never be
held by the same person, but in 1220 he was scheming to have his
son Henry [VII] elected and crowned king of Germany. Now Henry
[VII] was already king of Sicily. If he were to be elected king of
Germany, he would, in accordance with his father’s oath, be compelled
to resign the crown of Sicily. But this Frederick did not
intend that he should do. Frederick’s pretext for having his son
made king of Germany was that he could not go on a crusade without
leaving his son as king to care for the government of Germany
in his absence. His real purpose was to evade his oath to the pope
and secure both crowns in the possession of his family. In spite of
the protests of the pope, Frederick secured the election and coronation
of his son. He bought the aid of the German clergy by granting
them large regalian rights. These concessions which he made to the
clergy bought their support for the moment and made it impossible
for the pope to proceed to extreme measures against him for having
his son crowned king of Germany, contrary to his oath. The policy
which Frederick followed here was ruinous to the German crown.
He made of each ecclesiastical prince a little king in fact, though
not in name, thus stripping the crown of its rights and powers.
For the logical and ruinous effects of this policy on the royal power,
see the Golden Bull, no. 160.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick
II, by the grace of God king of the Romans, Augustus, and
king of Sicily.
We bear in grateful remembrance the fidelity of the ecclesiastical
princes to us, and their help in raising us to the empire,
and supporting us in that station, and in electing our
son Henry as king, and we propose to promote their interests
as they have promoted ours, and to support them as they have
supported us.
Therefore since certain injurious customs, or rather abuses,
have grown up during the long conflicts of the empire (which
now by the favor of God have ceased), in the way of new
tolls, the minting of coins which led to confusion by their
similarity to existing coins, private wars of advocates, and
other evils without number, we now remove these abuses by
the following decrees:
- We promise that we will never henceforth lay claim
to the personal property of a prelate at his death [the right
to the spolia], but that, if a prelate dies intestate, his possessions
shall go to his successors, and that no layman shall lay
claim to them on any pretext whatsoever. If the prelate
made a will it shall be valid in the law.
- We will never grant any new tolls or new mints within
the territory or jurisdiction of any one of the princes except
by his consent and desire. We will preserve and defend the
ancient tolls and mints which have been granted to their
churches, neither infringing these rights ourselves nor permitting
anyone else to do so. We forbid anyone to cheapen
or confuse the coinage of the princes by making coins of
similar appearance.
- We will never admit to citizenship in our cities the
subjects of any of the ecclesiastical princes, who have left the
services of their lord for any cause. We desire that the same
consideration be shown by the ecclesiastical princes to one
another, and by the lay princes to the ecclesiastics.
- We forbid advocates to injure the property of churches
committed to their care. If they do so they shall restore the
damage twofold, and pay 100 marks of silver to the royal
treasury as a fine.
- If the vassal of any of the ecclesiastical princes has
been convicted of offence against his lord by feudal law and
has been ejected from his fief, we will protect the lord in his
retention of the fief, and if he wishes to give the fief to us
we will accept it without regard to the love or hate of anyone.
If the fief of an ecclesiastical lord has become vacant by the
above process or by the death of the holder, we will never lay
claim to it unless it is given to us by the will and desire of
the lord, and we will defend him in his possession of it.
- If any of the ecclesiastical princes has excommunicated
anyone and has notified us of this by word of mouth or letter
or by reliable messengers, we will refuse to have any dealings
with the excommunicated person. Such a person shall be
deprived of his rights before the law, this deprivation not
freeing him from the obligation of answering the accusations
against him, but destroying his right to bear testimony or
give judgment, or to bring suit against others.
- And since the secular sword is intended to support the
spiritual sword, we declare that our ban shall follow upon the
excommunication pronounced by an ecclesiastical prince, if
the excommunicated person is not absolved within six weeks;
the ban of the empire shall not be revoked until the excommunication
is withdrawn.
- We have promised also to support and defend the
princes by our authority in all cases, and they have promised
on their faith to aid us to the best of their ability against any
man who resists our authority.
- We decree also that no buildings, castles, or cities shall
be erected upon ecclesiastical lands through the interests
of the advocate or through any other pretext. If such are
erected without the consent of those to whom the lands belong
they shall be destroyed by the royal authority.
- Following the example of our ancestor, the emperor
Frederick of blessed memory, we forbid any of our
officials to claim jurisdiction in the matter of tolls, mints,
or other rights, in any of the cities of the ecclesiastical
princes, except during the time of the public diet and eight
days before and eight days after. During that time the officials
of the emperor shall exercise jurisdiction in accordance
with the customs of the city and the laws established by its
prince. If we come into any of their cities at any other time,
we will not exercise any rights in it, but the authority of the
prince or the lord of the city shall continue unimpaired.
- Finally, since the acts of men are wont to sink into
oblivion through the lapse of time, we hereby decree that
these benefits and privileges shall be perpetually granted to
the churches, and that our successors shall preserve them and
enforce them on behalf of the church....
M. G. LL. folio, II, p. 237; Böhmer-Ficker, no. 1118; Doeberl, V, p. 150.
The ecclesiastical princes promptly demanded that the emperor’s
concessions to them (no. 136) be put into force. To illustrate the
effect of his grant, we give two documents, one in response to complaints
about some new tolls established by the count of Gelder, the
other to the patriarch of Aquileia who had presented a long list of
grievances for redress. Frederick revoked the charter which he had
given the count of Gelder and gave the patriarch a charter confirming
him in the possession of many regalian rights (no. 138). This
latter document shows that the patriarch was in the possession of
a high degree of sovereignty. It also throws light on the movement
in the cities, which were throwing off the rule of their lords and
establishing local self-government (see section X).
Frederick, etc. We wish all to know that while we were
holding a diet at Frankfort the following decision was rendered
with the consent of the princes, namely: That we have
not the right to empower anyone to establish new tolls or
mints to the damage or disadvantage of another. Since we
have heard many complaints about the tolls and mint which
the count of Gelder has established, as he says, with our permission,
we inform you all that we do not grant him the
permission for these tolls and this mint. We forbid him to
interfere in any way with the tolls at Arnheim, or Oesterbeke,
or Lobith, or in any other place on the Rhine, or with any
mint. We do this regardless of the fact that he says he has
our permission, and regardless of any letters, from us or any
of our predecessors, which he may have.
Böhmer-Ficker, no. 1252; Doeberl, V, pp. 150 ff.
See introduction to no. 137.
Frederick II, etc.... We wish all to know that in
a full diet a decision was rendered by our princes that (1)
the patriarch of Aquileia has the authority to take whatever
action he wishes in regard to establishing a market in any
of the cities, towns, villages, and in all other places, where
he has jurisdiction. (2) He may put under the ban any of
his subjects, and also release them from it. (3) The cities,
towns, and villages, which are under his jurisdiction, have
no right to elect their rulers, or consuls, or rectors, contrary
to the will of the patriarch. (4) No city, commune, or
organization of any kind, whether lay or cleric, over which
the said patriarch has jurisdiction, has the right to interfere
with the bishopric after the death of the bishop, or with any
of the things which belong to the bishopric. (5) No one has
the right to establish new tolls, mints, or markets, in the
lands over which the patriarch has jurisdiction, without his
consent. (6) No one shall build mills on any of the streams
without his consent. (7) No official shall confer freedom
on anyone, or sell or alienate any vineyards, fields, meadows,
roads, or anything else which belongs to the regalia, without
the patriarch’s consent. (8) The Venetians have no right
to levy a tax on the lands or anything else belonging to the
patriarch, or to compel his vassals to take an oath of fidelity
to them. (9) No one under the jurisdiction of the patriarch,
whether free, vassal, or ministerial, has the right to make a
league or alliance without the consent of the patriarch. If
any such league is made, it is invalid and the parties to it
shall be proscribed. (10) No one has the right to establish
new cities, towns, or markets, on land which is under the
jurisdiction of the patriarch, without his consent.
M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 291 ff; Böhmer-Ficker, no. 1965; Doeberl, V, no. 17.
Henry [VII], being a mere child when he was crowned, was under
the control of regents until 1229, when he began to rule in his own
name. But he fell under the influence of princes who persuaded him
to grant them many regalian rights. When Frederick II came into
Germany, 1231, the princes asked him to confirm the grants which
his son had made them. He consented to do so and the following
document was given them. Like the grant to the ecclesiastical
princes in 1220, it diminished the rights of the crown and increased
the independence of the princes.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick
II, by divine mercy emperor of the Romans, Augustus, king
of Jerusalem, king of Sicily.
(Introduction stating the occasion for the statute, which confirms
the grants of his son Henry.)
- No new castles or cities shall be erected by us or by
anyone else to the prejudice of the princes.
- New markets shall not be allowed to interfere with the
interests of former ones.
- No one shall be compelled to attend any market against
his will.
- Travellers shall not be compelled to leave the old highways,
unless they desire to do so.
- We will not exercise jurisdiction within the ban-mile
of our cities.
- Each prince shall possess and exercise in peace according
to the customs of the land the liberties, jurisdiction, and
authority over counties and hundreds which are in his own
possession or are held as fiefs from him.
- Centgrafs shall receive their office from the prince or
from the person who holds the land as a fief.
- The location of the hundred court shall not be changed
without the consent of the lord.
- No nobleman shall be amenable to the hundred court.
- The citizens who are known as phalburgii [i.e.,
persons or corporations existing outside the city, but possessing
political rights within it] shall be expelled from the
cities.
- Payments of wine, money, grain, and other rents,
which free peasants have formerly agreed to pay [to the
emperor], are hereby remitted, and shall not be collected
henceforth.
- The serfs of princes, nobles, ministerials, and churches
shall not be admitted to our cities.
- Lands and fiefs of princes, nobles, ministerials, and
churches, which have been seized by our cities, shall be restored
and shall never again be taken.
- The right of the princes to furnish safe-conduct within
the lands which they hold as fiefs from us shall not be
infringed by us or by anyone else.
- Inhabitants of our cities shall not be compelled by
our judges to restore any possessions which they may have
received from others before they moved there.
- Notorious, condemned, and proscribed persons shall
not be admitted to our cities; if they have been, they shall
be driven out.
- We will never cause any money to be coined in the
land of any of the princes which shall be injurious to his
coinage.
- The jurisdiction of our cities shall not extend beyond
their boundaries, unless we possess special jurisdiction in the
region.
- In our cities the plaintiff shall bring suit in the court
of the accused.
- Lands or property which are held as fiefs shall not
be pawned without the consent of the lord from whom they
are held.
- No one shall be compelled to aid in the fortifying of
cities unless he is legally bound to render that service.
- Inhabitants of our cities who hold lands outside shall
pay to their lords or advocates the regular dues and services,
and they shall not be burdened with unjust exactions.
- If serfs, freemen subject to advocates, or vassals of
any lord, shall dwell within any of our cities, they shall not
be prevented by our officials from going to their lords.
140–142. Treaty of San Germano, 1230.
Huillard-Bréholles, Hist. Dipl. Fred. II, III, pp. 210 f; Böhmer-Ficker, no. 1799;
Doeberl, V, no. 16 d.
The chief cause of the first quarrel between Frederick and the pope
was Frederick’s refusal to keep his vow to go on a crusade. In 1215,
on the day he was crowned king, he vowed to make a crusade, and
again in 1220, when crowned emperor, he renewed the vow. For
various reasons he several times put off going. Each time the pope
was deeply disappointed, but eventually accepted the emperor’s excuses.
Again in 1225 he renewed his vow and set the time of his
departure in August, 1227. But the pope had lost confidence in
Frederick, as well as his patience. He stipulated that if the emperor
did not keep his word, he should be excommunicated. Frederick
sailed Aug. 8, 1227, but returned to land two days later. On this
account Gregory IX excommunicated him, Sept. 29, 1227. Frederick
published an apology for his conduct and called a crusade to take
place the following May. Without seeking to have the excommunication
removed, he sailed in June, 1228. For this the pope renewed
the excommunication. While Frederick was absent in Palestine, his
imperial vicar in Italy came into actual conflict with the papal officials
about matters of government. When Frederick returned from
Palestine in 1230, the pope was hardly prepared to carry on the war.
So through the intercession of various princes the peace of San
Germano was brought about. The preliminary agreement is found
in no. 140. The papal stipulations are contained in no. 141. In order
to convince the pope of his good intentions and to renew friendly
relations with him, Frederick made him a visit soon after the peace
was established. The pope wrote a friend an account of this visit,
which is found in no. 142.
In the name of the Lord, amen. Bertold, patriarch of
Aquileia; Eberhard, archbishop of Salzburg; Siegfied, bishop
of Regensburg; Leopold, duke of Austria and Styria; Bernard,
duke of Carinthia; Otto, duke of Meran; by the grace
of God princes of the empire. Know all people by this writing
that our mother the holy Roman church, and our lord,
Frederick, emperor of the Romans, Augustus, king of Jerusalem
and Sicily, have agreed to enter into negotiations for the
purpose of discovering some means by which the cities of
Gaeta and Sant’ Agatha and other cities of Sicily which have
gone over to the church may be restored to the empire without
detracting from the honor of the church. The time
within which these negotiations shall be completed is limited
to one year, and the church promises to do all in her power
to discover the means of arranging the transfer within that
time. If, however, no agreement is reached within the year,
the church and the empire are to appoint each two representatives
who shall try to reach a settlement. If they are unable
to agree, they shall choose a fifth person, and the majority
shall decide. The emperor has caused Thomas, count of
Acerra, to swear for him that he, the emperor, will not molest
the said lands and persons nor permit them to be molested
during the course of the negotiations, and that he will accept
the terms agreed upon by the holy Roman church and the emperor
or by their respective representatives. Know also that
the emperor has pardoned the Germans, Lombards, Tuscans,
Sicilians, French, and all others who adhered to the church
party against him, and has caused the count of Acerra to swear
for him that he will never molest them nor allow them to be
molested on account of the assistance which they gave the
Roman church against him, but that he will keep true peace
with them and with the church. The emperor also remits all
sentences, decrees, and bans issued by him or by anyone else
because of this quarrel. He promises also that he will not
invade or waste the lands of the church in the duchy [of
Rome] or the march [of Ancona], as set forth in other documents
under the imperial seal. We have pledged ourselves
on the holy gospels to see to it that the emperor does not violate
these conditions. If he does, after allowing him a certain
time to make satisfaction (namely: three months in
Sicily, four months in Italy, and five months outside of
Italy), we will assist the church at her request against him
until he shall make satisfaction. If the emperor fails to appoint
representatives or prevents them from going to the conference,
we will hold ourselves bound to assist the church,
as said above. But if the church refuses to appoint representatives
or prevents them from attending the conference
we shall not be bound by this oath.
