¹ Wilks, Michael, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1963), p.70.Google Scholar

² A recent and very interesting account is Klinkenberg, M., ‘Die Théorie der Veränderbarkeit des Rechts im frühen und hohen Mittelalter’, in Wilpert, P., ed., Lex et sacramentum im Mittelalter - Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 6 (Berlin, 1969), pp. 157–88Google Scholar; on Gregory see pp. 173-5. Cf. also Mirbt, C., Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII. (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 210–11Google Scholar, and on the back ground in Gregorian hermeneuric doctrine see Kuttner, S., ‘Liber canonicus. A note on “Dictatus papae” c. 17’, SGre, 2 (1947). pp. 387–401. at pp. 393–7.Google Scholar

³ Dictatus papae, 7, Dos Register Gregors VII. ed. E. Caspar, MGH. ES, 2, 2 vols (Berlin, 1920, repr. 1967), II, 55a, vol. 1, p. 203.

⁴ The charge was made by the schismatic cardinals, the cardinals who broke away from the Pope in 1084, in relation to Quoniam muitos (discussed below); see Benonis aliorumque cardinalium scismaticomm… scripta, ed. K. Francke, MGH. LL, II, pp. 369-422, line 3, p. 370 (discussed further below and in part 3). In a twelfth-century canonical collection from the Rhineland the canon likewise elicited the comment ‘Hoc decretum contrarium est catholicae fidei’; see Gilchrist, J., ‘The reception of Pope Gregory VII into the canon law (1073-1141)’, part 1, ZSRG. K, 59 (1973), pp. 35–82Google Scholar, and part 2, ibid., 66 (1980), pp. 192-229, at part 2, p. 194.

⁵ Vodola, E., Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1986), pp. 41–2.Google Scholar

⁶ Gilchrist, ‘Reception’, part 1, pp. 70-3 and part 2, pp. 221-5 for the main conclusions.

⁷ Schieffer, R., ‘Rechtstexte des Reformpapsttums und ihre zeitgenössische Resonanz’, in Mordek, H., ed., Überlieferung und Geltung normativer Texte des frühen und hohen Mittelalters (Sigmaringen, 1986), pp. 51–69, esp. pp. 68–9.Google Scholar

⁸ Kempf, F., ‘En zweiter Dictatus papae?’ AHP, 13 (1975), pp. 119–39 at pp. 130–5. See also below.Google Scholar

⁹ Gregory, Register V, 14a, vol. 2, pp. 372-3.1 have used the incipit Nos, sanctorum because it is the familiar one from Grarian’s Decretum (C.15 q.6 c.4) and other collections, although in the Register itself the canon begins iterum sanctorum predecessorum’.

¹⁰ Gilchrist, ‘Reception’, part 1, pp. 70-1 and 79; part 2, esp. pp. 223-4, also p. 214.

¹¹ Gilchrist, ‘Reception’, part 1, pp. 54-61, for the earlier reception in French collections; pp. 45-50 for the Italian—somewhat later, except (see below) for Deusdedit. Ibid., part 2, pp. 192-211, adds a few other collections that may date from as early as the eleventh century, now not distinguishing between French and Italian collections.

¹² Ivo, Panormia 5.no, PL 161, col. 1236 for Nos and 5.125, PL 161, col. 1241 for Quoniam (cf. Gilchrist,’Reception’, part i, pp. 62-4);in Gratian, Decretum, C.15 q.6 c.4 and C. i 1 q.3 C.103, respectively.

¹³ Erdmann, C., ‘Die Bamberger Domschule im Investiturstreit’, Zeitschrift für bayerische Landes-geschichte, 9 (1936), pp. 1–46Google Scholar. I have been unable to see this article; for the presence of Nos and Quoniam in the collection ‘p’ see Robinson, I. S., ‘The dissemination of the letters of Pope Gregory VII during the Investiture Contest’, JEH, 34 (1983), pp. 175–93, at p. 177Google Scholar, and Gilchrist, ‘Reception’, part 2, p. 228. For other letter collections that included one or both see Robinson, ‘Dissemination’, passim, summarized in the table on pp. 190—1; cf. also Gilchrist, ‘Reception‘, part 2, pp. 224-5 and the table on pp. 228-9. Only Quoniam is in the Codex Udalrici; see Jaffé, P., ed., Monumenta Bambergensia in Jaffé, , ed., Bibliotheea rerumgermanicarum, 5 (Berlin, 1869). no. 57, p. 123Google Scholar. C. Märtl is preparing a new edition of the Codex Udalrici; see Fuhrmann, H., ‘Monumenta Germaniae Histórica: Bericht für das Jahre 1988/89’, DA, 45 (1989), pp. i—xvi, at p. xii.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See part 3.

