^{Page No 69 Note 1} E.g. Zerbi, P., ‘Pasquale II e l’ideale della povertà della chiesa’, Annuario dell’Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1964-1 (Milan 1965), 207-29Google Scholar; White, H. V., ‘Ponthius of Cluny, the Curia Romana and the End of Gregorianism in Rome’, Church History, xxvn (1958), 195–219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar at pp. 198f. Similarly Cantor, N. F., Church, Kingship and Lay Investiture in England, 1089-1131 (Princeton 1958), 122-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, sees this ‘espousal of apostolic poverty’ as an example of Paschal’s monastic asceticism, although it is not explained how this is appropriate to one described as ‘a fanatical high Gregorian’.

^{Page No 70 Note 1} McKeon, P. R., ‘The Lateran Council of 1112, the “Heresy” of Lay Investiture, and the Excommunication of Henry V’,Medievalia et Humanística, xvii (1966), 3–12 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 70 Note 2} Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, v. 1 p. 496: cf. pp. 475-6 for his earlier condemnation of lay investiture at the Council of Rome in April 1102. He had already told Ruthard, Archbishop of Mainz, in November 1105 that the main objective of his pontificate would be to solve the investiture problem: this was no doubt intended for the benefit of Henry V.

^{Page No 70 Note 3} Suger, Vita Ludovici VI,MGH, SS, xxvi, 50, ‘Non hic, inquiunt [legati], sed: Romae gladiis haec terminabitur querela. ’

^{Page No 70 Note 4} Otto of Freising, Chronicon, vii, 14, MGH, SS, xx, 254.

^{Page No 70 Note 5} MGH, Const., 1 no. 82 p. 134.

^{Page No 71 Note 1} See the royal promise in MGH, Const., 1 no. 83 p. 137; also Ekkehard’s account, Chronicon ad 1111, MGH, SS, vi, 244.

^{Page No 71 Note 2} MGH, Const., 1 no. 85 pp. 138-9.

^{Page No 71 Note 3} For these events see the Relatio registri Paschalis and Henry V’s encyclical in MGH, Const., 1 no. 99 pp. 147f. and no. 101 pp. 151-2 respectively; Ekkehard, MGH, SS, vi, 244-5 ; and the Chronica monasterii Casineitsis, iv, 37-9, MGH, SS, vii, 779-80. Henry stated afterwards that all the clergy were opposed to Paschal’s scheme, which they regarded as heretical: ‘universis in faciem eius resistentibus et decreto suo planam haeresim inclamantibus, scilicet episcopis, abbatibus, tam suis quam nostris, et omnibus Ecclesiae filiis’, Const., 1 no. 100 p. 151; but the papal account clearly says that it was the German bishops (episcopi transalpini), the ‘familiares regis’, who objected: Const., 1 no. 99 p. 148; and this is supported by Ekkehard’s reference to them: ‘tumultuantibus in infinitum principibus per ecclesiarum spoliatione, ac per hoc beneficiorum suorum ablatione’, vi. 244. It is important not to confuse the objectors of February with the later clerical opposition against Paschal generated by the surrender in April.

^{Page No 72 Note 1} MGH, Const., 1 no. 91 p. 142; dem, no. 96 p. 145. Paschal ensured that the grant was declared invalid at the Lateran council of March 1112—’neque vero debet dici privilegium sed pravilegium’—on the grounds of having been extorted by force: Mansi, Concilia, xxi, 51.

^{Page No 72 Note 2} As defined in the royal promise: MGH, Const., 1 no. 83 p. 137; and see also Paschal’s statement, no. 90 p. 141, ‘Porro ecclesias cum oblationibus et haereditariis possessionibus, quae ad regnum manifeste non pertinebant, liberas manere decernimus, sicut in die coronationis tuae omnipotenti Domino in conspectu totius Ecclesiae promisisti.’ It was, significantly, the imperial encyclical which subsequently represented the pope as saying that ‘ecclesiae decimis et oblationibus suis contentae sint’, no. 100 p. 150.