Huillard-Bréholles, III, pp. 218 f; Böhmer-Ficker, no. 1817; Doeberl, pp. 66 f.
See introductory note to no. 140.
We, John, by the grace of God Sabine bishop, and Thomas,
cardinal priest of the title of Santa Sabina, legates of the
apostolic see, by the authority of the pope, make the following
demands of the emperor. 1. He shall not prevent free
elections and confirmations in the churches and monasteries
of the kingdom. 2. He shall make satisfaction to the counts
of Celano and to the sons of Rainald of Aversa, according to
the terms of the agreement, in those things for which the
church became security. 3. Likewise he shall make satisfaction
to the Templars and Hospitallers and other ecclesiastical
persons, for the property which he has taken from them,
and the injuries and losses which he has inflicted upon them,
and the terms of this satisfaction shall be fixed later by the
church. 4. Likewise for eight months from the day of his
absolution he shall furnish suitable persons under oath as
security to the church. The church will name these persons
from among the princes, counts, and barons of Germany, and
the communes of Lombardy, Tuscany, the mark, and Romagnola,
and the marquises, counts, and barons of those territories,
and they shall stand as security to the church for the
conduct of the emperor. If he does not obey the commands
of the church, or breaks the peace, or seizes or devastates the
land of the church or of her vassals, they shall aid the church
against him. The church will not proceed against him at
once if he commits a wrong. But if he is in the kingdom of
Sicily, he may have three months; if he is in Italy, he may
have four months; if he is outside of Italy, he may have five
months, in which to make good any wrong he may do. Those
who are security for the emperor shall give the church sealed
documents containing their promise to aid her. The emperor
shall, within fifteen days, send a messenger to the papal court
to receive the names of those whom the church wishes as
security. All the above things are stipulated. But we leave
it to his honor to fulfill all that he has promised about the
crusade, and to obey the church in this matter. If through
preoccupation or inattention we have omitted anything which
we should have included in the above stipulations, the pope
shall have the right to add it.
They also declared that the pope wished to be reimbursed
for all the expenses to which the church had been put outside
of the kingdom in preserving her liberties and the patrimony
of St. Peter.
The legates also pronounced a sentence of excommunication
on the emperor which should go into effect at once if the
emperor should fail to observe any of the above stipulations....
Huillard-Bréholles, III, p. 228; Böhmer-Ficker-Winkelmann, no. 6818; Doeberl,
V, no. 16 f.
See introductory note to no. 140.
Gregory, etc. Since we know that you, as an especially
dear son, are pleased to hear good news about us, we have
determined to inform you by letter of the good fortune which
has befallen us in the last few days. The other day [Sept.
1] our most dear son in Christ, the illustrious emperor of
the Romans [Frederick II], came with great pomp and a
magnificent retinue to visit us. He manifested a devotion
which was truly filial. His humility before us and his reverence
for us as the vicar of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles,
were as great as any of his predecessors have shown to
any of ours. As an evidence of his favor and of his attitude
toward us, the next day after his arrival he came to see us in
our own home, not with imperial ceremony, but, as it were,
in the simplicity of a private person. He took dinner with
us and we were surprised and delighted with his kindness
and devotion. The day was rendered joyful and memorable
by the pleasure which we both received from taking dinner
together. After dinner we talked and laughed about all sorts
of matters, and we discovered that he was quite ready to
obey our wishes in all respects, in regard both to religious
matters and to the patrimony of St. Peter. By this we were
greatly comforted in the Lord, and we thought that we ought
to let you, first of all, share in our comfort and joy. We
hope you will make this known to all those about you. We
command you to make it known to our subjects in Campania
and to encourage them to remain faithful to St. Peter and
to us. Strengthen them as much as you can, and urge them
to be constant and courageous. As we have told you of the
promises of Frederick, we shall keep you informed of the way
in which he fulfils them.
143–144. The Final Struggle between Gregory IX and Frederick II.
Huillard-Bréholles, V, p. 249; Böhmer-Ficker, no. 2401; Doeberl, V, no. 22 e.
The peace of San Germano was not kept long. The fundamental
principles of pope and emperor conflicted with each other. No peace
between them could be lasting so long as the primary question of
supremacy was not settled. Frederick soon began to put forth imperial
claims in various matters, and the pope resisted them. The
struggle grew more and more bitter and they both came into such
a state of mutual exasperation and irritation that any trifle brought
forth long complaints and sharp reproofs. Of the many vigorous
documents which concern their final break we give only two. Gregory
wrote to certain bishops ordering them to take the emperor to task
on a long list of charges. They did so, and the emperor refuted them,
charge by charge. These papal charges and imperial denials are
given first. Gregory was not convinced by the emperor’s answers.
The document by which he excommunicated Frederick is given in
no. 144.
To the most holy father in Christ, Gregory [IX] by the
grace of God pope, his devoted bishops of Würzburg, Worms,
Vercelli, and Parma, humbly commend themselves and offer
due and sincere reverence.
We reverently received your letter in which you ordered
us to remonstrate with our lord the Roman emperor [Frederick
II] about certain matters, a list of which was enclosed
in your letter. Although we hesitated to do so because we
are his subjects and were not sure that he would patiently
receive our remonstrances, nevertheless we reverently went to
him and set forth all the things which were contained in your
letter to us and also in the large number of letters which you
had written to him. God who rules and directs the hearts
of kings as he will brought it about that he granted us an
audience and listened to our words with great readiness and
humility. He also called together the venerable archbishops
of Palermo and Messina, the bishops of Cremona, Lodi,
Novara, and Modena, and the abbot of San Vincenzo, and
a great number of friars, both Dominicans and Franciscans,
and in the presence of us all he responded to each one of the
charges in their order as is set forth below. And in accordance
with your command, we send you a faithful statement
of his answers.
1. The papal charge. The churches of Monreale, Cefalu,
Catania, and Squillace, and the monasteries of Mileto, Santa
Eufemia, Terra Maggiore, and San Giovanni in Lamæ, have
been robbed of almost all of their possessions. Likewise
nearly all bishoprics, churches, and monasteries have been
unjustly deprived of their liberties and prerogatives. The
emperor’s answer. In regard to the complaints of the
churches, which are stated in a general way, orders have been
given that certain things, done in ignorance, should be corrected
at once; and others have already been corrected by
our faithful messenger and notary, William de Tocco. He
was sent especially for this purpose and he was ordered to
go first to the papal court, and, after consultation with the
archbishop of Messina, to follow his counsel in revoking all
the things which he found were done unjustly. He had
scarcely entered the kingdom when he found certain lands
in the possession of members of the imperial family [ministerials].
He dispossessed them and restored the lands to
their former owners. If he should find any lands were held
illegally by the emperor, he was ordered to restore them to
their owners. And when the pope learned of what he had
done he approved the emperor’s action in sending him and
the diligence of the messenger. Since the kingdom is divided
into several provinces, the messenger has not yet been able
to go through them all. Hence his work is not yet done, and
there are still some things to be corrected. In regard to the
church of Monreale, the emperor declared that it had not
suffered anything through him, unless it wished to hold him
responsible for the devastations committed by the Saracens
who had ravaged its lands. But they recognize neither the
emperor nor the church. Nor had they spared anyone or
anything. They had devastated the land clear up to the
walls of the church, and they had spared no Sicilian. In
fact, they had left scarcely a Christian alive in all that territory.
The emperor declares that with great difficulty and
expense he has exterminated them from Sicily. If he has
done the churches a wrong in this, it is at least his only one.
Nor has he tried to injure them.
In regard to the church at Cefalu, the emperor said that
he had done no wrong, because the kings of Sicily have always
held the castle of Cefalu, which is a strong citadel in the
mark of the Saracens, and commands the sea. In the days
of Innocent III the bishop of Cefalu had got possession of it,
not legally but through an uprising. But Innocent ordered
his legate who was then in Sicily caring for the interests of
Frederick, who was still a child, to take the castle from the
bishop and have it kept for Frederick until he should come
of age. It has not been restored to the bishop nor should
it be, because he has no right to it. Even if he had a right
to it, it should not be restored to him, because, according to
common report, he is a forger, a homicide, a traitor, and a
schismatic. Therefore even if he had a right to it, it should
not be restored to him. In the same way he said he was
innocent of the charges about the church of Catania, unless
he were held responsible for the conduct of some of the men
from the imperial domain, who, in time of war, had gone
to Catania to find a place that was secure and fertile. The
emperor said that he had recalled them to his domains by
a general edict of the realm, by which the counts, barons,
and other men of the realm recalled the men belonging to
their domains, no matter where they should find them,
whether on the lands of the church or in the imperial cities.
Besides, in regard to these things, the statute was passed and
the time set at the request of the pope, as is clear from the
letters of the patriarch of Antioch and the archbishops of
Palermo and Messina. Likewise the emperor said that an
equitable trade had been made with the churches of Mileto
and Santa Eufemia, and with the abbot and monks of Terra
Maggiore. This trade had been made with the permission
of their clergy and their convents, according to the legal
form, and they to-day hold and possess the things which they
received in exchange. But the village of San Severo was
not wholly the property of the abbot of Terra Maggiore, for
another had certain rights there which he held as a fief from
the empire. It was justly condemned and destroyed, because
the men of that place in the time of an uprising had killed
Paul de Logotheta, the bailiff of the emperor, and seized
the cattle of the emperor. And yet the abbot and his monastery
had received some land in exchange for their share of
this village which had been destroyed. In accordance with
a legal decision the place called Lamæ has been fortified by
the abbot of San Giovanni Rotundo, and according to both
the civil and canon law, suit about it must be brought against
him in the imperial court.
2. The papal charge. The possessions, both movable and
immovable, which had been taken from the Templars and
Hospitallers, have not been restored to them in accordance
with the terms of the agreement which was made. The emperor’s
answer. It is true that by a legal process and in
accordance with an ancient law of the kingdom of Sicily,
fiefs and "burgher lands" have been taken from the said
orders. But they had received those lands from those who
were invading the kingdom and waging war on the emperor.
Besides they furnished the king’s enemies with horses, arms,
food, and wine, and all kinds of provisions, while refusing
to aid the emperor who was still a minor. But other fiefs
and burgher lands have been restored to them which they had
acquired before the death of William II [king of Sicily], or
for which they had a grant from some one of our predecessors.
And some burgher lands which they had bought have been
taken from them in accordance with an ancient law of Sicily,
that without the king’s consent no burgher lands shall be
given to the said orders or left to them as a legacy; but if
such lands are given them, they are bound to sell them within
a year, a month, a week, and a day, to some of the citizens.
This law was passed long ago, because if they were permitted
to buy and accept burgher lands they would in a short time
possess the whole kingdom of Sicily, which they like better
than any other part of the world. And this law is valid beyond
the sea.
3. The papal charge. He does not permit vacant bishoprics
and other churches to be filled, and on this account the
liberty of the church is in danger and the true faith is perishing,
because there is no one to preach the word of God and care
for souls. The emperor’s answer. The emperor wishes and
desires that vacant bishoprics and other churches be filled,
but without infringement on the privileges and rights which
his predecessors have held. He has insisted less than his
predecessors on his privileges, and he has never opposed the
filling of the vacant churches.
4. The papal charge. In regard to taxes and exactions
which are extorted from churches and monasteries contrary
to agreement. The emperor’s answer. Taxes and dues are
assessed on the clergy and ecclesiastical persons, not because
of their ecclesiastical property, but because of their fiefs and
other possessions. And this is in accordance with the common
law and is practised everywhere all over the world.
5. The papal charge. That prelates do not dare proceed
against usurers, because of an imperial edict. The emperor’s
answer. The emperor has published a new general law
against usurers, in accordance with which they are condemned,
and action may be brought against all their possessions.
And this law is read before all prelates, and they are
not prevented by it from proceeding against usurers.
6. The papal charge. That clergymen are seized, imprisoned,
proscribed, and killed. The emperor’s answer. He
knows nothing about any clergymen who have been seized
and imprisoned, except that some have been condemned by
the decision of prelates, according to their crimes. These
have been surrendered to the imperial officials who have seized
them. He knows nothing about clergymen who have been
proscribed except that some have been charged with the crime
of lèse majesté and have been proscribed from the kingdom.
He knows nothing about any clergymen who have been slain
except those who were slain by other clergymen. The church
of Venusa is mourning the death of its prelate who was killed
by one of his monks. In the church of San Vincenzo one
monk killed another. But the monks and the clergy commit
such crimes with impunity, and it is the fault of the church
that they escape all canonical punishment.