¹⁵ See below and part 3, passim.

¹⁶ Glanvell, V. Wolf von, ed., Die Kanonessammlung des Karâinals Deusdedit (Paderborn, 1905, repr. Aalen, 1067), 4.185, p. 491.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., with the interpolation in italics: ‘… a sacramento absoluimus quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem uenianl et ne eis antea fidelitatem obseruent… prohibemus.’ (On Deusdedit’s interpolations see most recendy U.-R. Blumenthal, ‘Fälschungen bei Kanonisten der Kirchenreform des 11. Jahrhunderts”, Fälschungen im Mittelalter, 6 vols, MGH Schrifien, 33 (Hanover, 1988), 2, pp. 241-62.1 am assuming that Deusdedit himself, rather than his source, is responsible for the interpolation.) Vodola, Excommunication, p. 23 may be too strong in asserting that Deusdedit transformed the original absolution into suspension, since in a statement of general policy absolution from fealty oaths might be understood as mere suspension for the duration of the excommunication. (Certainly Kempf, ‘Dictatus’, pp. 133-5 does not see the original’s ‘absolvimus’ as equivalent to deposition.) But as a reflection of Gregory’s state of mind towards King Henry and in view of the Pope’s actions after Canossa (see below on both points) it can be said at the least that Gregory would have assumed the restoration of fealty to be contingent on his permission. Cf. also Dictatus papae, 27: ‘Quod a fidelitate iniquorum subiectos potest absolvere’, together with 12: ‘Quod illi liceat imperatores deponere’ (Gregory, Register 11,55a, vol. 1, pp. 208 and 204).

¹⁸ Jaffé, 5724; see Vodola, Excommunication, pp. 23 and 67—9 on subsequent policy.

¹⁹ This survey is based mainly on Schieffer, R., Die Entstehung des päpstlichen Investiturverbots für den deutschen König, MGH Schrifien, 28 (Stuttgart, 1981), pp. 109–76Google Scholar passim, supplemented by Blumenthal, U.-R., The Investiture Controversy (Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 113–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Fliche, A., La Réforme grégorienne et la reconquête chrétienne (1057-1123), Histoire de l’église, 8 (Paris, 1940), pp. 130–57 passim.Google Scholar

²⁰ See especially Gregory, Register III, 10. vol. 1, p. 263; III, 10a, vol. 1, p. 271; IV, 1.vol. 1, p. 291; IV, 2, vol. 1, p. 293; and The Epistolae vagantes of Pope Gregory VII, ed. H. E. J. Cowdrey (Oxford, 1972), no. 14, p. 38. Cf. Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 110-11,142,147-52, and 154.

²¹ Bonizo of Sutri, Liber ad amicum, MGH. LL, I, pp. 568-620, vi, p. 600; cf. Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 109-10; Blumenthal, Controversy, pp. 110 and 113.

²² On 1 September Gregory warned Archbishop Anselm 11 of Lucca not to accept investiture from Henry until he had done satisfaction for his contacts with excommunicates (Register 1, 21, vol. 1, p. 3 5; see n. 80 below). For Henry’s apology, dated August/September, see Gregory, Register I, 29a, vol. 1, pp. 47-9; cf. Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 111-12. For the April 1074 reconciliation see Erdmann, C., Studien zur Briefliteratur Deutschlands im elften Jahrhundert, MGH Schriften, 1 (Leipzig, 1938), p. 238Google Scholar; cf. Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 114; Schieffer, Entstehung, p. 112.

²³ See especially Gregory, Register II, 30, vol. 1, pp. 163-5 and II, 31, vol.1, pp. 165-8. Cf. Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 112-13.

