 |
|
|
|
|
The main sources for this contest are the letters that Henry IV
and Gregory VII exchanged, the letters send by each one of them to the
German bishops and nobles, to the Roman cardinals, the resolutions of the
synods and councils held during that time; but also narrative sources -
Lampert of Hersfeld, Ekkehard of Aurach, Berthold of Reichenau, The Annals
of Augsburg, The Anonymous Life of Emperor Henry IV. The correspondence
is perhaps the most important - but from the point of view of this study
not all the letters have the same value. Some of them are very useful in
recreating that epoch and establishing the chronology of the political
events, but this is beyond this study’s area of interest. My main concern
is to present the political theories elaborated by each part in order to
sustain its claims of leadership in the Christian Commonwealth. These theories
are based on theological arguments because the princes and kings of that
time used religion to legitimate their political power - and precisely
this theological evidences are the matter I’m dealing with. Thus, this
essay attempts to show the importance of the theological debate in the
contest Empire/Papacy, and more than that, the relationship between religion
and politics in Middle Ages - the extent to which religion was involved
in political affairs, the controversies between spiritual and secular power.
It is neither an entirely historical approach nor an exhaustive theological
analyse.
As this essay address a larger audience - and not necessary specialists
- an introduction to the political background is, however, useful. (5)
Since Otto I was crowned emperor at Rome, by the pope, in 962, a strong
bond has been established between Empire and Papacy. The king of Germany
needed the papal investiture in order to become emperor - thus, the papal
interference in the German affairs was formally recognised. But the consequences
for the Empire were not dramatic, because as long as the emperor controlled
Italy the pope could not refuse the investiture of the German king as emperor.
Marc Bloch defines best the situation: "the imperial title seemed associated
with the possession of Italy."(6)
However, the transformations which occurred in the Church from the
end of the X-th century led to changes in the balance between Papacy and
Empire. Jacques Paul, in a study on the Church during its reform movement,
(7) appreciates that the IX-th century Christendom was a federation of
ecclesiastical provinces, which shared the same religious beliefs and discipline
and regarded the pope only as their formal superior, whose only power was
that of being the supreme instance of Christendom. One may argue that his
spiritual ascendancy gave the pope much power than Jacques Paul is willing
to admit; but even so it is obvious that Papacy was no match for the political
power of Empire. The reform that emerged inside the Church changed this
situation. The reform movement was connected with the beginning of a new
monastic order based on a system first put in practice at Cluny; some of
the popes of that time were initially Cluny’s monks. (8) It was generated
by the belief that the Judgement Day (that is, the end of the world) was
close; so, the popes wanted to present to God, when the Day will come,
a perfect Church, without any blur. After the year 1000 and 1033 passed
it seemed obvious that the Judgement Day was not to come very soon. So,
the task of Papacy was different now - the popes took the mission of moderating
the excesses of the sovereigns in the hope that this way the Christendom,
stronger inside, will win new territories and the kingdom of Christ will
be recognised all over the world. The "Sancta res publica Christiana" or
"civitas terrena spiritualis", described by St. Augustine in "De civitate
Dei" was to be built. This was not an easy thing to do.
The papal reforms began with Leo IX (1049-1054) and had to deal
with a difficult situation. The lay investiture of bishops made them rather
a part of the secular power - they were important officials of the
kings and emperors - than of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. (9) Two other
problems had to be solved - corruption and clerical marriage. The first
one is also known as simony - the practice of buying ecclesiastical offices;
the second, as nicolaism. Another issue was the election of popes. All
these were eventually overcame by the Papacy - but the transit led
to conflicts with the secular power. It is surprising that the pope
who begun the reforms, Leo IX, was German - since the synod of Sutri,
in 1046, when Henry III deposed Gregory VI under the charge of corruption
and replaced him with Clement II (1046-1047) the popes have been German
and naturally devoted to the emperor. Pope Nicholas II (1059-1061) however,
moved in another direction and made the election of pope purely ecclesiastical,
leaving the emperor with no means of interference - a council held in
1059 decided that a council of cardinals will elect the new pope;
until then the election was made by the people and clergy of Rome. Only
one year after his election Gregory VII condemned in a Roman council both
simony and nicolaism (1074). The last step was made in 1075 when a papal
decree forbade prelates to receive their churches from lay rulers.