7. The papal charge. Churches which are consecrated to
the Lord are profaned and destroyed. The emperor’s answer.
He knows nothing of such churches, unless the pope means
the church of Luceria; but it is said to have fallen down of
itself because of its great age. And the emperor will not
only permit it to be rebuilt, but he will give a good sum to
the bishop for its reconstruction.
8. The papal charge. That he does not permit the
church of Sorana to be rebuilt. The emperor’s answer. He
will permit the church of Sorana to be rebuilt, but not the
town. It shall not be rebuilt as long as he lives, because it
was destroyed in accordance with a legal decision.
9. The papal charge. That contrary to the agreement
those who had supported the church in the time of struggle
between the pope and emperor have been robbed of their
goods and driven out of the country. The emperor’s answer.
Those who adhered to the church in the time of the struggle
against the emperor are living in security in the kingdom,
except those who held some office and are afraid that they
will be compelled to give an account of it, and some others
who have left the kingdom to escape civil and criminal
charges. The emperor will permit them to come back in
safety if they will give an account of their conduct in office
and respond to those who have entered suit against them.
But he will do nothing against them for having adhered to
the church. If the pope complains that the treaty of peace
has not been kept, let him remember that contrary to its
terms and to the judgment of nearly all the friars, he is
holding the city of Castella. For keeping this city to the
detriment of the empire he is receiving money, although the
emperor has expended more than 100,000 silver marks in
aiding him against the Romans. From this the church has
received great advantages, for land has been taken from the
Romans and restored to the church and her liberties have
been recovered and reformed in Rome through the help of
the emperor.
10. The papal charge. That he has seized and now holds
imprisoned the nephew of the king of Tunis who wished to
come to the pope to receive baptism. The emperor’s answer.
That the nephew of the king of Tunis was fleeing from Barbary
to Sicily, not to receive baptism, but to escape his uncle
who was threatening him with death. He is not held captive
but is going about freely in Apulia, and although he is often
urged to be baptized, he steadfastly refuses. If however he
wishes to be baptized, the emperor will receive him with
rejoicing. He has already expressed himself in regard to
this to the archbishops of Palermo and Messina.
11. The papal charge. That the church is humiliated
and insulted by the fact that Peter Saraceno, her faithful
subject, and friar Jordan are held captive. The emperor’s
answer. Peter Saraceno has been seized because he is an
enemy and detractor of the emperor. He has attacked the
emperor in Rome as well as elsewhere. He did not come on
the business of the king of England, but he carried a letter
of the king in order that if he were arrested we might be
led to spare him. But we did not heed this letter because
the king did not know what snares this man had prepared
for us. In regard to the friar Jordan, although he had defamed
the emperor in his sermons, the emperor neither seized
him nor ordered him to be seized. But because some of the
emperor’s faithful subjects knew the friar’s character and
his trickery, and so were sure that if he stayed in the mark
of Treviso and in Lombardy, he would injure the cause of
the emperor, the emperor caused him to be set free and would
have given him over to the archbishop of Messina, if he had
been willing to submit to the said archbishop.
12. The papal charge. The emperor had stirred up sedition
in Rome against the church with the purpose of driving
out the pope and his cardinals, and, contrary to the privileges
and rights of the pope, to destroy the ecclesiastical liberties.
The emperor’s answer. The emperor denies that he stirred
up the sedition in Rome. But he has his faithful subjects
in Rome just as his predecessors, the Roman emperors and
kings of Sicily, had had. And sometimes at the election of
senators, the attempt was made to injure his subjects. Under
these circumstances he had assisted his subjects in their
defence, and he would do so as often as it should be necessary
under similar circumstances. But when the election of a
senator took place harmoniously, there was no rioting, as can
be proved by the testimony of the archbishops of Palermo
and Messina.
13. The papal charge. That the emperor had ordered his
subjects not to permit the papal legate, the bishop of Preneste,
to pass through their territory. The emperor’s answer. The
emperor had never even dreamed of giving such an order,
although he might justly have done so, because the bishop
was his enemy. Although he had been sent by the pope as
a religious man on a religious errand, he had nevertheless at
the command of the pope, as he said, in a treacherous and
wicked manner led a large part of Lombardy to revolt against
the emperor and had done all he could to incite the Lombards
to rebellion.
14. The papal charge. The cause of the crusade is delayed
by him through the quarrel which he has with certain
Lombards, although the church is ready to use all her powers
to secure proper satisfaction from the Lombards for what
they have done against the emperor, and the Lombards themselves
are ready to make satisfaction. The emperor’s answer.
He had often referred that matter to the church, but he had
never received any satisfaction. For the first time, the Lombards
were condemned to furnish 400 knights. But instead
of sending them to aid the emperor, as they should, the pope
used them to make war on the emperor. The second time,
they were condemned to furnish 500 knights, but the pope
declared that they should not be sent to the aid of the emperor,
but that they should be sent on the crusade under the
control and protection of the pope and the church. But not
even this was done. The third time, at the request of the
cardinals, the Sabine bishop and Magister Peter of Capua,
the affair was again referred to the pope exactly as the pope
desired. But afterward the matter was never mentioned
again until the pope learned that the emperor, having been
deceived so many times about it, was preparing to lead an
army from Germany into Italy. And then the pope at once
begged that the matter be referred to him again. And
although the emperor had so often been deceived in submitting
it to the pope, he nevertheless was willing to submit it
to him once more, but a time limit was set and it was stipulated
that it should be decided to the honor of the emperor
and to the advantage of the empire. But the pope was not
willing to accept these conditions, as may be proved by his
letter, although he now says that he was ready to decide the
case in accordance with the rights and honor of the empire.
From this it is apparent that the pope’s letters are contradictory
to each other. And let the pope not pretend that
the emperor, in trying to restore the rights of the empire in
Italy, injured the prospects of the crusade, for the letters
which the emperor wrote in answer to the kings of the world
and to the crusaders in France, who had chosen him as their
leader, will show that he took charge of the crusade and did
not neglect it. He also wrote that he wished to conduct the
whole matter in accordance with the advice of the church....
Finally, the emperor declared that since he had
been absent from the kingdom and did not know the exact
condition of things, if anything had been done injurious to
the church, and had not yet been corrected, he would order
it to be set entirely right, and also because of the great general
good which would come if there were harmony between
him and the church, he would give the church any reasonable
security that he would act in harmony with her,
and use all his powers and means for the honor and advancement
of the Christian church and for the preservation of
her liberties.
Huillard-Bréholles, Hist. Dipl., I, pp. 286 ff; Böhmer-Ficker-Winkelmann,
no. 7226 a; Doeberl, V, no. 22 f.
See introductory note to no. 143.
- By the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own
authority, we excommunicate and anathematize Frederick,
the so-called emperor, because he has incited rebellion in
Rome against the Roman church, for the purpose of driving
the pope and his brothers [the cardinals] from the apostolic
seat, thus violating the dignity and honor of the apostolic
seat, the liberty of the church, and the oath which he swore
to the church.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
ordered his followers to prevent our brother, the venerable
bishop of Preneste, the legal legate, from proceeding on his
mission to the Albigenses, upon which we had sent him for
the preservation of the Catholic faith.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has not allowed the vacancies in certain bishoprics and
churches to be filled, thereby imperilling the liberty of the
church, and destroying the true faith, because in the absence
of the pastor there is no one to declare unto the people the
word of God or to care for their souls....
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because the
clergy of his kingdom are imprisoned, proscribed, and slain,
and because the churches of God are despoiled and profaned.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has not permitted the church of Sorana to be rebuilt.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has seized the nephew of the king of Tunis and kept him
from coming to the Roman church to be baptized.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has imprisoned Peter Saraceno, a Roman noble, who was sent
as a messenger to us by the king of England.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has seized the lands of the churches of Ferrara, Pigogna, and
Bondenum, and the dioceses of Ferrara, Bondenum, and
Lucca, and the land of Sardinia, contrary to the oath which
he swore to the church.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has occupied and wasted the lands of some of the nobles of
his kingdom which were held by the church.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has robbed the churches of Monreale, Cefalu, Catania, Squillace,
and the monasteries of Mileto, Santa Eufemia, Terra
Maggiore, and San Giovanni in Lamæ.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has robbed many bishoprics, churches, and monasteries of his
kingdom of almost all their goods through his unjust trials.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has not entirely restored to the Templars and Hospitallers
the property of which he had despoiled them, as he agreed
to do in the treaty of peace.
- Because he has extorted taxes and other payments
from the churches and monasteries of his kingdom contrary
to the treaty of peace.
- We excommunicate him and anathematize him because
he has compelled the prelates of churches and abbots
of the Cistercian and of other orders to make monthly contributions
for the erection of new castles.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has treated the adherents of the papal party as if they were
under the ban, confiscating their property, exiling them, and
imprisoning their wives and children, contrary to the treaty
of peace.
- We excommunicate and anathematize him because he
has hindered the recovery of the Holy Land and the restoration
of the Roman empire.
We absolve all his subjects from their oaths of fidelity to
him, forbidding them to show him fidelity as long as he is
under excommunication. We shall admonish him again to
give up oppressing and injuring the nobles, the poor, the
widows and orphans, and others of his land, and then we
shall proceed to act ourselves in the matter. For all and
each of these causes, in regard to which we have frequently
admonished him to no purpose, we excommunicate and
anathematize him. In regard to the accusation of heresy
which is made against Frederick, we shall consider and act
upon this in the proper place and time.
Selections from Matthew of Paris, Chronica Majora; Rolls Series, III, pp. 520 f,
p. 527; IV, pp. 474, 634 f; V, pp. 99 f.
A few passages from the chronicle of Matthew of Paris are offered
to illustrate the character of Frederick and to throw a little light
on the great struggle between him and the pope. The last paragraph
is particularly interesting because it indicates that the pope was
becoming conscious that he was meeting with national opposition.
But he evidently misjudged the strength of it. For after overcoming
the empire, the papacy was to succumb to the French king and be
subservient to him for seventy years. And the national opposition
was to grow until it culminated in the great rebellion which has had
many stages but has finally ended in the complete destruction of the
temporal power of the pope.
It was about this time [1238] that evil reports became
current, which blackened the reputation of the emperor Frederick.
It was said that he questioned the catholic faith and
that he had made statements that showed not only that he
was weak in the faith, but that he was indeed a heretic and a
blasphemer. It is not right even to repeat such things, but
it is reported that he said there were three impostors who had
deceived the people of their time for the purpose of gaining
control of the world, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, and that
he made certain absurd remarks about the eucharist. It is
incredible that any sane man should have uttered such terrible
blasphemy. His enemies also said that he believed more
in the religion of Mohammed than in that of Jesus Christ,
and that he kept certain Saracen women as his concubines.
There was a common complaint among the people that the
emperor had for a long time been allied with the Saracens,
and that he was more friendly with them than with Christians.
His enemies, who were always trying to blacken his
character, attempted to prove these statements by many evidences;
whether or not they have sinned in doing this, He
alone knows who knows all things.... In this year
[1239], while the emperor was spending the winter in Italy,
he recovered certain important islands in the Mediterranean
just off the shore of Pisa, the most important acquisition
being the greater and more valuable part of the island of
Sardinia, which belonged to the patrimony of St. Peter.
The emperor, however, asserted that it belonged of old to
the empire, that it had been taken from the empire illegally
by occupation and other wrongful measures and that he now
restored it to the empire. He said: "I have sworn, as is
known to all the world, to recover the dispersed parts of my
empire; and I shall give my best efforts to carrying out my
oath." So he sent his son [Enzio], in spite of the prohibition
of the pope, to receive in his name that portion of the
island that had surrendered to him ... [1245]. When
Frederick heard that the pope had deposed him, he was
terribly enraged, and could scarcely contain himself for his
wrath. Looking fiercely on those who sat around him, he
thundered forth: "That pope has deposed me in his synod
and has taken away my crown. Was there ever such audacity;
was there ever such presumption? Where are the chests that
contain my treasure?" And when these were brought and
opened before him at his command, he said: "See now whether
my crowns are lost." Then taking one of them and putting
it on his head, he stood up, with a threatening look, and spoke
out in a terrible voice from the bitterness of his heart: "I
have not yet lost my crown, nor shall the pope and all his
synod take it from me without a bloody struggle. And has
his presumption been so boundless that he has dared to depose
me from the empire, me, a great prince, who have no
superior, indeed no equal? So much the better for my cause;
for before this I was bound to obey him, and to do him reverence,
but now I am absolved from any obligation to love or
reverence him or even to keep peace with him." ... [1247].
When Frederick heard of the acts of the papal legate in
Germany, he was bitterly enraged and sought everywhere for
a means of wreaking vengeance upon the pope. It was
feared by some wise and thoughtful men that Frederick in
his wrath might turn apostate, or call in to his aid the Tartars
from Russia, or give the Sultan of Babylon, with whom
he was on the most friendly terms, the chance to overrun the
empire with his pagan hosts, to the destruction of all Christendom....
[1250]. Frederick attempted to make
peace with the pope, ... but the pope replied that he
would not restore the emperor to his former position on any
such easy terms, since he had been deposed and condemned
by the general council of Lyon. And some asserted that the
pope desired above all else utterly to crush Frederick, whom
he called the great dragon, in order that he might then destroy
the kings of England and of France and the other
Christian kings (whom he spoke of as kinglets and little serpents),
after he had overawed them by making an example
of Frederick, and thus be able to rob them and their prelates
at his pleasure.