²⁴ Robinson, I. S., ‘“Periculosus homo”: Pope Gregory VII and episcopal authority’, Viator, 9 (1978), pp. 103–31, at pp. 113–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ The precipitating cause was Gregory’s insistence on a trial for simony of the bishop of Toul, based on charges by one of his clerics (Gregory, Register 11, 10, vol. I, pp. 140-2); the charges were found groundless, and the bishop who presided asked not to be given similar com missions in future (C. Erdmann and N. Fickermann, eds, Briefsammlungen der Zeit Heinrichs IV., MGH.B, V, pp. 38-41, the letter of the presiding Judge, Udo of Trier, to Pope Gregory, JanV Feb. 1075). See Schieffer, R., ‘Spirituals latrones. Zu den Hintergründen der Simonieprozesse in Deurschland zwischen 1069 und 1075’, Hislorisches Jahrbuch, 92 (1972), pp. 19–60, at p. 46.Google Scholar

²⁶ Gregory, Register II, 52a, vol. 1, p. 196; cf. Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 119; Schieffer, Entstehung, p. 123.

²⁷ ’ Gregory, Register II, 55a, vol. 1, pp. 201-8.

²⁸ Ibid., no. 6, p. 203, and no. 27, p. 208.

²⁹ Robinson, ‘“Periculosus”, p. 116 noted that Dictatuspapae 27 more likely referred to Bishop Otto of Constance than to Henry IV. It must also be recalled that in 1074 Gregory was threatening King Philip 1 of France with deposition (Register II, 5, vol. i, pp. 129-33, and II, 18, vol. 1, pp. 150—1).

³⁰ For example, Register 111, 7, vol. 1, p.257: Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 123—34.

³¹ Register III, 10, vol. 1, pp. 263—4; cf. Blumenthal, Controversy, pp. 119—20; Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 134-5.

³² Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 121, cf. pp. 118-20 passim; Schieffer, Entstehung, p. 141; Fliche, Réforme, p. 134.

³³ Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 121; Fliche, Réforme, p. 134.

³⁴ Gregory, Register III, 10a, vol. 1, pp. 270-1. Cf. Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 122; Fliche, Réforme, p. 137.

³⁵ Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 122; Fliche, Réforme, p. 140.

³⁶ In September 1076 Gregory wrote telling the German people that mercy as well as justice should be used to bring Henry back to the Church, though if these failed a new king would have to be found; see Register IV, 3, vol. 1, pp. 297-300.

³⁷ Gregory, Register IV, 12-12a, vol. I, pp. 311-15; cf. Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 123; Schieffer, Entstehung, p. 153; Fliche, Réforme, pp. 141-2.

³⁸ See Register VII, 14a, vol. 2, p. 484, for Gregory’s statement, in the 1080 deposition, that although he had absolved Henry at Canossa, he had not restored him to power. As early as February or March 1077, explaining to the German people his actions at Canossa, Gregory noted that although he had absolved Henry he had not made any other decisions ‘… nisi quod ad cautelam et honorem omnium vestrum fore putavimus’ (Epistolae vagantes, ed. Cowdrey, no. 20, p. 545). For the arguments see especially Morrison, K. F., ‘Canossa: a revision’, Traditio, 18 (1962), pp. 121–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Gilchrist, J., ‘Gregory VII and the juristic sources of his ideology’, SGra, 12 (1967), pp. 3–37, at pp. 29–37Google Scholar; further bibliography in Kempf, ‘Dictatus’, p. 128, n. 33.

³⁹ Epistolae vagantes, ed. Cowdrey, no. 19, p. 50.

⁴⁰ Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 124; Schieffer, Entstehung, p. 154; Fliche, Réforme, p. 140.

⁴¹ Paul of Bernried, Vita S. Gregorii VII, PL 148, cols 39-104 at col. 84: itaque principes regni, de adventu papae incerti … accepta licentia a legaris, apud Magontinum archiepiscopum convenerunt.’ Cf. Morrison, ‘Canossa’, p. 124, and Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 124. In the 1080 deposition Gregory noted that he had not consented to Rudolf’s election [Register VII, 14a, vol. 2, p. 484). In Kempf’s view, far from approving the Forchheim election Gregory regretted it as a usurpation of his authority to oversee the choice of action to be taken in the question of Henry’s rule: ‘Dictatus’, p. 129.

⁴² Gregory, Register VII, 14a, vol. 2, p. 483; as Gregory describes, in the 1080 excommunication and deposition Rudolf reported that he had been forced to take up the government, but would obey Gregory in all things; Henry, meanwhile, asked for lus aid against Rudolf: ‘Meanwhile Henry began to ask me for help against the aforementioned Rudolf. 1 replied that I would help after listening to the arguments of both sides, so I would know which side justice favoured more.’ Cf. Blumenthal, Controversy, p. 124.