^{Page No 72 Note 3} According to the February Agreement Paschal was to grant: ‘Tibi itaque, fili karissime rex Heinrice, et nunc per officium nostrum Dei gratia Romanorum imperator, et regno regalia illa dimittenda praecipimus quae ad regnum manifeste pertinebant tempore Karoli, Ludevici, Heinrici et caeterorum praedecessorum tuorum. Interdicimus etiam et sub districtione anathematis prohibemus ne quis episcoporum seu abbatum, praesentium vel futurorum, eadem regalia invadant, id est civitates, ducatus, marchias, comitatus, monetas, teloneum, mercatum, advocatias regni, iura centurionum et curtes, quae manifeste regni erant, cum pertinentiis suis, militiam et castra regni, nec se deinceps, nisi per gratiam regis, de ipsis regalibus intromittant’, no. 90 p. 141. ‘Manifestly’ should be understood in the canonical sense of attested by a written statement or document, literally by a manifest or charter (in the same way that manifest heresy was that in which written proof or evidence was made available). One would need to make a ‘Domesday survey’ of the imperial bishoprics to be able to assess the practical significance of the papal proposal, but there is no reason to suppose that the distinction could not have been made by contemporaries. It is interesting to notice that in thirteenth-century England the crown distinguished between the ordinary revenues of the episcopal estates and other sources of income such as feudalism and patronage when taking the revenue from vacant sees: Howell, M., Regalian Right in Medieval England (London 1962), 110fGoogle Scholar.

^{Page No 73 Note 1} The generally current view that Paschal intended to deprive the bishops of the property of the see results from a confusion with lay versions of the meaning of regalia in which the distinction was not drawn between episcopal lands and other, secular, rights. Cf. Benson, R. L., The Bishop-Elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office (Princeton 1968), 275-6, 281Google Scholar, although for the most part Benson insists on the revolutionary nature of Paschal’s proposals, and maintains that the distinction does not develop until later in the twelfth century. For discussion of the regalia see Ott, I., ‘Der Regalienbegriff im 12. Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung,xxxv (1948), 234–304 Google Scholar; also Scharnagl, A., Der Begriff der Investitur in den Quellen und der Literatur des Investiturstreites (Stuttgart 1908)Google Scholar.

^{Page No 73 Note 2} Thus Paschal is made to acknowledge in the royally-dictated terms of 11 April that ‘Praedecessores enim vestri ecclesias regni sui tantis regalium suorum beneficiis ampliarunt ut regnum ipsum episcoporum maxime vel abbatum praesidiis oporteat communiri ‘, MGH, Const., 1 no. 96 p. 145; and note Henry’s complaint that Paschal was trying to destroy the status regni under the plea of exalting and enlarging the royal rights: ‘coepit dilatationem et exaltationem regni super omnes antecessores meos promittere; studebat subdole tarnen quomodo regnum et ecclesiam a statu suo discinderet tractare’, no. 100 p. 150.

^{Page No 74 Note 1} Bruno had been condemned at Guastalla for receiving lay investiture, but after exhibiting due penitence was recognized by Paschal and given the pallium.

^{Page No 74 Note 2} On the question of Suger’s reliability and for further literature, see now Benson, The Bishop-Elect, 243-4.

^{Page No 74 Note 3} Suger, Vita Ludovici, xxvi, 50. Despite Urban U’s prohibition at Clermont in 1095 on homage being given to laymen by clergy in canon 17 (Mansi, xx, 817; cf. Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire de Conciles, v. 1 p. 402), note the attempts made in canon 8 of the Council of Rouen in the following year (Mansi, xx, 921; cf. Hefele-Leclercq, v. 1 p. 445) to distinguish between ecclesiastical fiefs for which homage to a lay lord should not be given, and non-ecclesiastical fiefs for which such homage could be paid.

^{Page No 74 Note 4} Note Frederick I’s agreement in 1159 that the Italian bishops who renounced their regalia should not be required to perform homage, MGH, Const., 1 no. 179 p. 250.

^{Page No 75 Note 1} Suger, Vita Ludovici, xxvi, 50. Similarly in the spring of 1111 Henry V paid lip-service to the distinction but argued that royal investiture was necessary for him to bestow the regalia: ‘quamvis ille per investituras illas non ecclesias, non officia quaelibet, sed sola regalia se dare assereret, MGH, Const., 1 no. 99 p. 149. The same point is made by Gerhoh of Reichersberg, De ordine donorum Sancti Spiritus, MGH, L de L, 111, 280, who refers to the evil by which ‘pro regalibus, immo iam non regalibus sed ecclesiasticis dicendis facultatibus ab episcopis hominium fiat vel sacramentum’.