VI. FEUDALISM — 180. Form for the Creation of an Antrustio by the King. — 181. Form for the Suspending of Lawsuits. — 182. Form for Commendation. Middle of Eighth Century. — 183. Form by which the King Allows a Powerful Person to Undertake the Cases of a Poor Person. — 184. Form for the Gift of Land to a Church to be Received back by the Giver as a Benefice. — 185. Form for a Precarial Letter. — 186. Form of Precarial Letter. — 187. Form of Precarial Letter. — 188. Gift of Land to be Received back and Held in Perpetuity for a Fixed Rent. — 189. Treaty of Andelot, 587. — 190. Precept of Chlothar II, 584–628. — 191. Grant of Immunity to a Monastery, 673. — 192. Form of a Grant of Immunity to a Monastery. — 193. Form by which the King Granted Lands with Immunity to Secular Persons. — 194. Grant of Immunity to a Secular Person, 815. — 195. Edict of Chlothar II, 614. — 196. Capitulary of Kiersy, 877. — 197. Capitulary of Lestinnes, 743. — 198. Capitulary of Aquitaine, Pippin, 768. — 199. Capitulary of Heristal, 779. — 200. General Capitulary to the Missi, 802. — 201. Capitulary to the Missi, 806. — 202. Capitulary Concerning Various Matters, 807. — 203. General Capitulary to the Missi, 805. — 204. Capitulary of 811. — 205. Capitulary of Worms, 829. — 206. Capitulary of Aachen, 801–813. — 207. Agreement of Lothar, Ludwig, and Charles, 847. — 208. Capitulary of Bologna, 811. — 209. Homage. — 210. Homage. — 211. Homage. — 212. Homage. — 213. Homage. — 214. Homage of Edward III of England to Philip V of France, 1329. — 215. Feudal Aids. — 216. Feudal Aids. — 217. Feudal Aids, etc. — 218. Homage to the Duke of Burgundy, 1143. — 219. Homage to Philip II of France, 1198. — 220. Homage to the Duke of Burgundy, 1200. — 221. Letter of Blanche. — 222. Letter of the King. — 223. Homage to the Bishop of Langres, 1214. — 224. Homage to the Bishop of Châlons, 1214. — 225. Homage to the Abbot of St. Denis, 1226. — 226. List of the Fiefs of Champagne, about 1172. — 227. Sum of the Knights [who owe Service to the Count of Champagne]. — 228. Extent of the Lands of the County of Champagne and Brie, about 1215. — 1. Troyes. — 4. Nogent-sur-Seine. — 229. The Feudal Law of Conrad II, 1037. — 230. The Feudal Law of Frederick I for Italy, 1158.
Feudalism, as the prevailing order of society, socially, economically,
and politically, makes its appearance toward the end of the
tenth century. During the disorders consequent upon the disintegration
of the empire of the Carolingians (see nos. 15–25) the government
failed to supply protection and security, and ceased to act as
a bond to hold men together. As a result, certain local, private
elements of society, which were very generally diffused throughout
that empire, were raised to the rank of public political institutions.
It is our purpose to illustrate the origins and growth of feudalism,
and the characteristic features of the feudal state. The elements
which lay at the basis of the feudal system may be classified under
three heads: (1) The personal dependence of one man upon another;
(2) dependent tenure of land, in which the holder and user of the
land was not the owner, but held it of or from another; (3) the possession
by private persons or corporations of extensive sovereign
rights over their lands and tenants. These elements were present
in various degrees and forms in the German tribes before the migrations
and in the later Roman empire, but it will be sufficient for our
purpose to show the existence and the character of these elements in
the tribal kingdoms and the Frankish kingdom under the Merovingians,
for in these states the German and Roman people and institutions
were united to form the society of the Middle Age. Then we
shall attempt to illustrate the growth and development of these
elements in the late Merovingian and in the Carolingian periods, and
finally the characteristic features of society in the feudal age. The
difficulty in illustrating the situation from public documents will
be readily understood; it is due to the fact that these institutions
were only partly legal or public, and to the fact that the makers of
the laws took for granted a knowledge of the institutions and did
not think it necessary to describe or explain them. It is hoped,
however, that the notes to the passages translated will make clear
their meaning and importance.
180–197. Origins.
180–183. Personal Dependence.
In the documents of the tribal kingdoms and Merovingian kingdom
(ca. 500–700) there are many evidences of the importance for
society of the dependence of one man upon another, and of the fact
that this relation was superseding in importance the relation of the
private man to the state. On the one hand, men became dependents
and retainers of the king and the great officials and lords for mutual
advantages, the superior gaining the prestige that came with the
possession of a large following, and the dependents gaining employment
under and connection with the great persons of the state. On
the other hand, poor land-owners, or persons without lands of their
own, commended themselves to landlords for the purpose of receiving
protection and support. In both cases the personal dependence was
connected with the holding of land, for the king or great lord frequently
gave land to his followers, while the poor man who commended
himself to another usually did it for the purpose of acquiring
land to cultivate; this side of the relation, however, will be seen
more clearly under the next section.
Marculf’s Formulæ, I, no. 18; M. G. LL. 4to, V, p. 55.
Most of the following documents are taken from books of formulæ;
that is, collections of forms of documents made by various persons
to serve as examples for the drawing up of charters, etc. They were
probably made from actual documents by leaving out the names and
inserting ille (such an one) or similar expressions. The formulæ
of Marculf were written at the end of the seventh century. We quote
them from the edition in the Monumenta Germaniæ, Leges, vol. v,
giving only the pages in that volume after the first reference.
It is right that those who have promised us unbroken faith
should be rewarded by our aid and protection. Now since
our faithful subject (name) with the will of God has come to
our palace with his arms and has there sworn in our hands
to keep his trust and fidelity to us, therefore we decree and
command by the present writing that henceforth the said
(name) is to be numbered among our antrustiones.{82} If anyone
shall presume to slay him, let him know that he shall
have to pay 600 solidi as a wergeld for him.
Marculf, I, no. 23; p. 57.
One great advantage that the dependent possessed was the support
and influence of his lord in judicial trials and other matters of the
sort.
Know that we have ordered the apostolic man (name) [a
bishop] or the illustrious man (name) [a secular official or
lord] to go to a certain place, and we now command that as
long as he is away all his lawsuits, and those of his clients
and dependents and people that live within his jurisdiction,
are to be suspended. Therefore we decree and order by the
present writing that until he returns all his cases and those
of his clients, both those who go with him and those who
stay on his lands, and of his people who live within his
jurisdiction, shall be suspended, and afterwards he shall do
justice to everyone and receive justice from everyone.
Formulæ Turonenses, no. 43; p. 158.
Notice the reason given by the person who commends himself, the
effects of commendation on both parties, and the binding nature of
the agreement. The reason alleged (extreme poverty) is probably
a mere form of speech, and was not present in each actual instance
of commendation.
To my great lord, (name), I, (name). Since, as was well
known, I had not wherewith to feed and clothe myself, I
came to you and told you my wish, to commend myself to
you and to put myself under your protection. I have now
done so, on the condition that you shall supply me with food
and clothing as far as I shall merit by my services, and that
as long as I live I shall perform such services for you as are
becoming to a freeman, and shall never have the right to
withdraw from your power and protection, but shall remain
under them all the days of my life. It is agreed that if either
of us shall try to break this compact he shall pay — solidi,
and the compact shall still hold. It is also agreed that two
copies of this letter shall be made and signed by us, which
also has been done.
Marculf, i, no. 21; pp. 56 f.
Our faithful subject, (name), with the will of God has
come to us and told us that he is not able on account of his
weakness to defend or to prosecute his cases before the court.
Therefore he has besought us to allow the illustrious man
(name) to take up his cases for him, both in the local court
and in the royal court, whether he prosecutes or is prosecuted,
and he has commended his affairs to him in our presence by
the staff. Therefore we command, in accordance with the
desire of both parties, that the aforesaid man (name) may
undertake the cases of the other (name), and that he shall
do justice for him and for all his possessions, and get justice
for him from others; this shall be so, as long as both desire it.
184–188. Dependent Tenure of Land.
Absolute ownership of land was giving place to possession of land
owned by others than the holder. The greater landlords (the king,
the church, and the great officials and lords) sought to acquire
cultivators for their lands, while the poorer land-owners and the
persons without lands of their own sought a means of livelihood or
protection. The usual form was the benefice or the precarium.
The benefice was the name applied generally in this time to land
the use of which was granted by the owner to others for a term of
years, for life, or in perpetuity. The precarium was a form of the
benefice, the name being technically applied to lands thus granted in
response to a letter of request or prayer (litteræ precariæ). It will
be seen from the documents that the lands were usually those that
had been given originally by the poor land-holder to the greater
landlord and then received back as benefice or precarium. The reason
was undoubtedly in many cases the desire of the owner to come
under the protection of the greater landlord. The king also gave
land to his followers and officials, either to bind them to him or to
reward them for services; it is probable, although not certain, that
these lands, in part at least, were held only for life or a term of
years, on condition of services or faithfulness, and so were in a
sense benefices.
Marculf, II, no. 3; pp. 74 ff.
... I, (name), and my wife, (name), in the name of
the Lord, give by this letter of gift, and transfer from our
ownership to the ownership and authority of the monastery
of (name), over which the venerable abbot (name) presides,
and which was founded in the honor of (name) by (name)
in the county of (name), the following villas{83} (name), situated
in the county of (name), with all the lands, houses,
buildings, tenants, slaves, vineyards, woods, fields, pastures,
meadows, streams, and all other belongings and dependencies,
and all things movable and immovable which are found in
the said villas now or may be added later; in order that under
the protection of Christ they may be used for the support and
maintenance of the monks who dwell in the aforesaid monastery.
We do this on the condition that as long as either of us
shall live we may possess the aforesaid villas, without
prejudice to the ownership of the monastery and without
diminution of the value of them, except that we shall be
allowed to emancipate any of the slaves that dwell on the
lands for the salvation of our souls. After the death of both
of us, the aforesaid villas with any additions or improvements
which may have been made, shall return immediately
to the possession of the said monastery and the said abbot and
his successors, without undertaking any judicial process or
obtaining the consent of the heirs.
Marculf, II, no. 5; pp. 77 f.
To our lord and father in Christ, the holy and apostolic
bishop (name), I (name), and my wife (name). It is well
known that we have given in the name of the Lord our villa
of (name), situated in the county of (name), in its entirety
and with all that we possessed there, by a letter of gift to the
church of (name), founded in the honor of (name), and that
you have received it on behalf of the said church. And in
response to our petition you have granted that as long as we
or either of us shall live we shall hold the said villa as a
benefice with the right of usufruct,{84} with the understanding
that we shall not diminish its value in any way or alienate
anything that belongs to it, but shall hold it without prejudice
to the ownership of the said church or bishop. Therefore
we have written this precarial letter in witness that our
possession shall not work any prejudice to your ownership or
any injury to the said villa; but that we only have the use of
it during our lives, and that after we are dead you shall
immediately recover it with all the additions and improvements
which we may have made, by virtue of this precarial
letter, which shall be renewed every five years, and without
requiring any judicial process or obtaining the consent of
the heirs; and that thereafter you shall hold it forever, or
do with it whatever may seem to you to be to the best interests
of the said church.
Marculf, II, no. 39; pp. 98 f.
To our lord and father in Christ, the holy and apostolic
bishop (name), I (name), and my wife (name). Since you
have permitted us, as long as we or either of us shall live, to
hold the land (name) belonging to your church (name),
which (name) gave to the said church for the salvation of his
soul, therefore for this permission and for the salvation of
our souls we have given this other place (name), to belong
to the said church and to you and your successors after we
are both dead. This we have done on the condition that as
long as we live we may possess the said places, both that
which you have permitted us to use and the one which we
have given you for the salvation of our souls, with the right
of usufruct, without diminishing its value or prejudicing the
rights of your church; and that after we are dead the said
places shall immediately revert to your ownership by virtue
of this precarial letter, without requiring any renewal of the
letter, and in spite of any opposition from our heirs or from
anyone else.
Formulæ Bituricenses, no. 2; p. 169.
To the lords (names), we (name), and (name). It is
well known that our father lived on your lands and made a
precarial letter to you for them, which we now renew and
sign, humbly beseeching you to allow us to remain on the
same lands.{85} In order that our possession of the lands may
not prejudice the rights of you and your successors in them,
we have deposited with you this precarial letter, agreeing
that if we ever forget its terms, or ever refuse to obey you or
your agents in anything which you command, or ever assert
that this is not your land, we may be punished according to
the severity of the law as wicked violators of your rights, and
may be driven from the lands without judicial sentence.
Formulæ Augienses, B, no. 8; pp. 352 f.
The first part of the form, including the original gift of the land,
is omitted in the original, but may be supplied from a preceding
number.
I do this on the condition that as long as I live I may hold
the said lands for the said rent, and that my children and
their posterity may do the same forever.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, I, no. 6; Gregory of Tours, IX, ch. 20.
This is a treaty between two of the Merovingian kings, Gunthram
of Burgundy and Childebert II of Austrasia. It forms an incident in
the civil war begun between Sigebert and Chilperic; see no. 5, Gregory
of Tours, IV, ch. 28, and note.
It illustrates the practice of the kings of giving land to their followers
and officials. This was very important in the creation of a
landed aristocracy. See the remarks above in regard to the nature
of these gifts (introductory note to nos. 184–188).