During this time Henry IV had his problems too. His father, Henry
III, died when he was still a child (1056) and was not until 1066 that
Henry IV began to rule the Empire by himself. The relations between the
young king and the recently elected pope were tensioned from the beginning
- Henry gave the lay investiture to a new archbishop of Milan who was not
recognised by the pope (1071). As a way of making pressures on Henry the
pope excommunicated five imperial counsellors, but the revolt which occurred
in Saxony put an end to this tension (1073). Supported by the pope Henry
managed to defeat the revolt, and admitted his errors. He promised to Gregory
that he will sustain the papal actions, and Gregory, confused by this statement,
accepted the reconciliation . The events of 1075 showed that the agreement
could not last - the decree against lay investiture was more than Henry
could take and Dictatus Papae (10) sounded like a war declaration. Henry
did not follow the decree and the pope replied in a letter send at December
8, 1075. There was no way out - the emperor could not give away his right
of lay investiture of bishops, because they were too important to him as
a part of the administration of Empire. On the other hand this was a crucial
problem for the pope too, as a way of imposing the primacy of the Holy
See. In an assembly held at Worms Henry and some of the German bishops
condemned Gregory as an usurper and commanded him to descent from the Apostolic
See (January 24, 1076). Gregory acted in the same manner and in a Roman
synod he excommunicated Henry and the bishops allied with him (February
22, 1076).
The excommunication gave to Henry’s opponents an opportunity
to move against him. Lampert of Hersfeld describes in vivid words the feeling
of hostility against Emperor Henry IV which developed after the beginning
of
the open conflict with Papacy. The result was that the princes of Germany
gathered in an assembly at Tribur (October 1076) and decided to ask Gregory
to come to Augsburg to solve the problems of the Empire; Henry was given
an ultimatum to reach an understanding with Pope Gregory until February
22, 1077 (the anniversary of one year since the papal banning and excommunication).
The emperor was waiting with his army at Oppenheim, just opposite Tribur,
across the Rhine; but the forces of the German nobility, led by his old
adversaries, Welf of Bavaria, Rudolph of Swabia, Berthold of Carinthia
were too strong to risk a confrontation. So Henry obeyed to the decision
and promised to come to terms with Gregory - in a letter to him he offers
a reconciliation (Promissio Oppenheimensis). Then he headed for Italy to
meet with the pope and beg forgiveness, the only way of getting the papal
absolution - without it, he had to face the threat of deposition,
according to the terms of the ultimatum. The pope was already on his way
to Augsburg and he met Henry at Canossa, in Lombardy. After three days
of humiliating penitence he was finally forgiven - forgiveness was supposed
to be one of the main virtues of pope as God’s vicar on earth. At that
moment Henry, though humiliated at Canossa, was again the legal emperor
and this left the German nobility with the feeling that pope betrayed them.
They continued the fight against Henry electing Rudolph of Swabia as emperor
(at Farcheim, March 1077). The civil war led to a new conflict between
pope and emperor - Gregory excommunicated Henry for the second time and
predicted his death within a year (March 7, 1080). (11) But Henry deposed
Gregory in a synod at Brixen and replaced him with the Archbishop of Ravenna,
who became Pope Clement III and defeated Rudolph at Hohenmalsen (October
1080). Rudolph died, wounded, at Rheinfelden, and was replaced by
another anti-king, Count Hermann of Salm; yet Henry defeated him also and
the revolt was silenced. The emperor continued his policy against Papacy
and invaded Italy in 1081; in 1084 he conquered Rome and put his anti-pope
on the chair of St. Peter. However Gregory regained Rome in 1084 with the
help of Robert Guiscard and his Normans; but he died shortly after, in
1085. Henry followed him in 1106; but the conflict will come to an end
only in 1122, when Henry V and Calixt II signed the Concordat of Worms,
a compromise in which the emperor gave up his right to lay investiture
in return for the right to receive homage from the bishops and abbots invested
by the pope. This is the story of the conflict on the lay investiture -
behind it, one can trace an even more dramatic one. It is the story of
the contest for supremacy, between spiritual and secular power.
