¹ A few historians have remarked that Gratian was a Gregorian whose doctrines can be understood, presumably, as reflections of the ideas set forth by the eleventh-century reformers. Cf. Sägmüller, J., Die Bischofswahl bei Gratian (Cologne 1908) 19. von Schulte, J. F., Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart, I (Stuttgart 1875) 91ff. There are many doctrines and aspects of the Magister's work which can not be explained by making him the heir of the Gregorians. In fact, we can assume that he is their heir, but we are begging the issue if we leave the attempt at placing him in his times at that. In the twelfth century, the reform movement of the eleventh century became splintered, leading to a complex political situation within the Church. To understand Gratian's place in the history of his times, we must deal with this complex situation. One scholar has attempted to interpret the Magister's work as a political document. Adam Vetulani argues that Gratian's work was linked to the party of Pascal II around 1111. On the basis of a Danzig manuscript containing an epitome of the Decretum, he argues that the Magister wrote his work between 1105 and 1120. Then, in an attempt to answer the question why Gratian rejected Roman law in compiling his collection (see the studies cited in the next note), he argues that the Magister worked away from Bologna, the center of Roman law studies. He suggests that Gratian wrote the work near Rome, thus removing him from the influence of the civilists in Bologna. Cf. Vetulani, A., ‘Le Décret de Gratien et les premiers Décrétistes à la lumière d'une source nouvelle,’ Studia Gratiana 7 (1959) 273–353. — There are many weaknesses in Vetulani's argument. He suggests that Gratian worked away from Bologna so that he can explain the treatment of Roman law in the Decretum. But Roman law studies at Bologna really flourished in the period from 1140s on. In the earlier period, working in Bologna would not have subjected Gratian to the influence of the Roman lawyers so much as later on. Furthermore, part at least of the inspiration which led Gratian to compile his work stemmed from the example of the Corpus Juris Civilis, and though he did not cite texts from Justinian's collection, he was familiar with the commentaries being written on it. (Cf. Legendre, P., La pénétration du droit romain dans le droit canonique de Gratien à Innocent IV, [Paris 1964]). Yet, the real basis of Vetulani's argument is his dating of the Danzig MS (around 1140, prior to the work of Paucapalea. His claims for the manuscript have come under vigorous attack from several scholars, in particular Fransen, G., ‘La date du Décret de Gratien,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 51 (1956) 521–31. Cf. also Schmid, H. F., review in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Shiftung für Rechtsgesch. Kan. Abt., v. 43, 1957, 365–373; Le Bras, G., note on Vetulani's article, in Revue historique de Droit français et étranger, 33 (1955) 622. (Vetulani published his work in Polish in 1955.) Google Scholar

² On Gratian's treatment of Roman law, cf. Vetulani, A., ‘Gratien et le Droit romain,’ Revue historique de Droit français et étranger, 24 (1946–47) 11–48, and ‘Encore un mot sur le Droit romain dans le Décret de Gratien,’ Apollinaris 21 (1948) 129–34; Kuttner, S., ‘New Studies in the Roman Law in Gratian's Decretum,’ Seminar 11 (1953) 12–50, and ‘Additional Notes on the Roman Law in Gratian,’ Seminar 12 (1954) 68–74; Rambaud-Buhot, J. ‘Le “Corpus Juris Civilis” dans le Décret de Gratien …,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, 111 (1953) 54–64, and ‘Le Décret de Gratien et le Droit romain,’ Revue historique de Droit français et Stranger, 35 (1957) 290–300; Gaudemet, J., ‘Das römische Recht in Gratians Dekret,’ Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 12 (1961) 177–91. Gratian's use of the principle of quod omnes tangit is interesting. He actually mentions the rule in the course of one of his dicta, but he does not make it a part of his theory of election. Cf. note 19 infra. Google Scholar