In accordance with the treaties made between Gunthram
and Sigebert of blessed memory, it is likewise agreed that
those leudes,{86} who after the death of Chlothar I first gave
their oaths to Gunthram and then later removed to other
parts, are to be made to return from the places where they
are now dwelling. It is also agreed that those who, after the
death of Chlothar I, gave their oaths to Sigebert and then
removed to other parts are in a similar manner to be made
to return. Likewise whatever the aforesaid kings bestowed
or with the consent of God wished to bestow upon churches
or upon their faithful subjects, shall remain in the possession
of the churches or subjects. And whatever shall be restored
in this way to the subject of either king, legally and justly,
shall be held by that person as his own.... And let
each one possess in security whatever he has received through
the munificence of preceding kings, to the time of the death
of Chlothar I of blessed memory, and if anything has been
taken from the faithful subjects since that time, it shall be
restored to them from this moment.... Likewise it is
agreed that neither of the kings shall entice away the leudes
of the other or receive them; but if some of the leudes believe
they are justified in leaving their king by reason of injuries
done to them, they are to be compensated for their injuries,
and made to return....
190–194. Grants of Immunity.
In the feudal age practically every landlord exercised over his
lands and tenants rights and authority which are now regarded as
sovereign rights belonging to the state. This was due in the main
to the practice of the Merovingian and Carolingian kings of granting
immunity to the churches and the great landlords, a practice which
naturally grew with the increasing weakness of the monarchy and
the growth of the power of the nobles. A grant of immunity operated
to exclude the public officials from lands, which were then in theory
under the immediate control of the king. In the late Merovingian
period the weakness of the kings and the disorganization of the public
administration left the control of immunity domains really in
the hands of the landlords. The holder of land covered by a grant
of immunity thus came to represent the state to the people on his
lands. He established courts for the trial of cases arising among
his tenants or represented them before the public courts; he was also
frequently given the right to collect the taxes, revenues, tolls, etc.,
from the lands of people, which would otherwise go to the royal
treasury. Most of the grants of immunity which have come down
to us are in favor of church lands, but they were also granted to
secular lords. The churches preserved their documents better than
secular persons did.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 8.
Notice the references to immunity, to grants of land to "churches
and powerful persons" (lords and officials), and the implied right
of such landlords to appoint judges for trial of cases among their
tenants (private jurisdiction).
11. We grant to the churches the taxes from the fields
and pastures and the tithes of swine, so that no collector or
titheman shall enter the lands of a church to gather such
dues for the royal treasury. Public officials shall not demand
any services from the churches of clergymen who have
acquired immunity from our father or grandfather.
12. Whatever has been given to churches or to clergymen
or to any person through the munificence of our aforesaid
predecessors of blessed memory is to belong to them in all
security.
14. The property of churches, priests, and of the poor
who cannot protect themselves, shall be under the protection
of public officials until their cases can be brought to the king
and justice be done; only in so far, however, as it shall not
infringe on the rights of immunity which have been granted
by former kings to any church or powerful person or to anyone
else, for the keeping of peace and the preservation of
discipline.
19. Bishops and powerful persons who have possessions
in various regions shall not appoint travelling judges or any
judges except such as belong to the county in which they
serve.
M. G. DD. folio, I, pp. 30 f; Altmann und Bernheim, no. 112.
Childeric, king of the Franks, illustrious man....
We have commanded it to be made known to all that the
venerable and pious abbot Berchar came to us and asked us
to grant him a certain place in the forest of Vervo in Gascony,
in which he might build a monastery, and to give him
material and resources by which he might construct a monastery
there and establish a congregation of monks. Now the
request of this great man pleased us and we granted him
what he asked. Then having built his monastery ...
in the honor of Sts. Peter and Paul and the other saints, he
besought us, in order to make secure the whole undertaking,
to bestow complete immunity upon the monastery. Therefore,
we, moved to this by the kindness which Heaven has
shown to us, have hearkened to the prayer of this man
... and with the consent of our bishops and nobles do
now concede entire immunity over the whole possessions of
this monastery ... for the peace of our kingdom and
for the reverence which we have for this religious place. We
command that no public official of any authority shall presume
to enter the lands of this monastery ... for the
purpose of hearing cases, of seizing securities, of collecting
taxes, of demanding entertainment, or of extorting tolls from
cities or markets; nor shall he presume to exact any taxes or
payments whatever, but the monks shall rule and possess,
both in our time and in the future, all the property of this
monastery in all places and lands, where they have possessions,
as aforesaid, without being subject to the entrance
of officials or to exactions on the part of the royal
treasury....
Marculf, I, no. 3; pp. 43 f.
We believe that our reign will best be rendered memorable,
if we bestow suitable benefits on churches (or whatever you
wish to insert here), with pious purpose, and if we secure
these benefits under the protection of God by putting them in
writing. Therefore, be it known to you that we have granted
the request of that apostolic man, the bishop of (name), for
the salvation of our souls; namely, that no public official may
enter the lands which his church holds now, by our gift or
by the gift of anyone else, or which his church may receive in
the future, for the purpose of trying cases, or collecting
taxes; but that the said bishop and his successors shall hold
the said lands in the name of the Lord with full immunity.
We decree therefore that neither you nor any of your subordinates
or successors, nor any other public official shall presume
to enter the lands of the said church for the purpose of
trying cases, of collecting taxes or revenues, or receiving
entertainment or seizing supplies or securities. All the taxes
and other revenues which the royal treasury has a right to
demand from the people on the lands of the said church,
whether they be freemen or slaves, Romans or barbarians, we
now bestow on the said church for our future salvation, to
be used by the officials of the church forever for the best
interests of the church.
Marculf, I, no. 14; pp. 52 f; Altmann und Bernheim, no. 113.
Those who from their early youth have served us or our
parents faithfully are justly rewarded by the gifts of our
munificence. Know therefore that we have granted to that
illustrious man (name), with greatest good will, the villa
called (name), situated in the county of (name), with all
its possessions and extent, in full as it was formerly held by
him or by our treasury. Therefore by the present charter
which we command to be observed forever, we decree that the
said (name) shall possess the villa of (name), as has been
said, in its entirety, with lands, houses, buildings, inhabitants,
slaves, woods, pastures, meadows, streams, mills, and
all its appurtenances and belongings, and with all the subjects
of the royal treasury who dwell on the lands, and he
shall hold it forever with full immunity from the entrance
of any public official for the purpose of exacting the royal
portion of the fines from cases arising there; to the extent
finally that he shall have, hold, and possess it in full ownership,
no one having the right to expect its transfer, and
with the right of leaving it to his successors or to anyone
whom he desires, and to do with it whatever else he wishes.
Altmann und Bernheim, no. 114.
In the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Ludwig,
by divine providence emperor, Augustus. Be it known to
all our subjects, present and future, that our faithful subject,
John, has come to us and commended himself to us, and has
besought us to confirm to him the possession of lands
[described] which he and his sons and their men have cleared
and occupied. He has shown us the charter which he received
from our father Karl the Great. We have consented to do
this and have done even more; we have given him certain
villas [named] with their extent and dependencies ...
granting that he and his sons and his posterity may hold
them in peace and security. No count, vicarius, or their
subordinates, or any other public official shall presume to
judge or constrain any persons living on those lands, but
John and his sons and their posterity shall judge and constrain
them....
195–208. Growth of the Feudal Elements During the Late Merovingian and the Carolingian Period.
The elements which we have just described and illustrated were
essentially private in their nature. They assumed, however, political
importance in the threatened dissolution of society, due to the failure
of the public government. In a period when the state was unable
to give adequate protection to the common individual, that person
naturally regarded his allegiance to his real protector, his lord or
landlord, as of more importance to him than his relation to the
state. The natural tendency of powerful persons to increase their
power over their dependents and their independence of higher
authority was given its opportunity by the weakness of the monarchy
and the central government. The four centuries from 550–950
were in the main a period of disorder, interrupted, of course, by
the period of Carolingian strength, including the reigns of Karl
Martel, Pippin, and Karl the Great. During these four centuries
the existing feudal elements developed and hardened into a system of
society, and two new features were added: the feudalizing of offices,
and the connection of land-holding with military service. These are
so characteristic of the feudal age that their origin is illustrated
here.
195–196. The Feudalizing of Public Offices.
By this is meant the practice of inheritance of office and the
union in one person of the characteristics of an official and a great
landlord. Thereby the local officials of the king, such as the counts,
tended to form an hereditary landed nobility, the office being held
usually by the great landed family of the county. It is obvious that
this tendency would grow in a period when the monarchy and the
central government was weak, the king either being unable to
restrain the powerful local officials or else granting them these
privileges in order to retain their support. It is obvious also
that the local officials would strive to increase their private advantages—possession
of land, and personal authority over the inhabitants
of their lands or districts—at the expense of their public position
as representatives of the king. So in the feudal period in
France, Italy, and Germany (in the last named the development was
much slower), the titles duke, margrave (marquis), count, etc.,
ceased to have an official significance and became the titles of a
landed aristocracy.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 9.
12. No one from another province or region shall be
made judge [count] in any county; so that if a count has
done injury to anyone he may be forced to make good the
injury from his own possessions.
The count, like the grafio of the Salic law, was originally a servant
of the king sent into the county to look after the king’s interests
there. It appears from this document that the counts were now
appointed from among the land-owners of the county.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 2, no. 282.
The capitulary of Kiersy was published by Charles the Bald, just
before he left France for Italy, and was intended to regulate the
affairs of the kingdom, which was entrusted to his son during his
absence. It shows how completely the practice of inheritance of
land and office had developed during the Carolingian period. The
office, position, and lands of counts, vassals of the king, and vassals
of ecclesiastical and secular lords were regarded as hereditary by this
time.
3. If a count whose son accompanies us shall die during
our absence, our son with the advice of our faithful subjects
shall appoint one of the near relatives of the deceased count
to govern the county with the aid of the officials of the
county and the bishop in whose diocese it is, until we are
notified of the case and have an opportunity to give the son
of the count his father’s honors. But if the deceased count
shall leave a minor son, that son shall govern the county with
the aid of the officials and the bishop in whose diocese it is,
until the death of the said count has been brought to our
notice and we endow the son with his father’s honors. But
if the count shall not leave a son, our son with the advice of
our faithful subjects shall appoint someone to govern the
county with the aid of the officials of the county and the
bishop, until our commands in respect to it are made known.
And no one shall feel aggrieved, if we give the county to
another than the one who governed it up to the time of our
appointment. The same procedure shall be observed in
regard to our vassals; and the bishops, abbots, and counts of
our kingdom, and our other faithful subjects, shall do the
same toward their men.
197–202. The Military Obligation of the Holder of Land.
The connection of military service with the holding of land and
with noble character is one of the characteristic features of the
feudal system. The feudal noble was regularly the holder of a fief
on terms of allegiance and military service to his superior. In the
Germanic tribes military service was obligatory on every freeman,
but there was also a fighting élite, or aristocracy, composed of the
chiefs and their followers (see no. 1, Tacitus, chapters 13 and 14).
The military obligation of the freeman remained in theory during
the Merovingian and Carolingian periods, but in practice it was
connected rather with the possession of land and was performed
largely by the lords and their followers. Towards the end of the
Merovingian period, much of the land was in the possession of the
church and was escaping from public burdens because of immunity.
Karl Martel found it necessary to increase the military strength of
the kingdom; the particular occasion is supposed to have been the
need of horsemen to meet the Arab invasion. He accordingly forced
the churches to give portions of their lands to secular persons who
could perform military service, and the holders of these lands were
required to bring a troop of mounted warriors to the army. Such
lands were held on terms of military service to the state and as
precaria from the church. The same conditions were then attached
to lands held from the king, and the term benefice—used in the
earlier period of lands held from another in general—now came to
be applied technically to lands held from the king or superior on
condition of performing military service, usually on horseback. The
number of mounted soldiers the holder of a benefice had to furnish
of course varied with the size of his holding. The great lords
raised the necessary troops by giving portions of their lands to their
retainers on condition that the retainers should accompany them
to war. So the obligation to perform military service was attached
also to the small estates held not directly from the king, but from
a great lord. We give here references to the appropriation of church
lands, to the relation of the holder of the lands to the church and
to the king, and to the extension of the name and practice to other
than church lands.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 11.
This is a capitulary of Carlmann, the brother of Pippin. It is the
earliest case which has come down to us of appropriation of church
lands for the purpose referred to.
2. Because of the threats of war and the attacks of certain
tribes on our borders, we have determined, with the consent
of God and by the advice of our clergy and people, to appropriate
for a time part of the ecclesiastical property for the
support of our army. The lands are to be held as precaria
for a fixed rent; one solidus, or twelve denarii, shall be paid
annually to the church or monastery for each casata [farm].
When the holder dies the whole possession shall return to the
church. If, however, the exigency of the time makes it necessary,
the prince may require the precarium to be renewed
and given out again. Care shall be taken, however, that the
churches and monasteries do not incur suffering or poverty
through the granting of precaria. If the poverty of the
church makes it necessary, the whole possession shall be
restored to the church.
The whole capitulary, of which paragraph 2 is translated, is concerned
with ecclesiastical matters; accordingly only the interests of
the church in the military benefice is explained here. The relation
of the holder to the state comes out in other documents. Notice the
express reason given for the appropriation, and the relation of the
holder to the church from which the land was held.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 18.
5. Whoever holds a benefice from us shall be careful and
diligent in its management; otherwise he shall lose the benefice,
but retain his own property.
11. All secular persons who hold church lands shall hold
them as precaria.
Paragraph 5 refers to lands held from the king. Notice the
distinction made between such land and land held in full ownership.
Paragraph 11 repeats the provision made in the preceding number,
that lands held from the church as benefices are to be regarded as
precaria; this is found in a number of capitularies of this period,
suggesting that the holders were apt to forget their obligation to
the church and to treat the land as their own property.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 20.
14. (Lombard form.) Laymen who hold lands from
churches as benefices by the command of the king, are to
continue to hold them unless the king orders them restored
to the churches.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 33.