⁴³ A strong argument against this, and indeed against the notion that Gregory regarded himself as having taken any decisive action at, or before, the Lent synod of 1078, is the evidence that he continued afterwards to regard the contest as an equal battle between Henry and Rudolf; see especially his July 1078 letter to die Germans, Register VI, 1, vol. 2, pp. 389—90. Among the strongest proponents of this view is Morrison (‘Canossa’, pp. 127-8), who indeed brings forward evidence that Gregory saw even his 1080 deposition as only probationary: ibid., pp. 138-41; see Gilchrist, ‘Sources’, pp. 32-5 for a partial refutation.

⁴⁴ Schieffer, Entslehung, pp. 109—72 passim, esp. pp. 151-60; summary in Blumenthal, Controversy, pp. 120—1.

⁴⁵ Gregory, Register V, 14a, c.6, vol. 2, pp. 370—1.

⁴⁶ Hence, as Kempf points out, Gregory’s claims of the power to depose kings looked all the weaker when Henry won the trial by battle that Gregory called for: ‘Dictatus’, p. 129.

⁴⁷ Gregory, Register VII, 14a, vol. 2, pp. 485-6.

⁴⁸ But it should be remembered that the official account of the synod in the Register is evidently incomplete: S. Löwenfeld found another fragment: ‘Ein Aktenstück aus der Ostersynode von 1078’, Neues Architi, 14 (1889), pp. 618-22, at p. 618; cf. Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 168-9, and yet another enactment of the synod is known only from Swabian reports; see Knonau, G. Meyer von, Jahrbücher des deutschen Retches urtter Heinrich IV. una Heinrich V., 7 vols (Leipzig, 1890-1909), 3, p. 110.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See n. 43 above. Likewise Meyer von Knonau, while reporting both accounts, of Berthold of Reichenau and of Bernold of Constance, which will be discussed in the text below, did not consider the possibility that Henry was excommunicated at the synod; on the contrary, he emphasized that the synod disappointed Henry’s enemies by not taking action against him: Jahrbücher, 3, pp. 115—18.

⁵⁰ On Berthold see Schmale, F.-J., ‘Berthold von Reichenau’, Lexikon desMiltclalters (Munich and Zurich 1980ff.) 1.2036Google Scholar; see Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 168-9 on problems in other aspects of Berthold’s account of the 1078 synod.

⁵¹ Berthold, Annales, MGH. SS, V, pp. 264-326, sa 1077, pp. 302—3.1. S. Robinson is preparing a new edition of die Annales: see Fuhrmann, ‘Monumenta’, p. vi. As for whether the action was taken by apostolic authority, Berthold himself does not make it a certainty in Gregory’s mind that the legate had excommunicated Henry (see below). Meyer von Knonau wrote dut the legate, pressured by Henry’s Saxon enemies, felt sufficient papal support to proceed wim the action, though in fact Gregory was professedly neutral at this time: Jahrbücher, 3, pp. 75-6. Morrison believed diat Gregory commissioned me legate’s action: ‘Canossa’, p. 128, but failed afterwards to ratify it, waiting for three years until fresh insults from Henry prompted the 1080 deposition: ibid., pp. 128-9; Morrison saw the 1078 synod as having produced no excommunication of Henry: ibid., p. 126.

⁵² Berthold, Annales, sa 1078, pp. 307-8.

⁵³ Ibid., pp. 309-10.

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 310.

⁵⁵ Wido of Ferrara, De scismate Hiìdebrandi, ed. R. Wilmans, rev. E. Dümmler, MGH. LL, I, pp. 529-67, at p. 560. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 225, n. 1 argued from mis passage that Wido did not know Quoniam muitos, since he would have used it against Gregory if he had. But I believe he may have had knowledge, albeit erroneous, of the canon.

⁵⁶ Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, MGH.SS, V, pp. 385-467, sa 1078, p. 435:’In hoc concilio facta est exceprio quarundam personarum de Heinriciana excommunicatione, et hoc utique ad tempus, id est uxorum, filiorum, servorum, et reliquorum, qui non scienter vel saltim non libenter excommunicatis sociantur.’ The addition is present in several copies of the Chronicle, including Bernold’s autograph (see p. 388). I. S. Robinson is preparing a new edition of the Chronicon; see Fuhrmann, ‘Monumenta’, p. vi.

⁵⁷ See part 3.

⁵⁸ Cardinahum scismalicorum… scripta, 1.3, p. 370. See also above, n. 4, and part 3.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 2.2, pp. 374—5.