The two theories about supremacy in the Christian World were based
on the same grounds - they were both religious demonstrations, as both
Henry and Gregory stated that the source of their power was divine. It
had to be so because the medieval society was built on Christian traditions
(see supra). But the competitors used religion in own purpose, interpreting
the theological arguments as they thought that will be best for them. The
authorities were the same - The Bible, St. Augustine, Pope Gelasius, St.
Benedict. What was different was the way the theological arguments were
put together in a coherent scheme - and only this feature gave the originality
of each theory. On the other hand, to say that the contest was carried
by only two players would be unrealistic. The papal view was more
coherent, but even so it is obvious that some of his counsellors took part
in elaborating the
theory of papal supremacy. The Emperor was not alone either - among
the scholars who supported him two names ought to be mentioned. The Italian
Bishop Benzo of Alba developed the idea that the unity of Christendom
centres in the emperor, the successor of the Caesars. (12) This vision
uses not only Christian traditions but also Roman - that is, pagan -
or, as Christopher Brooke put it: "statesmen of ancient Rome, Charlemagne
and others form the background and support to the empire of Henry III and
Henry IV". (13) The "Norman Anonymus" also known as the "Anonymus of York"
is another important authority who sustained the primacy of spiritual power
upon the secular power - he considered that because of the rite of anointing
the kings became Christ’s vicars, therefore more important than priests.
(14) These opinions made the debate more diverse, but their historical
value cannot be compared with that of the theories elaborated by Gregory
and Henry.
The are many documents - especially letters - containing religious
and theological arguments provided by each part in order to demonstrate
that justice was on their side. A certain evolution can be noticed, as
the style of the letters was changing as the result of the political developments:
peaceful at the beginning, the discussion became violent, with moments
of decrease when Henry and Gregory tried to come to terms. (15)
In two letters addressed in the year of his election as pope
Gregory announces his policy towards the Empire’s affairs. The political
context was favourable to Gregory, as Henry was confronted with the Saxon
revolt. In the first letter, to Duke Godfrey of Lorraine (may 1073), he
makes use of biblical quotes to show that he will not tolerate an unfitting
attitude of the Emperor.
"But if - which God forbid ! - he shall repay our love with hate
and show contempt towards Almighty God for the high office conferred upon
him, then may the judgement which declares, ‘Cursed be he that keepeth
back his sword from blood !‘ not fall upon us in the providence of God.
For we are not free to set aside the law of God for the sake of any person,
neither to draw back from the path of rectitude for any favor of men, according
to the word of Apostle, ‘If I were still pleasing men I should not be a
servant of Christ‘."(16)
This may be regarded as the beginning of what will be an important
feature of Gregory’s letters - the very frequent appeal to Bible. The spirit
of the Apostles was a source of inspiration for Gregory, who permanently
tried to follow the principles who led St. Peter; but the presence in this
early letter of a quote from the Old Testament - from Jeremiah -
has also a special meaning - it has been asserted that the main authority
for Gregory was the Old Testament. (17)
The other letter, send to Duke Rudolph of Swabia in september 1073,
reaffirms the principles exposed in the letter to Duke Godfrey, and has
also references to Bible. (18)
Even though not directly addressed to Henry, Dictatus Papae is
the most relevant document for Gregory’s policy. The sentences in the document
put pope above all kings - he has the right to depose them, to absolve
their vassals of any oath of fidelity to them, he is the only one entitled
to give investiture to bishops. (19) More than that, he is the unchallenged
authority of Christendom, and there are practically no limits to his power.(20)
The source of this power is God Himself (21) - the pope is His vicar as
successor of St. Peter.