^{Page No 75 Note 2} The pope made the same point in February 1111, MGH, Const., 1 no. 90 p. 141, ‘In regni autem vestri partibus episcopi vel abbates adeo curis saecularibus occupantur, ut comitatum assidue frequentare et militiam exercere cogantur... Ministri enim altaris ministri curiae facti sunt, quia civitates, ducatus, marchias, monetas, curtes et caetera ad regni servitium pertinentia a regibus acceperunt. Unde etiam mos inolevit ecclesiae intollerabilis, ut episcopi electi nullomodo consecrationem acciperent nisi prius per manum regiam investirentur.’

^{Page No 76 Note 1} For Ponthius, who was Paschal II’s godson, see White, Church History, xxvii. The account of the Strasbourg meeting is in Hesso, Relatio de concilio Remensi, MGH, L de L, 111, 22 f.; cf. Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire des Conciles, v. 1 pp. 569-70Google Scholar, and pp. 576 f. for the Council of Rheims itself. It is of interest to notice that Calixtus II, as Archbishop of Vienne, had taken the lead in the opposition of the French bishops to Paschal II’s surrender to Henry V in April 1111.

^{Page No 77 Note 1} Both pope and emperor were to declare ‘ Quodsi quaestio inde emerserit, quae ecclesiastica sunt, canonico; quae autem saecularia sunt, saeculari terminentur iudicio’; and Henry should relinquish all claim to the right to invest bishops: Hesso, Relatio, p. 24. This compares well with the proposal which Paschal is reported to have made to the German bishops sent to Rome in 1109-10: ‘ea tantum quae canonici et ecclesiastici iuris sunt, domnum apostolicum exigere; de his vero quae regii iuris sunt, domno regi se nichil imminuere’, Annales Patherbrunnenses ad 1110 (ed. P. Scheffer-Boichorst: Innsbruck 1870), 122.

^{Page No 77 Note 2} According to Hesso’s account, William of Champeaux was insistent both at Strasbourg and at Mouzon that bishops would retain the regalia: ‘scito me, in regno Francorum episcopum electum nee ante consecrationem nee post consecrationem aliquid suscepisse de manu regis. Cui tarnen de tributo, de militia, de theloneo, et de omnibus quae ad rempublicam pertinebant antiquitus, sed a regibus christianis Ecclesiae Dei donata sunt, ita fideliter deservio, sicut in regno tuo episcopi tibi deserviunt’, p. 22; ‘Immo palam omnibus [papa] denuntiat, ut in exhibitione militiae et in caeteris omnibus in quibus tibi et antecessoris tuis servire consueverant, modis omnibus deserviant’, p. 25. If he really discussed the regalia in these terms, it is hardly surprising that doubts are said to have arisen about the precise meaning of the proposals to be agreed.

^{Page No 77 Note 3} ‘Annuit rex et statuii ut ab eo tempore in reliquum nunquam per dationem baculi pastoralis vel anuli quisquamepiscopatu aut abbatia per regem vel quamlibet laicam manum in Anglia investiretur; concedente quoque Anselmo ut nullus in praelationem electus pro hominio quod regi faceret consecratione suscepti honoris privaretur’, Eadmer, , Historia novorum (ed. Rule, M., RS: London 1884), 186 Google Scholar; cf. Cantor, Church, Kingship and Lay Investiture, 266-9.

^{Page No 78 Note 1} Whilst Henry relinquished ‘omnem investituram per anulum et baculum’, Calixtus recognized that the German bishop-elect ‘regalia per sceptrum a te recipiat et quae ex his iure tibi debet faciat’. The same was to apply to the Italian bishops, except for regalian rights held from the papacy itself: MGH, Const., 1 nos. 107-8 pp. 159-61. See further Hofmeister, A., ‘Das Wormser Konkordat: Zum Streit und seine Bedeutung’, Festschrift D. Schäfer (Jena 1915), 64–148 Google Scholar. Hofmeister attempts to argue however (pp. 76-81) that Paschal’s grant of February 1111 was of such a revolutionary nature that it had to be a charter to Henry and his successors in perpetuity, whereas the grant of April 1111 (like Calixtus’s grant in the Concordat of Worms) was only a confirmation of existing privileges and so was made to Henry alone. The difference is surely between what represented achievement of a long-term papal policy, and what was hoped would only be a temporary arrangement.