³ Cf. Sägmüller, , Bischofswahl 19; Benson, R. L., The Bishop-Elect (Princeton 1968) 34. Sägmüller thought that Gratian objected to Gregory's emphasis of the role of the populus in the election and avoided the reform pope's canons because he wanted to de-emphasize the place of the populus. This problem will be discussed more fully in a book about Gratian which the author is preparing.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Stickler, A. M., ‘Magistri Gratiani sententia de potestate ecclesiae in statum,’ Apollinaris 21 (1948) 36–111. On the dualism-hierocracy dispute, cf. Tierney, B., ‘Some Recent Works on the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 594–625. Tierney has reviewed the issues of the dispute and commented on it in ‘The Continuity of Papal Political Theory in the Thirteenth Century: Some Methodological Considerations,’ Mediaeval Studies, 27 (1965) 227–45.Google Scholar

⁵ D. 21 ante c. 1: ‘Simpliciter vero maiorum et minorum sacerdotium discretio in novo testamento ab ipso Christo sumpsit exordium, qui XII. apostolos tanquam maiores sacerdotes, et LXXII. discipulos quasi minores sacerdotes instituit. Petrum vero quasi in summum sacerdotem elegit, dum ei pre omnibus et pro omnibus claves regni celorum tribuit, …’ — Örsy, L., ‘Bishops, Presbyters, and Priesthood in Gratian's Decretum,’ Gregorianum 44 (1963) 788–826, has argued that Gratian did not say the ecclesiastical hierarchy was founded by Christ, but only that the hierarchy was founded on the model of the apostles and disciples. This interpretation of the dictum leads to the conclusion that the ecclesiastical offices derived their powers from a human constitution. It results in a substantially weaker justification for the exercise of governmental authority by the Church hierarchy than the view that authority is a grant of God. Örsy's interpretation cannot be accepted for two reasons. It makes impossible the claim of Church doctrine that the bishops are the direct successors of the apostles and the pope the successor of Peter. Örsy is therefore proposing that Gratian holds a view of the origin of ecclesiastical power radically different from that of his contemporaries. The second difficulty in this interpretation is that he has not taken account of the Magister's words in the dictum. Christ instituted the apostles as maiores sacerdotes and the disciples as minores sacerdotes. He granted sacerdotal power to them through Peter who received the keys pro omnibus, as the representative of the new hierarchy. It seems rather clear that Gratian thought the hierarchy received its power and the authority to do its appointed tasks directly from God.Google Scholar

⁶ D. 22 c. 1: ‘Illam [the Roman church] vero solus ipse fundavit, et super petram fidei mox nascentis erexit, qui beato eternae vitae clavigero terreni simul et celestis imperii iura commisit.’ Nicholas' letter was transmitted by Damian, Peter. Cf., Rufinus, , Summa decretorum , ed. Singer, , 47–48: ‘clavigero, i. e. Petro. terr. s. et cel. imper. iura comm. Celeste imperium celestium militum, i. e. clericorum universitatem cum his, que ad eos pertinent, dicit; terrenum vero regnum vel imperium, seculares homines secularesque res appellat: per hoc ergo videtur quod summus pontifex, qui beati Petri est vicarius, habet iura terreni regni. Sed animadvertendum est quod ius aliud est auctoritatis, aliud amministrationis. Et quidem ius auctoritatis quemadmodum in episcopo, ad cuius ius omnes res ecclesiastice spectare videntur, quia eius auctoritate omnia disponuntur; ius autem amministrationis sicut in yconomo, iste enim habet ius amministrandi, sed auctoritate caret imperandi: quicquid aliis precepit, non sua sed episcopi auctoritate indicit. Summus itaque patriarcha quoad auctoritatem ius habet terreni imperii: eo scil. modo quia primum sua auctoritate imperatorem in terreno regno consecrando confirmat et post tam ipsum quam reliquos seculares istis secularibus abutentes sola sua auctoritate pene addicit et ipsos eosdem post penitentes absolvit. Ipse vero princeps post ipsum auctoritatem habet seculares regendi et preter ipsum officium amministrandi; etenim nec apostolicum secularia nec principem ecclesiastica procurare oportet, ut infra d. xcvi. Cum ad verum ventum est (6). Alii sic exaudiunt: “terreni simul et celestis imperii iura commisit,” i. e. ei dedit, ut quecumque ligaret vel solveret super terram, essent soluta vel ligata in coelo.’ Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Carlyle, A. J. and Carlyle, R. W., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, II 145–148. Their interpretation rests on very slim evidence. They cite only three capitula, of which one is now considered to be a palea. Stickler, has supported the Carlyle's view with much fuller use of the dicta as well as with further citations of capitula. Cf. Stickler, , art. cit. 48–52.Google Scholar