The idea of the divine origin of papal authority is exposed in
Gregory’s letter to Henry from December 8, 1075. The pope talks about "the
stewardship committed to us by St. Peter, prince of the Apostles". He identifies
the Church with St. Peter, whose successor he is, and asks Henry to act
with deference towards the Holy Church, because any crime against it is
a crime against God. To disobey the pope’s word means to disobey God:
"It would have been becoming to you, since you confess yourself
to be a son of the Church, to give more respectful attention to the master
of the Church, that is, to Peter, prince of the Apostles. To him, if you
are of the Lord’s flock, you have been committed for pasture, since Christ
said to him:
‘Peter, feed my sheep‘ and again: ‘To thee are given the keys of Heaven,
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in Heaven‘. Now, while we, unworthy
sinner that we are, stand in his place of power, still whatever you send
to us, whether in writing or by word of mouth, he himself receives, and
while we read what is written or hear the voice of those who speak, he
discerns with subtle insight from what spirit the message comes. Wherefore
Your Highness should beware lest any defect of will towards the Apostolic
See be found in your words or in your messages and should pay due reverence,
not to us but to Almighty God, in all maters touching the welfare of the
Christian faith and the status of the Church. And this we say although
our Lord deigned to declare: ‘He who heareth you heareth me; and he who
despiseth you despiseth me‘."(22)
An interesting correlation can be drawn between the sentence
in Dictatus Papae who declares "That he who is not at peace with the Roman
church shall not be considered catholic" and the rhetoric question from
this letter "To him, [that is, to St. Peter, and indirectly, to his successor,
the pope] if you are of the Lord’s flock, you have been committed for pasture".
The sine qua non condition for belonging to Christendom was to obey the
pope, or as Gregory said in the same letter "there is no other way of salvation
and eternal life for the flock of Christ and their shepherds except that
shown by him who said: ‘I am the door and he who enters me shall be saved
and shall find pasture‘. This was taught by the Apostles and observed by
the holy fathers and we have learned it from the Gospels and from every
page of Holy Writ."(23)
To these arguments Henry responded with others, of the same nature.
He wrote to Gregory, calling him with the name he used to have before being
elected pope, Hildebrand, and announced him that according to the decision
of the assembly of Worms he revokes "every prerogative of the papacy which
you seemed to hold, and ordering you to descent from the throne of the
city whose patriciate is due me through the bestowal of God and the sworn
assent of the Romans."(24) Henry declared war not to Papacy or Church -
that would have been inconceivable. He merely contested the right of Gregory
to be pope, and acting as patrician of the Romans and according to
the decision of the nobles and bishops assembled at Worms, he deposed him.
This course was legitimated by the will of God - and it could not have
been otherwise. The emperors view is exposed in the letter from January
22, 1076, in which Gregory is condemned as an usurper and is asked to descend
from the Apostolic See.