Part of this capitulary is also translated as no. 9. This and the
following document illustrate the holding of royal benefices, and the
difficulty in making the holders perform their duties. It was part
of the duty of the missi to look after the royal benefices.
6. No man shall lay waste a benefice in order to improve
his own property.
M. G. LL. 4to II, 1, no. 46.
6. We have heard that counts and other men who hold
benefices from us have improved their own property at the
expense of the benefices, and have made the serfs on the
benefices labor on their own land, so that our benefices are
waste and those dwelling on them in many places suffer
great evils.
7. We have heard that some sell the benefices which they
hold from us to other men in full ownership, and then, having
received the price in the public court, they buy back the lands
as allodial lands. This must not be done, for those who do
this break the faith which they promised us.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 49.
3. Concerning the Frisians, we command that our counts
and vassals who hold benefices, and all horsemen in general,
shall come to our assembly prepared for war.
203–208. Effect of the Carolingian Organization
on the Growth of Feudalism.
Karl the Great succeeded in reducing the great dukes to subjection
(see no. 7, Einhard, ch. 5 and 11, and notes), and enforcing obedience
to law in general throughout his empire, but he did not interfere
with the immunity rights of churches and lords over the inhabitants
of their lands or with dependence of vassals and tenants on the great
land-owners. Indeed, his attempt to reduce everything to law and
system resulted in completing and fixing these relations. The following
passages illustrate the increased dependence of the lower orders
and the greater and more complete authority of the powerful persons
in the state.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 44.
16. Concerning the oppression of poor freemen: that they
are not to be unjustly oppressed by more powerful persons on
any pretext, and forced to sell or give up their property.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 73.
This and the preceding document illustrate the attempts of the
great lords to round out their domains and increase the number of
their dependent tenants by forcing poor free land-owners to give up
their lands and become tenants.
2. Poor men complain that they are despoiled of their
property, and they make this complaint equally against
bishops and abbots and their agents, and against counts and
their subordinates.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 2, no. 193.
6. Freemen who have no lands of their own, but live on
the land of a lord, are not to be received as witnesses, because
they hold land of another; but they are to be accepted
as compurgators, because they are free. Those who have
land of their own, and yet live on the land of a lord, are not
to be rejected as witnesses because they live on the land of a
lord, but their testimony shall be accepted, because they have
land of their own.
Notice the effect that dependent tenure of land is having on the
legal status of freemen.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 77.
16. No one shall leave his senior, after he has received
from him the value of a solidus, unless his senior attempts
to kill him, to beat him with a club, to violate his wife or
his daughter, or to take his hereditary possession from him.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 2, no. 204.
2. We decree that every freeman shall accept whatever
senior he wishes in our kingdom, from among us and our
faithful subjects.
3. We command that no man shall leave his senior without
good cause, and that no lord shall receive a man who has
left his senior, unless it be in accordance with the customs
of our predecessors.
4. Every subject of each one of us shall go to war or
other necessary expedition with his senior, unless the kingdom
is invaded and all the subjects are called out in mass to
repel it, which is called landwehr.
M. G. LL. 4to, II, 1, no. 74.
5. If any man who holds a benefice of the king shall
release his subject from going to war with him or shall refuse
to allow him to go and fight with him, he shall lose his
benefice.
7. Concerning the vassals of the emperor who serve him
in the palace, and have benefices. It is decreed that those
who remain at home with the emperor shall not keep their
tenants with them, but shall let them go to war with the
count of the county.
The name senior is used in Carolingian documents for the lord who
has authority over dependent tenants and vassals. Notice in the two
documents preceding that the subjects of a lord are bound to him
by law, and that they go to war, not with the general levy under
command of public officials, but with their fellows of the same lands
under command of the senior.
209–228. The Feudal System in its Definite Form.
The elements already described became the system of society and
government in the states which in the ninth and tenth centuries
developed from the empire on its dissolution. The system gradually
became settled and organized, the feudal kingship developed to give
it a head, and it took the form recognized as the feudal system.
The features to be noticed are the relation of the vassal to his
lord, the position of the king, and the economic organization of the
land and the obligations of the cultivators to the landlords. The
origin and growth of these features in the earlier age have been
shown in nos. 180–208; it only remains to show how they were
organized in the feudal age.
The vassal was bound to the lord of whom he held a benefice or
fief by the oath of fidelity and homage. He also owed his lord certain
services of noble character, the chief of which was military service.
This was not perpetual service, but was limited by law or custom,
usually consisting of 40 days’ active service, and a certain amount
of guard in the castle of the lord or in the castle which the vassal
held as a fief of the lord. Aids or money payments were also paid
by vassals on certain occasions, such as the marriage of the lord’s
oldest daughter, the knighting of the lord’s oldest son, and the
captivity of the lord. The lord had also certain rights over his
vassals, which were frequently commuted for money: wardship, the
right of guardianship of minor heirs, and the management and use
of the fiefs during the minority; marriage, the right to choose or be
consulted in the choice of a husband for female holders of fiefs; relief,
the right to exact a certain payment from the heir when he succeeded
to a fief; escheat, the right of taking back the fief into his own
possession upon the failure of heirs, etc. These rights and payments
have their origin in the personal dependence of the vassal
upon the lord. They were occasional and did not form a part of
the regular income of the lord, although they might be worth considerable
at times. The regular income of the lord came from his
domain lands, the lands which were not let out in fief, but which
were cultivated by tenants or serfs, and which supplied the lord
with money, resources, and services.
The authority of the king in the feudal state was very limited.
This was due chiefly to the fact that each lord exercised practically
sovereign rights over his lands and dependents. The feudal king
was in origin one of the great feudal lords (cf. in France, Hugh
Capet, duke of Francia; and in Germany, Henry I, duke of Saxony),
who was chosen by the great lords and became their overlord. He
had the same rights on his own domains as any feudal lord, but had
only the authority of an overlord over his great vassals. He had
no direct control over the vassal of his vassal, but could reach such
an one only indirectly through that person’s immediate superior.
The holders of great domains exercised not only jurisdiction over the
tenants on their lands, but possessed also other sovereign rights,
such as the right of coinage, of collecting tolls and taxes, etc.
The basis of the economic life of the feudal age was the cultivation
of land. Commerce, trade, and organized industry did of course
exist during the Middle Age, but they were non-feudal in spirit and
grew up outside of and in spite of feudalism. Land was organized in
domains or estates, containing each a group of cultivators forming
a community or little village. These cultivators held their land
from the landlord on very complex terms of rent and services.
Rents were paid in money or in a portion of the produce of the land.
In each village the lord had a house, and a farm (manor-farm or
head farm) which was worked by personal serfs and by the services
owed by tenants. Aside from rents and services the lord possessed
certain rights over his tenants, which were a source of revenue. The
chief of these were: justice, the right to hold courts on his lands for
the trial of cases arising among the tenants, and to levy and collect
the fines; banalities (banvin, etc.); the right to sell his own wine,
grain, etc., a certain number of days before the tenants could sell
theirs (this he frequently released for a certain tax); the rights of
market, mill, bake-oven, etc., which were owned by the lord, and
from which he received tolls (these were frequently let out to other
persons for an annual rent). A great lord, as a count or duke,
would own a great many such domains, and would have a house or
castle and farm in each one, and an agent or representative to care
for his interests in the domain. Nobles of the lowest rank, as the
knight or chatelain, might own only two or three, or even a single
domain.
209–217. Homage, Investiture, Aids, etc.
Boutillier, Somme rurale, I, 18.
These documents illustrate the form of feudal practices after the
system had become fairly well fixed. Most of the passages are from
Coutumiers, codes or digests of feudal law and practice, of which
there were a great many in the Middle Age. Some of the famous
ones are: in England, those of Bracton and Littleton; in France, the
Établissements de St. Louis, Coutumes de Beauvaisis, by Beaumanoir,
and several provincial customs, as the Coutumes of Normandy,
of Anjou, etc. Most of the references were taken from Du Cange,
Glossarium, Hominium. See no. 180, for an early form of homage.
The man should put his hands together as a sign of
humility, and place them between the two hands of his lord
as a token that he vows everything to him and promises faith
to him; and the lord should receive him and promise to keep
faith with him. Then the man should say: "Sir, I enter
your homage and faith and become your man by mouth and
hands [i.e., by taking the oath and placing his hands between
those of the lord], and I swear and promise to keep faith and
loyalty to you against all others, and to guard your rights
with all my strength."
Coutume de la Marche, art. 189.
The manner of doing homage to another is as follows: The
man who wishes to enter the homage and fealty of a lord
should humbly request the lord to receive him into his faith;
his head should be uncovered, and the lord may be seated if
he wishes; the vassal should take off his belt and sword, and
should kneel and say the words of homage, etc.
Ancienne coutume de Normandie, art. 107.
The form of homage is as follows: The vassal who holds
by noble tenure reaches out his hands and places them between
the hands of his lord and says, etc.
Bracton, De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliæ, II, 35.
The tenant [vassal] should place his clasped hands between
the hands of the lord; by this is signified, on the part of the
lord, protection, defense, and guarantee; on the part of the
vassal, reverence and subjection.
Tabularium Campaniæ, cited by Du Cange, Glossarium, Ligius.
I, John of Toul, make known that I am the liege man of
the lady Beatrice, countess of Troyes, and of her son, Theobald,
count of Champagne, against every creature, living or
dead, saving my allegiance to lord Enjorand of Coucy, lord
John of Arcis, and the count of Grandpré. If it should
happen that the count of Grandpré should be at war with
the countess and count of Champagne on his own quarrel, I
will aid the count of Grandpré in my own person, and will
send to the count and the countess of Champagne the knights
whose service I owe to them for the fief which I hold of them.
But if the count of Grandpré shall make war on the countess
and the count of Champagne on behalf of his friends and not
in his own quarrel, I will aid in my own person the countess
and count of Champagne, and will send one knight to the
count of Grandpré for the service which I owe him for the
fief which I hold of him, but I will not go myself into the
territory of the count of Grandpré to make war on him.{87}
Froissart, Chronicle, I, ch. 24. (Lettenhove’s edition, II, pp. 227 ff.)
The king of England was received by the king of France
with great honor, and he and his company remained there
at Amiens fifteen days, during which many conferences were
held and many ordinances drawn up. It seems to me that on
that occasion king Edward did homage in words, but did not
place his hands in the hands of the king of France, nor did
any of his princes, prelates or representatives do so for him.
By the advice of his council king Edward refused to proceed
further until he had returned to England and had examined
the ancient charters in order to determine the manner in
which the kings of England had done homage to the kings of
France.... At last the king of England wrote letters
patent, sealed with his great seal, in which he acknowledged
the sort of homage that he ought to pay to the king of
France. This is the form of that letter:
Edward, by the grace of God king of England, lord of
Ireland, and duke of Aquitaine, etc. Know that when we
did homage to our beloved lord and cousin, Philip, king of
France, at Amiens, he insisted that we should acknowledge
that our homage was liege homage, and that in it we should
expressly promise to be faithful and true to him. We would
not agree to this at the time, because we did not know whether
we owed him liege homage or not. Accordingly we did
homage in general terms, saying that we entered into his
homage in the same manner as our predecessors, the dukes of
Guienne, had formerly entered into the homage of the kings
of France. But now having found what that manner was, we
acknowledge by the present letter that the homage which we
paid to the king of France at Amiens was, is, and ought to be
held to be liege homage; and that we owe him loyalty and
fidelity as duke of Aquitaine, peer of France, count of
Ponthieu, and count of Montreuil; and we hereby promise
him such loyalty and fidelity. In order that similar disputes
may not occur in the future, we promise for ourselves and
for future dukes of Aquitaine that homage shall be performed
in the following manner: The king of England as
duke of Aquitaine shall put his hands within the hands of
the king of France, and the person who speaks for the king
of France shall say to the king of England as duke of
Aquitaine: "You become the liege man of my lord the king
of France as duke of Aquitaine, and peer of France, and you
promise to keep faith and loyalty to him? Say yea." And
the king of England, or the duke of Guienne, or their successor,
shall say "Yea." Then the king of France shall
receive the king of England, as duke of Guienne, by mouth
and hands [see no. 209], saving their other rights. Moreover,
when the said king of England does homage to the king
of France for the counties of Ponthieu and Montreuil, he
shall put his hands in the hands of the king of France for
those counties, and the person who speaks for the king of
France shall say, etc....
Ancienne coutume de Normandie, I, 3, ch. 25.
The chief aids of Normandy are so called because they are
rendered to chief lords [i.e., to lords who receive liege
homage]. It is the custom in Normandy to pay three aids
... first, for the knighting of the lord’s oldest son;
second, for the marriage of the lord’s oldest daughter; third,
for the ransom of the lord.
MS. of the Chamber of Accounts, Paris; cited from Du Cange, Glossarium,
Hominium.
In the chatelainerie [territory dependent on a castle] of
Poitou and that region, according to the custom of the land,
those who hold fiefs pay five aids to the lord: for the knighting
of the lord’s son, for the marriage of the lord’s oldest
daughter, for the rachat{88} of the lord’s fief, for the crusade,
and for the ransom of the lord from the hands of the
Saracens.
From Magna Charta, 1215.
In the first part of Magna Charta, John promises to give up the
abuses of feudal law which he had practiced. Thus he had exacted
exorbitant payments from heirs for inheritance of fiefs (reliefs); he
had forced widows and female heirs under his wardship to marry his
favorites and supporters, or had exacted heavy fines if they refused;
he had levied unjust aids and services, and a heavy scutage, or payment
for exemption from military service.