⁶⁰ On Gregory’s identification with St Peter see Nitschke, A., ‘Die Wirksamkeit Gottes in der Welt Gregors VII….’, SGra, 5 (1956), pp. 115–219 at pp. 155–6Google Scholar; Blumenthal, Controversy, pp. 116-19; and Robinson, I-S., ‘The friendship network of Gregory VII’, History, 63 (1978), pp. 1–22, at p. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Nitschke, ‘Wirksamkeit’ passim, esp. pp. 146—51 in relation to excommunication.

⁶² Gregory, Register III, 10a, vol. 1, p. 270, and VII, 14a, vol. 2, p. 483.

⁶³ Probably the most famous exponent of this view was Bernold of Constance, who defended it against his former teacher Bernhard of Hildesheim’s objection that Gregory’s 1076 excommunication of Henry IV had not followed the required procedural rules; see De damnationescismalicorum (1076), ed. F. Thaner, MGH.LL, II, pp. 26-58, at p. 48. Gregory himself noted that if the excommunication had not fully observed correct procedures the King should none the less not have disobeyed it, but should rather have sought absolution, according to the Holy Fathers (Epistolae vagantes, ed. Cowdrey no. 14, p. 40). Here he is certainly in accord with traditional doctrine; see Vodola, Excommunication, p. 11.

⁶⁴ For example, Gregory, Register IV, 16, vol. 1, p.320; V, 13, vol. 2, p. 366.

⁶⁵ Gregory, Register I, 85, vol. 1, p. 121.

⁶⁶ Gregory, Register IV, 22, vol. 1, p. 331. See below and part 3 for the tradition (followed elsewhere by Gregory himself) that only knowing contacts with excommunicates were punishable. On the significance of the Bishop-elect’s alleged ignorance of the decree see Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 143—5.

⁶⁷ Robinson, I. S., ‘Bernold von St. Blasien’, in Stammler, W., ed., Die deutsche Lileratur des Mittelalters. Verfasseriexikon, 2nd edn (Berlin and New York, 1978ff.) 1, pp. 795–8, at p. 798.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, sa 1085, p. 443, and sa 1091, p. 452 (the latter an addition, v.fecere in MS 4b). Cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 214, n. 2. A number of examples of such exiles could be cited: see, e.g., Historia Hirsaugiensis monasterii, MGH.SS, XIV, pp. 254-05, at pp. 262 and 263 (cf. Mirbt, ibid., p. 221, n. 3), and they would eventually be referred to in a decretal; see part 3. Cf.Wollasch, J., ‘Markgraf Hermann und Bischof Gebhard III von Konstanz. Die Zähringer und die Reform der Kirche’, in Frank, K. S., ed., Die Zähringer in der Kirche des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts (Munich and Zurich, 1987), pp. 25–53, at p. 41Google Scholar, noting that research has yet to fully portray the turmoil caused by the Investiture conflict in soudi-west Germany. For further references see Becker, A., Papst Urban II (1088-1099), 2 vols, MGH Schriften, 19 (Stuttgart, 1964-88), 1, p. 151, n. 548Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Bonizo of Sutri, Liber, p. 610; cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 152.

⁷⁰ Bardo presbyter, Vita Anselmi episcopi Lucensis, ed. R. Wilmans, AfGH.. SS, XII, pp. 1—35, c.21, p. 20. Cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 221, n. 3.

⁷¹ Hugh of Flavigny, Chronicon, MGH. SS, VIII, pp. 280—503, ii, sa 1080, p. 453; cf. Robinson, ‘Dissemination’, p. 193, and see Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 219, n. 2, for further examples of avoidance of excommunicates from this period.

⁷² The first such papal decree’ assuming that a decretal attributed to Pope Gelasius 1, discussed in part 2, is pseudonymous, as is almost certainly the case.