Henry motivates his action by the disasters brought to the Church
by Gregory. His position is very clear - he has been chosen by God to rule
on earth, and now he has to restore the rightful order disturbed by Gregory
and his "innovations":
"Henry, King not by usurpation, but by the pious ordination of
God, to Hildebrand now not pope, but false monk:
You have deserved such a salutation as this because of the confusion
you have wrought; for you left untouched no order of the Church which you
could make a sharer of confusion instead of honour, of malediction instead
of benediction."(25)
Henry quotes from St. Gregory charging the pope that he thought
himself above all other men, despising the opinions of the archbishops
and bishops, and using his position as pope only to ruin the Holy Church:
"You have judged that all these know nothing, while you alone
know everything. In any case, you have sedulously used this knowledge not
for edification, but for destruction, so greatly that we may believe Saint
Gregory, whose name you have arrogated to yourself, rightly made this prophecy
of you when he said: ‘From the abundance of his subjects, the mind of the
prelate is often exalted, and he thinks he has more knowledge than anyone
else, since he sees that he has more power than anyone else’."(26)
This a shrewd attack to a man who showed very little of what
should be an essential Christian virtue: modesty. But Henry’s main argument
was that he alone, and not Gregory, was God’s vicar on earth. He was rightful
king while Gregory wasn’t legal pope; but more than that he was by no means
subject of a pope, even if the pope would be legally elected. This is in
fact the theory of emperor’s supremacy over pope - the latter has only
spiritual authority and is not entitled to interfere in the political affairs
of the former. Henry made this very clear, charging Gregory of plotting
against him:
"You dared to threaten to take the kingship away from us - as
though we had received the kingship from you, as though kingship and empire
were in your hand and not in the hand of God."(27)
The most important difference is not that, as Henry says: "Our
Lord, Jesus Christ, has called us to kingship, but has not called you to
priesthood."(28) What matters is that the king is chosen by God, with whom
he establishes a special relationship through the rite of anointing; he
is consecrated by God and he should be respected. It is what Henry, using
the very words of St. Peter, reproaches to Gregory:
"The true pope Saint Peter also exclaims,‘Fear God, honour the
king’. You however, since you do not fear God, dishonour me, ordained of
Him"(29)
If Gregory asserted that a crime against him was a crime against
God, Henry gave him a reply through this sentence. Henry also claimed that
he was not subject to papal jurisdiction, and appealed to the Christian
tradition in order to emphasise that an emperor, rightful or not, was beyond
papal political authority:
"You have also touched me, one who, though unworthy, has been
anointed to kingship among the anointed. This wrong you have done to me,
although as the tradition of the holy Fathers has taught, I am to be judged
by God alone and I am not to be deposed for any crime unless - may it never
happen - I should deviate from the Faith. For the prudence of the holy
bishops entrusted the judgement and the deposition even of Julian the Apostate
not to themselves, but to God alone." (30)
The emperor ends his letter with another major allegation against
Gregory, that of heterodoxy, and commands him to descend from the Holy
See and to leave another to mount to the throne of St. Peter, one who will
teach the pure doctrine of St. Peter.
The next important document is the one announcing the deposition
and banning of Henry (February 22, 1076). In fact, it is an invocation
to St. Peter, justifying the excommunication - Gregory asserts that all
the Christian people owe him obedience, and this was established by divine
order, through St. Peter: "it is and has been thy will, that the Christian
people especially committed to thee should render obedience to me". (31)
The pope has a mission on earth and since Henry rebelled against Papacy
he shall be deprived of his crown. The entire theory is based on the divine
origin of pope’s power, a power which, unlike lay sovereigns’, reaches
not only on this world, but also in Heaven. This is the particular feature
of papal authority - "To me is given by thy grace the power of binding
and loosing in Heaven and upon earth". (32) In view of this, the excommunication
is an act of justice, and it is also meant to restore the prestige of the
Holy See and of St. Peter himself, severely affected by Henry’s actions
- and the last statement of the letter, a paraphrase of one of Gregory’s
favourite quotes, illustrates it perfectly: "I bind him in the bonds of
anathema in thy stead and I bind him thus as commissioned by thee, that
the nations may know and be convinced that thou art Peter and that upon
thy rock the son of the living God has built his Church and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it."(33)
As the conflict became open, the ideological debate got sharper.
In his encyclical letter to the German bishops (1076) Henry develops his
theory, providing new arguments in support of his view. Gregory is accused
to have taken for himself both priesthood and kingship - because he deposed
the emperor - and both by usurpation, or, as Henry says, "without God’s
knowledge". Henry argued that according to the words of Christ these two
should be separated, and attempting to change that was a heresy. He quotes
the metaphor of the two swords - that is, secular and spiritual power -
which, separated, should be enough for the protection of Christianity:
"In his Passion, the Saviour Himself meant the figurative sufficiency of
the two swords to be understood in this way: When it was said to him, ‘Lord,
behold there are two swords here‘, He answered, ‘It is enough’, signifying
by this sufficient duality". (34) The letter continues with a long list
of what Henry considered to be Gregory’s crimes against Church and Empire.