^{Page No 78 Note 2} See Paschal’s letter to Anselm in Eadmer, Historia novorum, p. 179: the arrangement should only last ‘ donec per omnipotentis Dei gratiam ad hoc omittendum cor regium tuae praedicationis imbribus molliatur’. On the other hand Henry I bitterly resented the compromise, complained about the imperial retention of the right of investiture, and threatened to return to the customary position, according to Anselm’s report in 1108: Opera omnia (ed. Schmitt, F. S.: London 1946-51), v no. 451 p. 399 Google Scholar. See further Leyser, K., ‘England and the Empire in the Early Twelfth Century’, TRHS, Fifth Series, x (1960), pp. 61–83 at pp. 73-4Google Scholar.

^{Page No 78 Note 3} See the commentary on the Council by Gerhoh of Reichersberg, De ordine, p. 280, recording the doubt and indignation with which the terms of Worms were received: these were only a partial denial of evil practices for the sake of peace (‘ilia propter pacem obtinenda extorta concessio partim est annichilata’), and he concludes by hoping (‘In proximo futurum speramus’) that homage and regalia will eventually be abolished altogether. This view, as also the official lay view, should therefore be distinguished from the various ‘ double investiture ’ theories which, whilst being attempts to compromise between papal and lay positions, insisted that royally-conferred regalia were rights to be maintained: e.g. Hugh of Fleury, De regia potestate et sacerdotali dignitate, 1. 5 (MGH, L de L, n, 472), ‘Post electionem autem non annulum aut baculum a manu regia, sed investiturám rerum saecularium electus antistes debet suscipere, et in suis ordinibus per annulum aut baculum animarum curam ab archiepiscopo suo, ut negotium huiusmodi sine disceptatione peragatur, et terrenis et spiritalibus potestatibus suae auctoritatis privilegium conservetur.’ Similarly Geoffrey of Vendome, Libellus iv (MGH, L de L, ii, 691), suggested that both pope and king should invest to demonstrate that episcopal lands and property were held under divine and human law; cf. Ivo of Chartres, Ep. 60 (ed. J. Leclerca: Paris 1949), 246-8: but neither writer distinguishes between ecclesiastica and saecularia in the way that Hugh of Fleury does.

^{Page No 79 Note 1} De aedificio Dei, 23 (MGH, L de L, 111, 153). ‘sed illud simpliciter affirmo quod sicut laici nullo iustitiae vel falso colore decimarum possessionem sibi poterunt licitam affirmare, quoniam decima ecclesiastica res esse non dubitatur, sic illae regales et militares administrations ab episcopis sine certa sui ordinis apostasia gubernari non possunt.’ It is difficult to follow Benson’s contention, The Bishop Elect, 282, 310, 312, that Gerhoh’s viewpoint is a much more radical one than that adopted by Paschal II, and is one which does not obtain support until applied by Conrad of Salzburg in the 1130s. For the dating of Gerhoh’s works see van den Eynde, D., L’oeuvre littéraire de Gerhoch de Reichersberg (Rome 1957)Google Scholar; cf. Meuthen, E., Kirche und Heilsgeschichte bei Gerhoh von Reichersberg (Leiden and Cologne 1959)Google Scholar and Classen, P., Gerhoch von Reichersberg (Wiesbaden 1960)Google Scholar.