⁷³ For the full text of the canon see Gregory, Register V, 14a, vol. 2, pp. 372-3: ‘Et quoniam muitos peccaris nostris exigenribus pro causa excommunicarionis perire cottidie cemimus partim ignorancia, partim edam nimia simplicitate, parrim rimore, partim edam necessitate, devicti misericordia anathemaris sentendam ad tempus, prout possumus, oportune temperamus. Apostolica namque auctoritate ab anathemaris vinculo hos subtrahimus, videlicet uxores liberos servos ancillas seu mancipia necnon rusticos et servientes et omnes alios, qui non adeo curiales sunt, ut eorum Consilio scelera perpetrentur, et illos, qui ignoranter exeommunicatis communicant, seu illos, qui communicant cum eis, qui communicant exeommunicatis. Quicumque autem aut orator sive peregrinus aut viator in terram exeommunicatorum devenerit, ubi non possit emere vel non habet unde emat, ab exeommunicatis accipiendi licentiam damus. Et si quis exeommunicatis non pro sustentatione superbie sed humanitatis causa aliquid dare voluerit, fieri non prohibemus.’

⁷⁴ For example, Gregory, Register III, 10, vol. 1, p. 263, Gregory’s letter of December 1075 to King Henry; ibid. 1,16, vol. 1, p. 26; ibid. IV, 6, vol. 1, p. 304.

⁷⁵ Seen. 66.

⁷⁶ See part 3.

⁷⁷ Duchesne, L. M. O., ed.. Le Liber pontificalis, 3 vols, BEFAR (1955, repr. 1981) 1, p. 258; cf. part 2.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Burchard of Worms, Decrelum, 19.5, PL 140, col. 969; also ibid., 11.33, PL 140. col. 866. On Burchard see also pare 2.

⁷⁹ The nucleus of this investigation was the similar question posed by Mirbt, Publizistik, pp. 218-24, but without attempting to be exhaustive as here. Mentioned here are only the letters actually threatening punishments, not those in which Gregory only warns that excommunicates be avoided (e.g., Register 1,11, vol. i, p. 18, and 1,15, p. 24). It should perhaps be emphasized that theoretically the papal pronouncement of the penalty was a formality, since the penalty was incurred automatically in the act of associating with an excommunicate. See also nn. 84 and 88, and text at nn. 97ff.

⁸⁰ Gregory, Register, I, 21, vol. 1, p. 35. On the significance of the letter for the evolution of Gregory’s mandate against lay investiture see Schieffer, Entstehung, pp. 111—12 and 148-9.

⁸¹ Gregory, Register IV, 1, vol. 1, p. 291.

⁸² Ibid., IV, 2, vol. i, p. 293; cf. Mirbt, Publizislik, pp. 219, n. 2 and 220, n. 1.

⁸³ Gregory, Register IV, 8, vol. 1, pp. 306-7; cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 221, n. 3.

⁸⁴ Gregory, Register 1,16, vol. 1, pp. 25-6. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 219, n. 2 argued from this case that excommunication did not always automatically penalize contacts with excommunicates, but in fact the prelates may well be excommunicated; the Pope only says that diey should not have been deposed unless guilty of other, graver crimes. The same can be said of another letter cited to make this point—that sent on 13 October 1073 to the Bishop of Acqui, Register 1,27, vol. 1, p. 44. Gregory states that he temporarily doubted the Bishop’s conscientiousness on hearing that he had attended the ordination of the schismatic archbishop of Milan, but his faith was restored on hearing testimony from reliable people eager to exculpate him. This implies that the Bishop recognized his mistake and obtained pardon.

⁸⁵ Gregory, Register 1,20, vol. 1, p. 34.

⁸⁶ Speech was a standard item in lists delineating forbidden forms of contact with excommunicates; see, for example, the pseudonymous letter attributed to Pope Fabian in Pseudo-Isidore, in Hinschius, P., ed., Decretala pseudo-Isidorianae (Leipzig, 1863, repr. Aalen, 1963). p. 159Google Scholar (discussed further in part 2). For the letter of Urban II, see part 3.

⁸⁷ Gregory, Register I, 26, vol. 1, p. 43.

⁸⁸ Gregory, Register III, 10a, vol. 1, p. 269; cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 219, n. 2.

⁸⁹ Gregory, Register III, 16, vol. 1, pp. 278-9: the Archbishop of Sens was told to warn the Bishop of Orleans to perform satisfaction for his crimes, and to separate him from the Eucharist if he did not. But in the same month a letter went off to the Bishop of Orleans himself (the letters are dated only to April 1076) observing that he was already ipso facto anathematized for violating a charter of Alexander II and warning him to satisfy on pain of suspension from office and separation from the Eucharist (Register III, 17, vol. 1, pp. 279-80). Since the first letter refers to letters being sent at the same time direcdy to the Bishop of Orleans himself, it seems that suspension as well as exclusion from the Eucharist was being envisaged for his punishment. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 219, n. 2, argued from this case that Gregory sometimes saw the sanction for contacts as contingent on further warning. That is certainly true, but it must be added that the case is anomalous in other ways also: exclusion from the Eucharist (and suspension) radier than full excommunication, and acknowledgement that in actuality the Bishop was already ipso facto excommunicated for violating a charter. This would at least in theory entail his separation from die Eucharist, though in practice a lower level of enforcement would presumably be anticipated from such sanctions.