On the other hand, Gregory’s efforts to gain adherents were intense
too. He especially tried to convince as many of the German bishops and
princes that by supporting Henry they were committing a crime against the
divine order. In one of his letters from 1076, addressed to "all bishops,
dukes, counts and other defenders of the faith in Germany" he describes
his struggle, since he was only a deacon, to temperate Henry’s tendency
to disobey the regulations of the Holy Church; but in spite of the sins
he was guilty of, Gregory was willing to forgive him, if he would return
to a respectful policy towards St. Peter’s church - forgiveness was considered
to be an important virtue for any Christian, and the pope was expected
to set an example in this matter. Far more interesting for the theological
background of the conflict is Gregory’s letter from July 25, 1076,
addressed to the same German magnates. Once again he motivates his policy
against Henry by the necessity to defend the faith and the Church, according
to his mission on earth. Not interfering would meant to agree to Henry’s
actions, considers Gregory and he quotes "He who does not oppose
evil men out of regard for his station gives his consent; and he who removes
not that which ought to be cut off is guilty of the offense". (35)To Henry’s
statements Gregory replies by underlining the gaps between emperor’s declarations
and actions - "as the Apostle says, ‘They profess that they know God; but
in works they deny him‘." (36) The issue of pope’s responsibility for the
welfare of Christendom, which entitles him to impose his will even on kings
and emperors, occurs in the letter to Bishop Hermann of Metz from August
25, 1076. In his attempt to determine Hermann to join the battle against
Henry, the pope reminds him the words of St. Peter who instructed
the defenders of the faith to be "prompt to punish every disobedience".
Gregory asserts that ecclesiastical offices are above lay offices,
or, as pope Anastasius said: "If you compare the episcopal dignity with
the splendor of kings and the crowns of princes, these are far more
inferior to it than lead is to glistening gold". (37) He returns to one
of his favourite phrase from the New Testament and concludes that when
God commended his Church to St. Peter he did not make an exception for
kings; so, his authority as pope reaches over them too - it is in fact
the same idea with that presented in the document announcing the deposition
and excommunication of Henry (see supra).
The Canossa events and the momentary agreement between the two
parties led to a short interlude in the debate. It is worth mentioning,
however, a certain episode which occurred at Canossa, after Henry’s
oath. Both Lampert of Hersfeld and Berthold of Reichenau narrate that Henry,
being asked by the pope to taste the sacred wafer if he knew that he is
innocent of all the accusations brought against him, and this way clear
himself, hesitated and finally avoided the ordeal, under the excuse that,
without the accord of the people who charged him of this crimes the effect
of such test would be destroyed.(38) The story may be real or not; the
emperor may have feared the result of the ordeal, and the idea of making
a false oath to God probably terrified him - but the existence in chronicles
of such record, genuine or not, perfectly illustrates the religious mentality
of the medieval people .
The break lasted only a couple of years. In his second
deposition of Henry IV, from March 7, 1080, Gregory makes a short story
of the conflict and reaffirms the supremacy of spiritual power over secular
power. He invokes the authority of St. Peter and St. Paul, asking them
to punish, through his hand, the crimes committed by Henry:
"And if ye judge spiritual offices what are we to believe of
your power in secular ones ? And if ye shall judge angels, who rule over
all proud princes
how will it be with those subject to them ? Let kings and all secular
princes now learn how great ye are and what your power is; and let them
dread to disregard the command of your church."(39)
It is noticeable a certain enlargement of the papal view - until
then, his main aim was to declare his superiority over the emperor, although
he implied that all secular princes were subject to his authority; now,
he is more direct in his statements towards secular power as a whole.