^{Page No 79 Note 2} E.g. Gregory of Catino, Orthodoxa defensie imperialis, 5 (MGH, L de L, n, 538), ‘De investitura ergo baculi vel anuli quam rex vel imperator quilibet ecclesiae praelatis faciunt,.. .per quam non sacri honoris gradum, non munus praelationis sanctae, non ministerium spirituale, non ecclesiarum vel clericorum consecrationes, nec aliquod divinum sacramentum; sed potius sui defensionem tribuunt officii, saecularium rerum seu temporalium atque corporalium possessionum omniumque ecclesiae eiusdem bonorum iuris confirmationem. ‘ See also the Tractatus de investitura episcoporum (MGH, L de L, n, 501). A quarter of a century earlier the same distinction had been used by Guido of Ferrara, De schismate Hildebrandi, n (MGH, L de L, 1, 564), ‘Duo siquidem iura conceduntur episcopis omnibus: spirituale vel divinum unum, aliud saeculare; et aliud quidem coeli, aliud vero fori. Nam omnia quae sunt episcopalis officii spiritualia sunt, divina sunt, quia, licet per ministerium episcopi, tamen a sancto Spiritu conceduntur. At vero iudicia saecularia et omnia quae a mundi principibus et saecularibus hominis ecclesiis conceduntw, sicut sunt curtes et praedia omniaque regalia, licet in ius divinum transeant, dicuntur tamen saecularia quasi a saecularibus concessa.’ Guido’s awareness and touchiness concerning the papal theory that lands given to a church become subject to divine law and are removed from lay control are apparent in this passage. For numerous other examples see Benson, The Bishop Elect, 206-28.

^{Page No 80 Note 1} But see Olsen, G., ‘The Definition of the Ecclesiastical Benefice in the Twelfth Century: The Canonists’ Discussion of Spiritualia’, Studia Gratiana, xi (1967), 431-46Google Scholar, who illustrates the way in which this basic sense of the term could be extended to include anything annexed to the sacramental capacity. The spiritualia were not an issue in the debate, except in relation to the question of whether consecration should precede or follow lay investiture and the payment of homage.

^{Page No 80 Note 2} Wilks, , JTS, n.s., viii (1957), 71 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benson, The Bishop-Elect, 50 f.

^{Page No 80 Note 3} Humbert, , Adversus simoniacos, iii, 6 Google Scholar (MGH, L de L, i, 205). ‘Unde palam est omne episcopale officium in baculo et anulo eis datum’, and these convey the iura and cura pastoralis, to which he applies the term ecclesiastica. Cf. Manegold of Lautenbach, Ad Gebehardum, 64 (MGH, L de L, 1, 416), ‘A regibus autem baculos, pastoralis videlicet sollicitudinis sustentationem indicantes, solent accipere et anulos.’

^{Page No 80 Note 4} Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiae, 55 (MGH, L de L, n, 590); cf. Rangerius of Lucca, De anulo et baculo, lines 11-14 (ibid., 509); and further examples, Benson, The Bishop-Elect, 121 f., 358. For the concept of the mystical marriage see Wilks, , Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XLIV (1961-2), 489–530 Google Scholar.

^{Page No 81 Note 1} The point is repeatedly made by Placidus: ‘Quod semel ecclesiae datum est, in perpetuum Christi est. Nec aliquo modo alienari a possessione ecclesiae potes’, De honore ecclesiae, 7 p. 577; similarly 43 p. 587. These are ‘tam parvas quam magnas possessiones quae Deo sanctificatae sunt’,prologus, p. 568; also 151 p. 635. Cf. Rangerius of Lucca, De anulo et baculo, lines 891-2, p. 527. ‘Sed dico si rex aliquis castella vel agros contulit ecclesiae, contulit et Domino’; Humbert, , Adversus simoniacos, 111, 2 p. 200 Google Scholar. ‘ Sic episcopalis dignitas potius possessionem, quam possessio episcopalem dignitatem vindicat. Et tamen tale est episcopale officium, ut sine his, quibus debet impendi vel adhiberi, non sit officium, velut si quis dicatur habere licentiam agrum colendi, et ei ager, quem colat, desit... Continet autem episcopalis dignitas res Deo sacratas, continetur quoque ab eis, immo in eis, utputa et ipsa a Deo consecrata.’ For the episcopal ring and staff as symbols of investiture with an inheritance see Bernard, St, Sermones de tempore, In coena Domini, 2 (PL, CLXXXIII, 271)Google Scholar, ‘datur ad investiendum de haereditate aliqua et signa est’.