⁸ C. 23 q. 5 c. 20 (rubric): ‘Quod sacerdotes efficiere docendo non valent; disciplinae terrore potestas extorqueat.’ Cf. ibid. post cc. 23, 25.Google Scholar

⁹ Stickler, A. M., ‘De ecclesiae potestate coactiva materiali apud magistrum Gratianum,’ Salesianum 4 (1942) 2–23, 96–119.Google Scholar

¹⁰ C. 23 q. 8 ante c. 1: ‘Omnis enim preter illum [the secular power], vel auctoritatem eius, qui legitima potestate utitur, qui, ut Apostolus ait, non sine causa gladium portat, cui etiam omnia anima subdita esse debet, omnis, inquam, qui preter huius auctoritatem gladium acceperit gladio peribit.’ This statement is part of the argument of Gratian's opponents in the quaestio, but in rejecting their position — that priests cannot use the material sword — the Magister does not argue that the secular power derives its authority from the Church. He only makes the claim that the Church, too, has the power of the material sword. Cf. ibid. post c. 6: ‘His ita respondetur: Sacerdotes propria manu arma arripere non debent; sed alios ad arripiendum, ad oppressorum defensionem, atque ad inimicorum Dei oppugnationem eis licet hortari.’ Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. C. 11 q. 1 post c. 28. For another citation of Romans 13, cf. C. 2 q. 7 post c. 41, §6, note 33 infra. Google Scholar

¹² Cf. Muldoon, J., ‘Extra Ecclesiam non est Imperium,’ Studia Gratiana 9 (1966) 553–63.Google Scholar

¹³ C. 24 q. 1 post c. 39: ‘Sed istud Augustini [cc. 38–39] intelligitur dictum non propter sentenciam [of excommunication], cuius potestas nulla est extra ecclesiam, sed in detestatione criminum, que in hereticis, sicut in catholicis, eque sunt punienda.’ Google Scholar

¹⁴ C. 2 q. 6 post c. 31: ‘Ad iudicium autem alterius fidei catholico appellare non licet.’ Ibid. c. 32: ‘Catholicus qui causam suam, sive iustam sive iniustam, ad iudicium alterius fidei iudicis provocat excommunicetur.’ This doctrine is based on 1 Corinthians 6.1.Google Scholar

¹⁵ C. 28 q. 1 post c. 17: ‘Item illud Augustini [quoted in dict. ante c. 1]: Non “est ratum coniugium, quod sine Deo est,” non negat coniugium esse inter infideles. Coniugium enim aliud est legitimum et non ratum, aliud ratum et non legitimum, aliud legitimum et ratum. Legitimum est, quod legali institutione vel provinciae moribus contrahitur. Hoc inter infideles ratum non est, quia non est firmum et inviolabile coniugium eorum.’ Google Scholar

¹⁶ It was also unlawful for Christians to give governmental office to a Jew. This prohibition was not quite the same as that which forbade Christians from submitting themselves to infidel powers outside the Church, but it is based on a similar attitude toward non-Christian political power. Cf. C. 17 q. 4 post c. 30; ibid. c. 31.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Dist. 63 post c. 25: ‘Electiones quoque summorum Pontificum atque aliorum infra presulum quondam inperatoribus representabantur, …’ ibid. post c. 28: ‘Verum, quia inperatores quandoque modum suum ignorantes non in numero consentientium, sed primi distribuentium, immo exterminantium esse voluerunt, frequenter etiam in hereticorum perfidiam prolapsi catholicae matris ecclesiae unitatem inpugnare conati sunt, sanctorum Patrum statuta adversus eos prodierunt, ut semet electioni non insererent, …’ Google Scholar