⁹⁰ Gregory, Register IV, 6, vol. 1, p. 304.

⁹¹ Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 222; on Urban’s decretai see part 3.

⁹² Gregory, Register, IX, 9, vol. 2, p. 586: ‘De causa videlicet excommunicatorum, super qua consuluisti, nihil tibi, preter quod sacri canones precipiunt, respondere possumus, scilicet ut abstineatis vos a communione ipsorum, prout Deus concesserit et vestra prudentia poterit. Nee enim parum te a talibus abstinendo existimes agere, immo credas certissime, quoniam in futura beatitudine geminam a Domino coronam, obedientie scilicet ac sancte predicationis, accipies. … Neque nos alicui licentiam peccandi dare possumus aut debemus, cum nos ipsi hanc licentiam non habeamus, sed peccamibus apostolica auctoritate subvenire non denegamus et manum salutaris consilii porrigere desideramus. Illud quoque prudentiam tuam animadvertere volumus, quod, si quisquam illorum excommunicatorum te graviter offenderet, ab illorum amicitia usque ad satisfactionem te submoveres. Quodsi hoc pro tuo honore faceres, quid Deo facere debes, animadverte.’

⁹³ Ibid., VI, 10, vol. 2, p. 412; see V, 14a, vol. 2, p. 369 for the 1078 excommunication of Wibert After forbidding them to show Wibert obedience as archbiship Gregory continues: ‘Si qui vero excommunicationis contagione vulnerati his salutiferis ausi fuerint repugnare precepris, eos velut putrida membra a toto corpore Christi, quod est ecclesia catholics, anathematis gladio resecamus.’ Presumably, then, any who continued to serve Wibert would automatically incur excommunication’, and if persisting in contumacy would later be anathematized.

⁹⁴ Ibid., VII, 2, vol. 2, pp. 461-2.

⁹⁵ Ibid., VII, 3, vol. 2, p. 463; cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 222, n. 4.

⁹⁶ For the letter to King Philip see Gregory, Register VIII, 20, vol. 2, p. 542. (See n. 29 on the earlier threats of deposition.) For that to the Venetians see IX, 8, vol. 2, p. 585, and cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 222, n. 4. Mirbt also cited Register VIII, 2 (vol. 2, pp. 517—18) as evidence that Gregory continued to oppose converse with excommunicates after Quoniam as before (‘wo die Anwesenheit eines solchen ais eine öffentliche Kalamität erscheint’), but this letter deals with a very exceptional situation, an uprising against the Church in Spain. The monk leading it was threatened only with prohibition of entering a church, while the Spanish King was threatened with excommunication if he failed to dissociate himself.

⁹⁷ Gregory, Register IX, 26, vol. 2, p. 609; cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 222, n. 4.

⁹⁸ Gregory, Register IX, 27, vol. 2, pp. 610-11; cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 222 n. 4.

⁹⁹ Gregory, Register IX, 24, vol. 2, pp. 605-6.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., p. 606. No biblical passages were cited here, but several were quoted in Register IX, 35 (vol. 2, p. 624), discussed just below, though not to make this, point so exacdy. Among them the most relevant were II Thess. 3.14: ‘If anyone disobeys our instructions… mark him well, and have no dealings with him until he is ashamed of himself, and I Cor. 5.13 and 5.6: ‘Root out tie evil-doer from your community [= 5.13], because “A little leaven leavens all the dough [- 5.6].”’(Quoted from The New English Bible, ed. S. Sandmel [New York, 1976].)

¹⁰¹ See Robinson, ‘Network’, pp. 18-19.

¹⁰² Gregory, Register DC, 3s, vol. 2, pp. 622-7; IX, 33-4 and 36, pp. 619-22 and 628-9, also deal with this case, and they make it clear how strenuously the Pope tried to compromise with the Count and even with Lambert. Cf. Mirbt, Publizistik, p. 222, no. 2.

¹⁰³ Gregory, Register IX, 35, vol. 2, p. 623.