^{Page No 81 Note 2} Anon., , Defensio Paschalis papae, MCH, L de L, 11, 665 Google Scholar, ‘ Sicut enim in ecclesia pastoralis virga est necessaria, qua regitur, et ecclesiastica distinguuntur officia; sic in domibus regum et imperatorum illud insigne sceptrum, quod est imperialis vel regalis virga, qua regitur patria, ducatus, comitatus et caetera regalia distribuntur iura. Si ergo [rex] dixerit quod per virgam pontificalem et anulum sua tantum regalia velit conferre, aut sceptrum regale deserat aut per illud regalia sua conferat’; Gerhoh of Reichersberg, De aedificio Dei, 25 p. 154, ‘ Quae cum ita se habeant, patet ecclesiarum facultates trifariam esse distinctas: in decimarum, videlicet oblationes; et agrorum possessiones; necnon regales ac. publicas functiones. Et de decimis quidem nulla est contradictio ¦quin eas laici possideant cum sacrilegis. Agros autem semel in usus pauperum oblatos docuit superior assertio ab ecclesia sub caritatis operimento defendi,... Publicas autem functiones non cura[t] ecclesia multum defendere.. .quoniam spirituales viri malunt carere talibus, quam ex eorum occasione implicari negotiis saecularibus.’ This passage makes it clear that for Gerhoh his technically threefold distinction in episcopal jurisdiction is effectively only a twofold one with regalian functions on one side, and oblations and ecclesiastical lands on the other.

^{Page No 82 Note 1} Gerhoh of Reichersberg, De investigatione Antichristi, 24 p. 333 Google Scholar, ‘siquidem domnus apostolicus omnia regalia, videlicet ducatus, marchias, comitatus, hominia cum beneficiis, monetas, teloneas, munitiones per universum regnum suum imperio reddere voluisset’; cf. De aedificio Dei, 12 p. 142, ‘dum episcopi, abbates, abbatissae facta electione ad palatium ire compelluntur, quatenus a rege nescio quae regalia suscipiant, de quibus regi vel hominium vel fidelitatis sacramentum faciant; cf. Piacidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiae, 56 p. 591, ‘ sacratissimo autem imperatori quod suum est non negamus, quia et militiam ecclesiae, cum pro tempore opus fuerit, si deservire omnimodis volumus et ordinatum tributum nequaquam negamus’.

^{Page No 82 Note 2} De honore ecclesiae, 151p. 634. In this passage Piacidus is attacking those who would put all ecclesiastical possessions into the regalian capacity. That he himself did not follow Paschal II in wanting the regalia renounced is shown by his adoption of the ‘double investiture’ theory, the emperor granting ‘quod sibimet iure competit’ alongside the archiepiscopal investiture with ring and staff: 86 p. 612. This corrects Benson’s judgment, The Bishop-Elect, 247-8, that Placidus does not distinguish between ecclesiastica and regalia and represents a ‘High Gregorian’ position. The way in which the lay theory combined the ecclesiastica granted permanently to the episcopal church or office with the personally acquired regalia is again well illustrated by Guido of Ferrara, De schismate, 11, 565, ‘Illud etiam innotuit quod saecularia iudicia et placita, semel ecclesiis ab imperatoribus tradita, successorum essent investitionibus confirmanda, si omnia regalia et omnia publica iura perpetim ecclesiis manere non poterant nisi succedentium sibi regum frequenti fuissent iteratione concessa.’

^{Page No 82 Note 3} Gerhoh of Reichersberg, De aedificio Dei, 23 p. 153, ‘theloneum ac caetera sine dubio ad regem pertinencia’.

^{Page No 83 Note 1} Thus the Tractatus de investitura episcoporum, p. 502, argues that because from the time of the Donation of Constantine ‘per christianos reges et imperatores dotatae et ditatae et exaltatae sunt ecclesiae in fundis et aliis mobilibus, et iura civitatum in theloneis, monetis, villicis et scabinis, comitatibus, advocatiis, synodalibus bannis per reges delegata sunt episcopis, congruumfuit et consequens ut rex, qui est unus in populo et caput populi, investiat et intronizet episcopum’.