¹⁸ The distinction between lay people and lay ruler is made first in D. 63 post c. 25: ‘Quibus exemplis et premissis auctoritatibus liquido colligitur, laicos non excludendos esse ab electione, neque principes esse reiciendos ab ordinatione ecclesiarum [that is, from the establishment of authority in the Church].’ On the raison d'être of the civil ruler's role in the election, cf. ibid. post c. 27: ‘Principibus vero atque inperatoribus electiones Romanorum Pontificum atque aliorum episcoporum referendas usus et constitutio tradidit pro scismaticorum atque hereticorum dissensionibus, quibus nonnumquam ecclesia Dei concussa periclitabatur, contra quod legibus fidelissimorum inperatorum frequenter ecclesia munita legitur. Representabatur ergo electio catholicorum principibus, ut eorum auctoritate roborata nullus hereticorum vel scismaticorum auderet contraire, et ut ipsi principes tamquam devotissimi filii in eum consentirent, quem sibi in patrem eligi viderent, …’ Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. D. 63 post c. 27, note 18 supra at the end. This dictum contains Gratian's only use of the ancient principle that all who will be ruled by a bishop ought to consent to his election. In citing the canons in which the rule originally was set forth, D. 63 cc. 26, 27, the Magister is careful to delete the sentences referring to the maxim. His treatment of the maxim will be discussed in a chapter of the book on Gratian being prepared by the author.Google Scholar

²⁰ Stickler, , ‘Magistri Gratiani sententia …’ 48.Google Scholar

²¹ D. 96 ante c. 1: ‘… non solum de ordinibus, sed nec etiam de rebus ecclesiasticis laicis legatur aliquando attributa disponendi facultas. Unde quecumque a principibus in ordinibus vel in ecclesiasticis rebus decreta inveniuntur, nullius auctoritatis esse monstrantur.’ Cf., Le Bras, G., L'immunité réelle (Strasbourg 1920) 50–54; Thomas, P., Le droit de propriété des laiques sur les églises … (Paris 1906); Stutz, U., ‘Gratian und die Eigenkirche,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung Kan. Abt. 1 (1911) 1–32.Google Scholar

²² Dist. 96 cc. 9–10 correspond to Panormia 5.108–109, but the texts of Ivo's capitula are longer in each case. The rubrics in the printed text of the Panormia are the same here as in Gratian, but Vosmédian's edition (reproduced in PL 161) is not to be trusted on this point, cf. Rambaud-Buhot, J., ‘Les sommaires de la Panormie …,’ Traditio 23 (1967) 534–6.Google Scholar

²³ Dist. 96, c. 10: 'Duo sunt quippe, inperator auguste, quibus principaliter hic mundus regitur: auctoritas sacra Pontificum, et regalis potestas. In quibus tanto gravius est pondus sacerdotum, quando etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in divino sunt reddituri examine rationem. Et post pauca: Nosti itaque inter hec ex illorum te pendere iudicio, non illos ad tuam posse redigi voluntatem. Talibus igitur institutis, talibusque fulti auctoritatibus plerique Pontificum, alii reges, alii inperatores excommunicaverunt. Nam si speciale aliquod de personis principum requiratur exemplum, B. Innocentius Papa Archadium inperatorem (quia consensit, ut Iohannes, S. Crisostomus a sua sede pelleretur), excommunicavit. etiam Ambrosius, B., licet sanctus, non tamen universalis ecclesiae episcopus, pro culpa, que aliis sacerdotibus non adeo gravis videbatur, Theodosium Magnum inperatorem excommunicans ab ecclesia exclusit; qui etiam in suis scriptis ostendit, quod aurum non tam pretiosius sit plumbo, quam regia potestate sit altior ordo sacerdotalis, hoc modo circa principium sui pastoralis scribens: ‘Honor, fratres, et sublimitas episcopalis nullis poterit conparationibus adequari. Si regum fulgori conpares et principum diademati, longe erit inferius, quam si plumbi metallum ad auri fulgorem conpares, quippe cum videas regum colla et principum submitti genibus sacerdotum, et osculata eorum dextra orationibus eorum credant se communicari.’ Google Scholar