2. If one of our knights or barons or other tenants-in-chief
[i.e., direct vassals] who hold by military service shall
die and shall leave an heir who is of age, the heir shall
receive his father’s fiefs by paying only the ancient relief;
namely, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay 100 pounds for
the whole earldom; the heir or heirs of a knight shall pay
100 solidi for the whole fief of the knight; and those who
inherit smaller holdings shall pay smaller reliefs according
to the ancient custom.
3. But if the heir of any of our tenants-in-chief is under
age and is under our ward, he shall have his fiefs when he
comes of age without relief or fine.
8. No widow shall be forced to marry unless she wishes
to; but she must give security that she will not marry without
our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent
of her lord, if she holds of another.
12. No scutage or aid shall be exacted in our kingdom,
unless by the common consent of the realm, except for the
ransom of our body, the knighting of our oldest son, and the
marriage of our oldest daughter; and these shall be levied at
reasonable rates.
218–228. The Feudal System in Practice, Illustrated
by the County of Champagne.
Actual conditions under the feudal system will, it is thought, be
best illustrated by showing in some detail the workings of the
system in a single important case. The following documents are
taken from the great French collection of documents called "Documents
inédits sur l’histoire de France"; two volumes are devoted
to the county of Champagne and contain all the important documents
relating to the growth and formation of the feudal territory of
Champagne, the relation of the counts to their overlords on the
one hand, and to their vassals on the other, and the organization of
the lands retained by the counts as domain lands, i.e., cultivated by
tenants for the count and not let out in fief. The county of
Champagne is chosen because it is one of the best examples of the
formation of a great feudal territory, and because the two volumes
referred to form the most complete as well as most accessible collection
of illustrative material for the feudal régime in its practical
working.
218–225. Homages Paid by the Count of Champagne.
Documents inédits. Champagne, I, p. 466.
The count of Champagne held his lands from several overlords;
the ones mentioned in the following documents are: the king of
France, the duke of Burgundy, the bishops of Langres and Châlons,
and the abbot of St. Denis; he also held parts of his lands from the
emperor, the archbishops of Sens and Rheims, and the bishops of
Auxerre and Autun. This plurality of superiors is characteristic
of most of the great domains. The great fiefs came under the control
of one lord by various means, inheritance, marriage, purchase, subinfeudation,
etc. The great lord endeavored to complete his control
of a whole region by becoming the feudal holder of all the land in
the region. Since holding by feudal tenure, including homage, etc.,
was the regular method of acquiring land in the feudal system, it
was used as a form of contract, and the personal subjection and
dependence was in many cases a mere form. In cases like that of
the count of Champagne the holder did homage to all the lords from
whom he held lands, but could not of course observe complete
allegiance to each one. So one of the superiors was recognized as his
chief and liege lord, and to him the holder did liege homage (see
no. 213, note). Notice that the count of Champagne pays liege
homage to the king of France, who is his chief lord.
Be it known to all men, present and future, that count
Theobald of Blois{89} did homage to Odo, duke of Burgundy, at
Augustines, and acknowledged that he held the abbey of St.
Germain at Auxerre, Chaourse, the castle of Maligny with all
its dependencies, the castle of Ervy with all its dependencies,
the county of Troyes, the city of Troyes, and Château-Villain,
as fiefs from the duke.
Documents inédits, Champagne, I, pp. 467 f.
Philip, by the grace of God king of France. Be it known
to all men, present and future, that we have received our
beloved nephew, Theobald, count of Troyes, as our liege man,
against every creature, living or dead, for all the lands which
his father, count Henry, our uncle, held from our father,
and which count Henry, the brother of Theobald, held from
us. Count Theobald has sworn to us on the most holy body
of the Lord and on the holy gospel that he will aid us in
good faith, as his liege lord, against every creature, living or
dead; at his command the following persons have sworn to
us that they approve of this and will support and aid
him in keeping this oath: Guy of Dampierre, Gualcher of
Châtillon, Geoffroy, marshal of Champagne, etc. [vassals of
the count of Champagne]. If count Theobald fails in his
duty to us and does not make amends within a month from
the time when they learn of it, they will surrender themselves
to us at Paris, to be held as prisoners until he makes amends;
and this shall be done every time that he fails in his duty to
us. We have sworn with our own hand that we will aid
count Theobald against every creature, living or dead; at our
command the following men have sworn that they approve of
this and will support and aid us in keeping this oath:
Pierre, count of Nevers, Drogo of Mello, William of Galande,
etc. [vassals of the king]. If we fail in our duty to count
Theobald, and do not make amends within a month from the
time when they learn of it, they will surrender themselves to
him at Troyes to be held as prisoners there until we make
amends; and they shall do this every time that we fail in our
duty to him.... We have also agreed that our beloved
uncle, William, archbishop of Rheims, and the bishops of
Châlons and Meaux, may place those of our lands that are
in their dioceses under interdict, as often as we fail in our
duty to count Theobald, unless we make amends within a
month from the time when they learn of it; and count Theobald
has agreed that the same archbishop and bishops may
place his lands under an interdict as often as he fails in his
duty to us, unless he makes amends within a month from the
time when they learn of it.{90}
Documents inédits, Champagne, I, p. 468.
We, Odo, duke of Burgundy, make known to all men,
present and future, that we have received our relative and
faithful subject, Theobald, count of Troyes, as our man for
the land which his father, count Henry, held of our father,
Hugo, duke of Burgundy, just as his father, count Henry,
was the man of our father. We have promised count Theobald
that we and our heirs will guarantee that land to him
and his heirs against every creature, living or dead, and will
aid him and them in good faith with all our power to hold
that land in peace and quiet.
221, 222. Agreement between Blanche of Champagne
and Philip II, 1201.
Documents inédits, Champagne, I, p. 469.
Notice the rights of wardship and marriage exercised by the lord in
this case. The counts of Champagne claimed to be hereditary counts
palatine of France (see nos. 223 and 225); notice, however, that the
king of France does not use the title in speaking of the countess.
I, Blanche, countess palatine of Troyes. Be it known to
all, present and future, that I have voluntarily sworn to my
lord, Philip, king of France, to keep the agreements contained
in this charter....
I have voluntarily sworn that I will never take a husband
without the advice, consent, and wish of my lord, Philip,
king of France, and that I will place under his guardianship
my daughter and any child of whom I may be pregnant from
my late husband, count Theobald. In addition, I will turn
over to him the fortresses of Bray and Montereau, and give
him control of all the men who dwell there and all the
knights who hold fiefs of the castles, so that if I break my
promise to keep these agreements, all the aforesaid men shall
hold directly of my lord, Philip, king of France; and they
shall all swear to aid him even against men and against every
other man or woman. The lord of Marolles shall put himself
and his castle also under the control of the king, and similarly
all the knights who hold fiefs of Provins, and all the
men of Provins, and all the men of Lagny and Meaux, and
all the knights who hold fiefs of these places.... I
will do liege homage to my lord, Philip, king of France,
and I will keep faith with him against all creatures, living
or dead.
Documents inédits. Champagne, I, p. 470.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, amen.
Philip, by the grace of God king of France. Be it known to
all, present and future, that we have received Blanche,
countess of Troyes, as our liege woman, for the fief which
our beloved nephew and faithful subject, Theobald, former
count of Troyes, held from us.... We have sworn to
her that we will keep the agreements written in this charter
in good faith, as to our liege woman; namely, that we will
protect and nourish her daughter whom she has placed in
our ward, in good faith and without deceit, and that we will
not give her in marriage until she reaches the age of twelve
years. After she has reached that age, we will provide her
with a husband in accordance with the desires and advice of
ourself, our mother, the lady Blanche, and the barons whose
names are written here, or of the persons who hold their
fiefs, if they have died. These are the barons: William,
archbishop of Rheims; Odo, duke of Burgundy; Guy of
Dampierre; Gualcher of Châtillon, etc.
Documents inédits. Champagne, I, p. 472.
I, Blanche, countess palatine of Troyes, make known to
all who see these presents that while my beloved lord, William,
bishop of Langres, was at Troyes on certain business,
I besought him, if he was willing, to receive there the homage
of my beloved son, count Theobald. He replied that the
homage ought to be made only at Langres, but that, as a
favor to me and out of love to my son, he would receive it at
Troyes, in order that I might be spared the journey, saving
his rights and the rights of the church of Langres, and the
rights of my son. Accordingly he received the homage of
my son at Troyes, and I conceded and concede that this shall
work no prejudice to the rights of the church of Langres, or
the bishop, but that the rights of the bishop and of my son
shall remain unimpaired.
Documents inédits, Champagne, I, p. 474.
Gerard, by the grace of God bishop of Châlons, to all who
see these presents, greeting and sincere love in the Lord. Know
that when our beloved son and faithful subject, Theobald,
count of Champagne, came to us at Cherville, we were ill,
and so he did homage at St. Memmie. Now in order that
this may not work prejudice to future counts of Champagne,
we acknowledge and bear witness that homage ought to be
done at Cherville or elsewhere in the march [i.e., frontier],
where the bishops of Châlons and the counts of Champagne
are wont to come together for conference and the transaction
of business.
Documents inédits, Champagne, I, p. 476.
Peter, by the grace of God abbot of St. Denis, to all who
see these presents, greeting in the Lord. Know that the
noble man, Theobald, count palatine of Champagne and
Blois, did homage to us for the castle of Nogent-sur-Seine
and its dependencies, in the same manner as Milo of Châlons,
former lord of that castle, who held it as a fief from the
church of St. Denis. With the advice and consent of our
chapter we have granted that the said count shall be bound
to appear only in our court in matters pertaining to that fief.
Documents inédits. Champagne, I, pp. 22 ff.
These documents illustrate the relation of his vassals to the count
of Champagne. They are taken from a register of the fiefs and
vassals of the count of Champagne, drawn up about 1172. There
are many instances of such registers or inventories in the feudal age;
the relations of lord and vassals were apt to become confused and
subject to dispute. The particular purpose of the register in this
case was to determine the number of knights owing military service
to the count of Champagne, and the amount of service owed by
each one.
OF CHÂTILLON AND FISMES.
- Count of Rethel, liege homage.
- Count of Grandpré, liege homage.
- Count of Roucy, liege homage.
- Count of Chiny.
- Roger of Rozoy, for the fief of Chaourse. Roger of Rozoy,
his son [did homage].{91}
- Lord of Montmort, liege homage. Guy of Montmort [did
homage]. He holds in fief the rights of the forest of Vassy
and many other fiefs.
- Hugo of Oisy, a year’s guard.
- Gaulcher of Châtillon, guard and liege homage.
- The sons of Guy of Châtillon, a year’s guard and liege
homage, etc., etc.
OF CHÂTEAU-THIERRY.
- Count of Soisson. His fief is thirty pounds of the tolls
and taxes of Château-Thierry.{92}
- Lord of Pierrefonds.
- Lord of Nesles, Fresnes, and Roiglise.
- Lord of Braisne.
- Lord of Bazoches is liege man of the count after the bishop
of Soissons,{93} and owes three months’ guard. For Coulonges
and the forest as far as Ste. Gemme [his fief].
- André de Ferté, liege homage and a year’s guard.
- Bartholomé de Thury, liege homage and a year’s guard.
His fief is at Thury, Coulombs, and Chacrise, etc., etc.
OF MEAUX.
- Count of Vermandois.
- Count of Beaumont.
- Bishop of Beauvais, for the fief of Savignies.
- Bochard of Montmorency. His fief is at Marly and Ferrières.
- Lord of Crécy-en-Brie. For Crécy and many other fiefs.
- Lord of Montjay.
- Viscount of La Ferté, liege homage and guard. For his
holdings at Gandelus, Fresnes, La Ferté-Gaucher, La Ferté-sous-Jouarre,
and Lizy, and their dependencies, except the
fief which he holds of the bishop of Meaux and the abbot of St. Faron.
- Theobald of Crespy. For Bouillancy, etc., etc.
Documents inédits, Champagne, I, pp. 73 f.
This table occurs at the end of the register of the fiefs of the
count of Champagne of which the preceding number is a part. It is
the sum of the knights who owe regular military service to the count,
and is also therefore the number of knights whom the count should
bring in answer to royal summons to war.
| From | La Ferté | 58 |
| | Bar-sur-Aube | 117 |
| | Rosnay | 79 |
| | Saint-Florentin | 42 |
| | Ervy | 39 |
| | Villemaur | 27 |
| | Vitry and dependencies | 159 |
| | Bussy-le-Château | 25 |
| | Mareuil-en-Brie | 84 |
| | Montfélix | 24 |
| | Épernay | 40 |
| | Châtillon and Fismes | 160 |
| | Oulchy | 62 |
| | Château-Thierry | 86 |
| | Meaux | 149 |
| | Coulommiers | 68 |
| | Montereau | 29 |
| | Chantemerle | 34 |
| | Bray-sur-Seine | 83 |
| | Provins | 265 |
| | Payns | 42 |
| | Pont-sur-Seine | 42 |
| | Sézanne and Lachy | 85 |
| | Vertus | 61 |
| | Troyes and Isle-Aumont | 135 |
| | Méry-sur-Seine | 21 |
| | The great fiefs | 20 |
| | | ——— |
| Whole sum of the knights | 2,030 |
| | | ——— |
| [Correct total | 2,036] |
Documents inédits, Champagne, II, pp. 9 ff.
This is an inventory of the domain lands of the count of Champagne,
made to determine the revenues, possessions, and rights of the
count, and the obligations and dues of the tenants and serfs. They
were determined by the examination of certain trustworthy inhabitants
of each domain or village. The result was arranged according
to bailiwicks (large administrative districts), and domains or villages.