^{Page No 83 Note 2} For some examples of bishops distinguishing between their feudal obedience to the king as dominas and their right of office as bishops to instruct and correct him as filius see Jolliffe, J. E. A., Angeuin Kingship (London, 2nd ed., 1963), 17 Google Scholar. The father-son relationship of bishop and lay ruler is used in this context by Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiae, 37p. 585. Cf. Gerhoh of Reichersberg, De ordine, p. 277, ‘Nonne tale quid agitur quando episcopi regibus hominium facientes et illud sacramento firmantes libertatém ecclesiae compellunt huic mundo servire, cum potius reges debeant ecclesiae servire.’

^{Page No 83 Note 3} On this see now Benson, R.L., ‘The Obligations of Bishops with Regalia: Canonistic Views from Gratian to the Early Thirteenth Century’, Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (ed. Kuttner, S. and Ryan, J. J.: Vatican City 1965), 127-37Google Scholar; cf. The Bishop-Elect, 325-31.

^{Page No 83 Note 4} Paschal II, MGH, Const., 1 no. 90 p. 141, ‘Et divinae legis institutione sanccitum est et sacratis canonibus interdictum ne sacerdotes curis saecularibus occupentur, neve ad comitatum, nisi pro dampnatis cruendis aut pro aliis qui iniuriam patiuntur, accedant. Unde et apostolus Paulus [1 Cor. 6. 4], Saecularia, inquit, iudicia si habueritis, contemptibiles qui sunt in Ecclesia, illos constituite ad iudicandum.’

^{Page No 83 Note 5} Cf. my remarks in JTS, n.s., XIII; (1962), 303-7.

^{Page No 84 Note 1} See Damian’s distinction between the bishop’s sacramental officium (= ordo); the property and rule pertaining to the ecclesia; and the property which the bishop administered as villicus, not by virtue of his sacerdotal function, and which was conferred by the baculus of the secular prince: Ep., 1, 13 (PL, CXLIV, 220-1); v, 10 (353).

^{Page No 84 Note 2} As in the report of Paschal II’s argument with the German bishops at the abortive coronation proceedings in 1111: MGH, Const., 1 no. 99 p. 148. The point is made repeatedly by Gerhoh of Reichersberg, e.g. De ordine, p. 274, ‘Ego autem quomodo dixi aliquando quae Dei sunt Deo et quae Caesaris Caesari reddenda, ita sum notatus tamquam pontificum et regum adversarius, quia neuter ordo suo iure suisque terminis vult esse contentus dum et reges pontificalia et pontifices usurpant sibi regalia’; De aedificio Dei, 22 p. 153, ‘Ducatus, comitatus, thelonea, moneta pertinent ad saeculum. Decima, primitiae caeteraeque oblationes pertinent ad Deum. Illa per mundi principes, ista per pontifices antiquitus tractabantur, ea videlicet cautione ac distinctione, ut neque pontifex in his quae erant ad saeculum, neque princeps in his quae erant ad Deum, praeesset; sed utique suo iure contentus, modum divinitus ordinatum non excederet’; cf. De investigatione Antichristi, 27 p. 337; De novitatibus huius temporis, 12, 19 pp. 297, 301; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiae, 56 p. 591.

^{Page No 85 Note 1} E.g. Guido of Ferrara, De schismate, 11, 565.

^{Page No 85 Note 2} Reg., vii, 14a (ed. E. Caspar: Berlin 1955), 487: the ‘terra imperia, regna, principals, ducatus, marchias, comitatus, et omnium hominum possessiones’, granted and revocable by the Roman church, referred to here may be contrasted with the properties of the ecclesiae, lands given to God and, like tithes, attached permanently to the regimen episcopatus or episcopale officium, referred to in 1, 80 p. 114 and in the 1078 decree against lay investiture (as given in MCH, SS, v, 308-9). This suggests that Gregory accepted without comment the distinction between ecclesiastica and regalia already employed by Humbert and Damian, and whilst it is true that Gregory seems to have made no attempt to prevent homage being given by clerics to laymen, it is extremely doubtful whether one is justified in classifying Gregory’s position as somehow distinct from an alleged ‘new policy’ developed by Urban II and Paschal II on the basis of Humbertine principles, as argued by Brooke, Z. N., ‘Lay Investiture and its Relation to the Conflict of Empire and Papacy’, Proceedings of the British Academy, xxv (1939), 217-47Google Scholar.