²⁴ This portion of the text was incorporated in the Decretum at C. 15 q. 6 c. 3.Google Scholar

²⁵ Dist. 97, ante c. 1, “Hoc capitulo [Dist. 96, c. 16] patenter ostendibur, quod nec inperatori, nec cuilibet laico licet decernere vel de electione Pontificis, vel de rebus ecclesiasticis. Quecumque autem ab eis constituta fuerint, pro infectis habenda sunt, nisi subscriptione Romani Pontificis fuerint roborata.” Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. D. post c. 3: ‘Officium vero secularium, sive ecclesiasticarum legum est, precipere quod necesse est fieri, probihere quod malum est fieri; …’ D. 9 post c. 11: ‘Constitutiones ergo vel ecclesiasticae vel seculares, si naturali iuri contrariae probantur, penitus sunt excludendae.’ Google Scholar

²⁷ D. 10 ante c. 1: ‘Constitutiones vero principum ecclesiasticis constitutionibus non preminent, sed obsecutur.’ Ibid. post c. 6: ‘Ecce quod constitutiones principum ecclesiasticis legibus postponendae sunt. Ubi autem evangelicis atque canonicis decretis non obviaverint, omni reverentia dignae habeantur.’ Cf. Arnold, F., ‘Die Rechtslehre des Magisters Gratians,’ Studia Gratiana 1 (1953) 476; Hauck, A., Der Gedanke der päpstlichen Weltherrschaft bis auf Bonifaz VIII (Leipzig, 1904) 33. Both these scholars think that Gratian supports the hierocratic view of Christian government and they base their opinion largely on Dist. 10. Cf. also Munier, C., ‘Droit canonique et droit romain d'après Gratien et les Décrétistes,’ Études Le Bras II 943–954.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. D. 10 c. 7 (rubric): ‘Leges imperatorum in adiutorium ecclesiae licet assumi.’ Cf. also ibid. c. 1: ‘Lege imperatorum non in omnibus ecclesiasticis controversiis utendum est, presertim cum inveniantur evangelicae ac canonicae sanctioni aliquotiens obviare.’ Ibid. c. 3 (rubric): ‘In ecclesiasticis causis regia voluntas sacerdotibus non est preferenda.’ Google Scholar

²⁹ Stickler, , ‘Magistri Gratiani sententia …’ 86. Marchesi, F., ‘De rationibus quae intercedunt inter Ecclesiam et res publicas in Gratiani Decreto,’ Studia Gratiana 3 (1954) 181–91.Google Scholar

³⁰ Stickler, , ‘Magistri Gratiani sententia …’ 84. Cf. also De Luca, L., ‘La nozione della legge nel Decreto di Graziano: Legalita o assolutismo?’ Studia Gratiana 11 (1967) 416–8.Google Scholar

³¹ Gratian himself sometimes used secular constitutions to corroborate doctrines found in the canons. Thus D. 63 cc. 30–34 come from the capitularies of Charles the Great, Louis the Pious, Henry, I, and Otto, I. It should be noted that cc. 31–32, which Friedberg marked as paleae, have been shown to be genuine capitula of the Decretum as it left the workroom of Gratian. Cf. Rambaud, J., in Le Bras, Lefebvre, Rambaud, , L'âge classique 1140–1378 (Histoire du Droit et des Institutions de l'Église en Occident 7; Paris 1965) 109. In addition, C. 11 q. 1 cc. 35–37 are from the Theodosian Code and the Capitularies of Charles the Great.Google Scholar