Thus the cases given here are taken from the four villages
of Troyes, Nogent, Pont, and Séant, in the bailiwick of Troyes. The
student should notice the rights of the lord (justice, banvin, rachat,
mainmort, markets, tolls, etc.); the revenues from the lands; the
position of the prévôt (the lord’s agent in the village), whose
services are paid by allowing him to collect and keep part of the
revenues. Note also that in this age many of the rights of the lord
are commuted for money or let out to others for an annual rent; this
was a common tendency of the later feudal age, when the lord came
more and more to appreciate the advantages of ready money over
services and rents in produce.
BAILIWICK OF TROYES.
The count has at Troyes pure and mixed justice in Troyes
and all jurisdiction over all persons,{94} except the men who
have charters of privilege and the men who live on the lands
of churches which have jurisdiction over their men by
charter or long usage.
Fines in cases coming under the high justice are levied at
the will of the count according to the character of the crimes
and the custom of the city. They are not estimated here.
Escheat and confiscation of goods for the great crimes, such
as killing, theft, rapine, heresy, etc., belong to the high
justice. The prévôt has 20 solidi of the fines which are
levied, and 60 solidi of the escheats. Besides these the
prévôt has no share in these fines, but they go to the count.
Fines for cases coming under the low justice are levied
according to the custom of Troyes....
The count also has the right of mainmort by which he
takes all the goods of men who die without children or heirs
who should succeed, and all the goods of low-born men who
die without children....
The count also has within the district of Troyes the right
of rachat,{95} which the widows of noble holders of fiefs must
pay if they wish to marry again. The rate of the rachat has
been decided to be equal to the income of the fief for a year.
The prévôt has no share in the rachat.
The count also has the markets of St. John, which begin
on the first Tuesday two weeks after the day of St. John the
Baptist and end about the day of the Nativity of the Blessed
Virgin. They are now estimated to be worth 1,000 pounds,{96}
besides the fiefs of the holders of the markets which are
worth 13 pounds. This market is called the "hot-weather
fair" (la foire chaude).
He also has the markets of St. Rémy, called the "cold-weather
fair" (la foire froide). They begin on the day after
All Saints’ day and last until a week before Christmas. They
are estimated to be worth now about 700 pounds....
The count also has the house of the German merchants
where cloth is sold.... It is sold or rented out at the
fairs of St. John and St. Rémy, and is estimated to be worth
400 pounds a year, deducting the expenses.
The count also has the stalls of the butchers ...
which are held from the count for an annual rental, paid
half on the day of St. Rémy, and half on the day of the
Purification of the Blessed Virgin. The count also has
jurisdiction in cases arising in regard to the stalls of the
butchers.
He also has the hall of the cordwainers [shoemakers],
where shoes are sold on Saturday; it is situated next to the
stalls of the butchers. It is held from the count for an
annual rental, paid at the above-mentioned times.
The count and Nicholas of Bar-le-Duc have undivided
shares in a house back of the dwelling of the prévôt, which
contains 18 rooms, large and small. The rooms are rented
for an undivided rent of 125 solidi, of which half goes to the
said Nicholas....
The count and the said Nicholas have undivided shares in
seventeen stalls for the sale of bread and fishes. They are
now rented for 18 pounds and 18 solidi....
The count has a house there and the orchard that goes
with it, which the count retains for himself [i.e., has not let
out in fief].
According to the statement under oath of Pierre of Pampeluna
[etc.], the count has also all the justice, except that
which is held by others by charter or long usage....
Escheat and confiscation of goods come under the high
justice, and the prévôt has the same rights in fines and
escheats as in the case of Troyes [see above]. The smaller
fines from cases belonging to the high justice are estimated
as belonging to the office of the prévôt.
The count also has the market hall and the toll from the
markets and the village, every day in the week. They are
estimated at 80 pounds.
He also has the banvin, which lasts a whole month, beginning
on the day after Easter. It is valued at 30 pounds.
The count also has the right over the streams of Noe and
Vileure....
5. Extent of the domain of Pont-sur-Seine, determined
by the statements of Pierre Molventre, Th. Coichard, and
Robert of Besançon, who were sworn to speak the truth.
The count has a house there, and has all the justice in the
village and the chatelainerie, except that which is held by
others by charter or long usage. The high and low justice
is exercised as described in the chapter on Troyes. The jurisdiction
exercised by the prévôt is estimated to be worth
100 pounds a year, the jurisdiction over the fiefs at 14
pounds, 10 solidi, and the jurisdiction over the clergy at 26
solidi, 8 denarii.
These are the dues collected by the prévôt:
Taxes and toll from the market, and 18 solidi of the
ancient small tax. Also the lods et ventes,{97} which are now
estimated at 42 pounds.
The banvin, which lasts for 15 days, beginning about the
day of St. Mary of Magdala, when the count wishes to exercise
it; it is worth about 60 solidi when the count wishes to
sell it. The monks of St. Étienne have the same banvin,
but they are not allowed to sell it unless the count sells his.
The rents from the inhabitants of Villeneuve, now worth
60 solidi. The prévôt takes half, and the other half goes to
the canons of the church of Provins. Each farm also pays
12 denarii and a measure of oats, half to the count (the
prévôt does not take this) and half to the said canons....
The count also has the following rents and lods et ventes:
Lods et ventes from the house of Robert of Besançon, and
12 solidi rent; the same from the house of Claude and 10
solidi rent; the same from the house of Ordinetus the serf,
and 25 solidi rent....
He also has from Saint-Martin-de-Bossenay 5 solidi of the
small tax, lods et ventes, three hens a year, and 15 measures
of oats....
The count also has from Le Châtelot, near Villeneuve,
seven hens a year, and five measures of oats to be paid on
Christmas, and they belong to the office of the prévôt....
Hugo of Villeneuve, clergyman, Renerius, his brother, the
prévôt of the village, Pierre Florie, Pierre Fromerit, former
prévôt, and Hugo Florion, say on their oath that the count
has the right of escheat from all who die in the village without
heirs....
6. Extent of Séant, determined by the statements of
Theobald the bailly, Ithari le Paalier, Felicité Huilliet,
Guillot le Convert, and Milauti Veitu, sworn to speak the
truth.
They said on their oaths that Henry, king of Navarre of
blessed memory, bought the village of Séant, with its men,
lands, woods, domains, and appurtenances, from the lord of
Montmorency, with the dowry of lady Blanche his wife, now
the wife of lord Edmund, son of the king of England, paying
for it 6,500 pounds Tours.{98} The said lady Blanche has
a house there and all the justice, high and low, within the
boundaries of Séant....
The lord of Montmorency had and the lady Blanche has
20 journata{99} of land in the place known as the clearing of
Forni, 10 journata in the clearing of John of Pont, 10
journata in the clearing of Pierre Courbe, and 5 journata in
the clearing of Val de Laroi. In all, 45 journata, which are
equal to about 42 arpents.
The lady also has the land tax from all the clearings;
these are in meadows and contain about 250 arpents.
The lady also has the land taxes from the great field of
Séant; this tax is divided into twelve parts, of which the
abbeys of Valle Lucenti, Pontigny, and Dillo have five parts,
and the lady the other seven....
The lady also has rents, customs, and taxes from the following
men:
Theobald the bailly is the man of the lady Blanche and
holds of her in fief five of the eight parts of the bake-oven
of Séant;{100} the other three parts are held by Adelicia and her
children. The said Theobald also has a farm from the
countess, for which he pays 5 solidi, 1 denarius rent, and a
measure of wine, a hen, a loaf of bread, and three measures
of oats.
The children of Bertelon are men of the countess and hold
land of her at a rent of 11 measures of oats and the taille.{101}
The children of Baudonnet are men of the countess and
hold land of her at a rent of 12 denarii and a measure of
oats, and the taille....
229, 230. The Attempt of the King to Control the Feudal Nobles.
M. G. LL. 4to, IV, 1, no. 45; Doeberl, III, no. 1.
The feudal king naturally was not content with his restricted
authority under the feudal régime and attempted to assert his right
as head of the state to enforce general laws for the whole realm.
When the king was strong and able, he could do this to some extent,
but when he was weak, his commands received little attention. In
the reigns of Conrad II and Frederick I, in Germany, the monarch
was able to control his great vassals and enforce obedience to his
laws. But the triumph of the papacy, allied with the great nobles
of Germany, over the emperor was fatal to the development of a
strong monarchy, and after the death of Frederick II the feudal
lords became independent princes. See the progressive concessions to
princes, nos. 136, 139, 153, 160. In France the monarchy became
absolute by acquiring, in accordance with feudal law, actual
possession of all the great fiefs. In England, the conflict between the
king and the feudal lords gave opportunity for the rise of a representative
system of government, which was used sometimes by the
king to control the lords (as in the cases of Henry I and Henry II),
sometimes by the great lords to control the king (John and Henry
III). Thus the feudal system, under different conditions, resulted
in France in an absolute monarchy, in England in a constitutional
monarchy, and in Germany in a weak central government and a
kingdom composed of many practically independent principalities.
In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Conrad,
by the grace of God emperor of the Romans, Augustus.
(1) Know ... that we have ordained and established
that no knight of a bishop, abbot, margrave, count, or of anyone
else, who holds a benefice from the royal or from church
lands, shall be deprived of his benefice unless he has been
convicted of a crime by his peers, according to the laws of
our ancestors. This applies to both our great vassals and
their knights.
(2) If a conflict shall have arisen between a great vassal
and his knight, and the peers shall have judged that the knight
should lose his benefice, and if the knight alleges that he was
condemned unjustly, he shall keep his benefice until both
parties have come into our presence, where the case shall be
settled justly. But if the great vassal is not able to get the
peers of the accused to give judgment, the accused shall hold
his benefice until he and his overlord and the peers shall
have come before us. In such cases, the party who appeals
shall notify the other party to the suit, six weeks before he
sets out to the royal court. This applies to our great vassals
as well.{102}
(3) But cases between lower vassals shall be tried before
their lords or before our missi.
(4) We ordain also that when any knight, either of a
great vassal or of a rear-vassal, dies, his son shall have his
benefice. If he does not leave a son, but a son of his son
survives, this grandson shall receive his benefice, observing
the custom of great vassals by giving horses and arms to his
lord.{103} But if the knight leaves neither son nor grandson, but
a brother or a half-brother on the father’s side, that one shall
have the benefice, if he is willing to become the knight of the
lord of that benefice.
(5) Moreover, we forbid that any lord should trade the
benefice which his knight holds, or dispose of it in any way
without the knight’s consent. And no one shall dare to take
from his knight the lands which he holds by proprietary right
or as a libellum or precarium.{104}
(6) The fodrum from the castles which was paid to our
ancestors shall be paid to us, but we will not require any
which was not paid to them.
Ragewin, Gesta, IV, ch. 10; M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 113 f; Doeberl, IV, no. 37 c.
Frederick, by the grace of God emperor of the Romans,
Augustus, to all the faithful subjects of our empire....
At the diet of Roncaglia, where we held a court of justice,
as was the custom of our ancestors, the princes of Italy, the
rulers of the church, and other faithful subjects made complaint
that their vassals were in the habit of pawning or
selling the fiefs and benefices which they held of them without
their consent. Thereby the princes were deprived of the
services due them from these fiefs and the dignity and the
revenues of the empire were diminished. Having taken counsel
with the bishops, dukes, margraves, counts, palatines,
and other nobles, we therefore decree by this edict that no
one henceforth shall sell or pawn or devise by will or in any
way dispose of his fief or any part of it without the consent
of the lord from whom he holds it. The emperor Lothar
commanded under similar circumstances that such things
should not be done in the future; we, however, hereby declare
void not only future alienations of this sort, but also all
illegal alienations that have already been made; the purchaser
of the fief in such cases shall have an action at law
against the seller for the recovery of the price, without
regard to the length of time that has elapsed since the
transaction. And as some resort to fraudulent sales and
transfers under the form of free investiture after receiving
the purchase price, we declare that such fictitious sales are
void and condemn both seller and purchaser to the loss of
the fief, which shall revert to the lord. Any lawyer who
draws up such a contract knowingly shall be deprived of his
office and lose his hand and be stigmatized with infamy. If
any person over fourteen years of age, who has inherited a
fief, fails through his own negligence to seek investiture for
it from his lord within a year and a day, he shall lose the
fief and it shall revert to the lord. If any vassal refuses to
obey the summons of his lord to accompany him on an
imperial expedition, or fails to come at the time set, or to
send a suitable person in his place or to give half the revenue
of the fief [as compensation for his service], he shall lose
the fief and it shall revert to the lord.{105}
Duchies, marks, and counties may not be divided.{106} Any
other fief may be divided if the co-heirs desire, but on the
following conditions: Everyone who holds a part of the fief
shall swear fidelity to the overlord; no vassal shall have more
than one lord for one fief; and the lord shall not transfer
the fief to another lord without the consent of the vassal.
Vassals shall be responsible to the lord for the conduct of
their sons; if the son of a vassal offends the lord, the father,
on pain of losing his fief, shall compel him either to make
satisfaction to the lord for his fault or to leave his household.
If the son refuses to obey, he shall not be allowed to
inherit the fief on his father’s death unless he has made
satisfaction. Vassals shall in a similar manner be responsible
to their lord for the conduct of their vassals, and all
their dependents.
In case of a controversy between two vassals of the same
lord in regard to a fief, the matter shall be tried and decided
by the lord. In case of a controversy between a vassal and
his lord, it shall be decided by a court of peers of the vassal,
sworn on their oath of fidelity to do justice in the case.
We also decree that in every oath of fidelity the fidelity to
the emperor shall be excepted by name.