³² Cf. St. Bernard, , Ep. 244, note 41 infra. Google Scholar

³³ C. 2 q. 7 post c. 41: '§2. Item cum David adulterium et homicidium commisisset, missus est a Deo Nathan propheta, ut eum redargueret. Ecce, quod prelati sunt arguendi et reprehendendi a subditis. §3. Sed notandum est, quod duae sunt personae, quibus mundus iste regitur, regalis videlicet et sacerdotalis. Sicut reges presunt in causis seculi, ita sacerdotes in causis Dei. Regum est corporalem inrogare penam, sacerdotum spiritualem inferre vindictam. ergo, David, etsi ex regali unctione sacerdotibus et prophetis preerat in causis seculi, tamen suberat eis in causis Dei. Unde reges a prophetis et sacerdotibus ungebantur et eorum oblatione peccata regum expiabantur. §4. Sicut ergo Achaz a Domino lepra percussus est, qui sacerdotum offitia usurpare voluit, sic sacerdotibus et prophetis regum offitia usurpare non licuit. Nathan ergo propheta, cum regem redarguit, suum executus est offitium, in quo erat rege superior, non usurpavit regis offitium, in quo erat rege inferior; monuit eum ut per penitentiam peccata sua expiaret, non tulit in eum sententiam, qua tamquam adulter et homicida morti addiceretur. §5. Sic et Ambrosius, B. imperatorem excommunicavit, et ab ecclesia ingressu prohibuit. §6. Sicut enim non sine causa iudex gladium portat, ita non sine causa claves ecclesiae sacerdotes accipiunt. Ille portat gladium ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum, isti claves habent ad exclusionem excommunicandorum et reconciliationem penitentium. Hoc ergo exemplo subditi probantur reprehendendi a prelati, non prelati a subditis.' Google Scholar

³⁴ Stickler, , ‘Magistri Gratiani sentencia …’ 69–71.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid. 72.Google Scholar

³⁶ Gratian indicates his views about the nature of an officium only indirectly. Heintschel, , who studied his ideas, relied mostly on rubrics which may or may not be original with Gratian himself. Furthermore, the Magister does not indicate his view of the officium regum aside from using the phrase in the dictum we are considering. When he or the canons touch upon the problem, it is the officium ecclesiasticum which interests them. Heintschel concluded that Gratian in effect equated the ecclesiastical office with the performance of the power of orders. He bases this opinion primarily on Dist. 25, c. 1 and on Dist. 54, c. 1 (rubric) and Dist. 59, c. 1 (rubric). In addition, he pointed to C. 7, q. 1, c. 24 in order to show that Gratian thought removal from office resulted in the loss of the power of orders. Cf., Heintschel, D. E., The Medieval Concept of an Ecclesiastical Office, Canon Law Studies 363, Washington, D. C, 1956, 17–23. Heintschel's analysis is not complete however. It is clear from C. 16, q. 1, post c. 19 that Gratian thought monk-priests received the power of orders in their consecration. These powers are part of the sacerdotale officium. Yet, there appears to be another element of the officium which can only be granted by the bishop when he gives the priest his licentia. The executio potestatis is necessary if the priest is to perform his office. Likewise, when the priest is suspended, it is the executio and not the potestas which is taken from him. Cf., C. 24, q. 1, dict. post c. 37. It seems clear that the Magister considered both the potestas and its executio to be part of the officium. In the dictum of Causa 2, officium is used to mean the power and authority to use the power which is possessed by king and priest. Both officio are granted by God. A further characteristic of the ideas about the two powers expressed in the dictum is that both powers are limited, circumscribed. An officium is defined carefully and there are rules governing its reception. By equating the royal and ecclesiastical powers with officia, Gratian is indicating that he views governmental authority as limited, as a specific task granted to the ruler by God. Fischer recognized the connection between the officium and the licentia episcopi. Cf. Fischer, E. H., “Bussgewalt, Pfarrzwang und Beichtvater-Wahl nach dem Dekret Gratians,” Studia Gratiana, v. 4, 1956–57, 211–213.Google Scholar

³⁷ Kantorowicz, E., The King's Two Bodies (Princeton 1957) 87–97. The distinction between the two persons of the king was made explicitly by John of Salisbury about fifteen years after the circulation of Gratian's Decretum. Cf. John of Salisbury, Policraticus , ed. Webb, , I 238; Kantorowicz, , op. cit. 95–6.Google Scholar

³⁸ C. 11 q. 1 post c. 30; ‘In criminali vero causa non nisi ante episcopum clericus examinandus est.’ ibid. post c. 31: ‘Quia ergo iste non in criminali, sed in civili causa clericum ante civilem iudicem produxit, non est iudicandus transgressor canonum, nec est dicendus pertraxisse reum ad iudicem non suum, quia de civili causa non nisi civilis iudex cognoscere debet.’ Google Scholar

³⁹ Cf. Stickler, A. M., 'De ecclesiastica potestate coactiva… (note 9 supra). Cf. further note 10 supra. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. Klewitz, H.-W., ‘Das Ende des Reformpapsttums,’ DA, v. 3, 1939, 372–412 (reprinted in: Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkolleg [Darmstadt, 1957] 207–259). It is Klewitz's insight into the situation of the 1120s which has become the basis of current work on Curial politics of the period. In particular, cf. Schmale, F.-J., Studien zum Schisma des Jahres 1130, (Cologne 1961). In the forthcoming book about Gratian already mentioned, the author will review and comment upon the work which has been done on the period, especially as it touches on the problem of Gratian's place in the politics of the Church.Google Scholar

⁴¹ St. Bernard, Ep. 244, ‘Nec dulcius, nec amicabilius, sed nec arctius omnino regnum sacerdotiumque conjungi seu complantari in invicem potuerunt, quam ut in persona Domini ambo haec pariter convenirent; utpote qui factus est nobis ex utraque tribu secundum carnem summus et Sacerdos, et Rex. Non solum autem, sed et commiscuit ea nihilominus ac confoederavit in suo corpore, quod est populus christianus, … Si hoc scitis, quousque vos communem contumeliam, communem dissimulatis injuriam: Nonne ut apostolica Sedes, ita et Caput imperii Roma est:’ He tries to convince Conrad that helping the pope will be the same as helping himself as Roman Emperor. Cf. also, Idem, Ep. 139 to Lothar.Google Scholar

⁴² Cf. St. Bernard, , De consid., IV, 3, 7. Cf. Stickler, A. M., ‘Il “gladius” negli atti del concili e dei RR. Pontefici sino a Graziano e Bernardo di Clairvaux,’ Salesianum, v. 13, 1951, 414–445. Cf. also, Depoorter, A., ‘De argumento duorum gladiorum apud S. Bernardum,’ Collationes Brugenses, v. 48, 1952, 22–26, 95–99. Stickler has written a series of articles on the image of the two swords which cover the period of eleventh and twelfth centuries.Google Scholar

⁴³ On the later use of Bernard's work, cf. Riviere, J., Le problème de l'Église et de l'État au temps de Philippe le Bel (Louvain 1926).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, De Sac., II, 2, 3–4. As Tierney has pointed out, it is difficult to extract a political theory from the writings of St. Bernard and Hugh of St. Victor, . This is especially true of a theory of regnum and sacerdotium. Hugh, in these passages, speaks of the greater dignity of the spiritual power as compared to the secular power, but is ambiguous about the juridical effect of this difference in dignity. It remains unclear whether he thinks that the spiritual power may judge the secular in all matters or only in spiritual things. Cf. (Tierney, B., The Crisis of Church and State [Englewood Cliffs 1964]), 88. On the connection between Haimeric and the house of St. Victor, cf. Schmale, , op. cit., 104.Google Scholar