The emperor’s reply was the decree of the Brixen synod (1080)
- a survey of Gregory’s crimes as pope, bringing nothing new in the theological
debate. Two documents from this stage of the contest are however relevant
from this point of view: Gregory’s letter to Hermann of Metz, from March
15, 1080, and Henry’s letter to the Roman cardinals (1082). The first
letter is perhaps the most revealing document of the papal view,
especially because is a summary of the thesis presented in the previous
attempts to persuade the Western Europe authorities - kings, dukes, counts,
bishops - to join his position. But there are also new elements - among
them the appeal to the examples set by great popes as Gelasius (492-496),
Julius I (337-352), Gregory I ( 590-604), in their quarrels with the secular
power. The statement of Gregory I is the most direct, emphasising the importance
of a papal decisions, and is also had a reference to the circumstances
of Henry’s deposition:
"If any king, priest, judge or secular person shall disregard
this decree of ours and act contrary to it, he shall be deprived of his
power and his office and shall learn that he stands condemned at the bar
of god for the wrong that he has done."(40) Gelasius is another authority
used by Gregory, and the passage selected is from a famous letter send
to Emperor Anastasius, in which is developed the theory of the divine origin
of Papacy, theory which occurs often in Gregory’s correspondence
and speeches. (41) This letter makes clear that Gregory was by no means
original in his argumentation, although the extent of his political aims
and achievements cannot be compared with that of the previous
popes. The sources of his political thinking appear very clear from this
document, which sometimes brings a somewhat surprising vindictive tone
towards lay sovereigns:
"Who does not know that kings and princes derive their origin
from men ignorant of God who raised themselves above their fellows by pride,
plunder, treachery, murder - in short, by every kind of crime - at the
instigation of the Devil, the prince of this world, men blind with greed
and intolerable in their audacity ?"(42)
The letter contains other theological proofs common with those
from Gregory’s previous documents - including the famous words of the Saviour
to St. Peter, in fact the source of papal doctrine.
Henry’s response in the letter to the Roman cardinals shows his
ability
of using the same kind of arguments. His attack is directed to the
pope’s innovations expressed in Dictatus Papae, revealing the ultimate
goals of Gregory’s policy - the unchallenged primacy over the Christian
World. Once again Henry takes advantage of the errors made by his opponent,
who did not profess the qualities of a Christian and did not follow the
divine rule, although he was supposed to be the first one to do so, because
of the position he had:
"These are his very words, ‘That he ought to be judged by no
one’. And his meaning is the same as if he had said: ‘He may do as he please’.
But this is not the rule of Christ, where it is said, ‘He who is greater
among you will be your servant’."(43)
The documents presented here are only a very small part of the
vast correspondence of Gregory VII and Henry IV, as the theological
arguments analysed are only the most relevant and frequent from the mass
used in the debate. A debate which did not end with the death of Gregory
and Henry, but was carried on by new actors in the following centuries,
in spite of the fact that the "investiture controversy" was solved by the
Concordat of Worms.
It is difficult to draw a conclusion about the competition for
supremacy in the Christian Commonwealth. This was a long and complex historical
phenomenon, which involved politics and religion as well. Even in the political
area the problems were complicated: Henry IV and Gregory VII fought for
the right of investing bishops, but they also had among their goals the
control over Italy, and perhaps the competition for primacy was considered
at that time only as a secondary problem. In the religious field, the pope
was concerned not only with the involvement of lay persons in the affairs
of the Church, but also with the eradication of simony and clerical marriage
- one of his first accusations against Henry was that of having contacts
with men guilty of these crimes. The fact that the conflict Empire/Papacy
continued after the settlement of the investiture controversy makes things
even more puzzling. As for the theological debate, some features have already
been analysed - their common divine source and nature, the appeal to the
same authorities. Except for the particular points of each demonstration
- the fact that both Gregory and Henry accused each other of various crimes
and sins, most of them invented - the controversy can be reduced to a single
issue: who was the one designated by God to take care of the affairs of
Christendom, in other words who was God’s representative on earth, who
was the chosen one ? Gregory quoted in hundreds of occasions the words
by which Christ committed his Church - understood in the larger meaning
of the community of the faithful people - to St. Peter and through him
to all of the popes. His shrewd demonstration was supported by the tradition
established by a long series of able popes, but even so he had to face
the opposition of a lot of people who saw his reforms as dangerous innovations.
On the other hand the emperor used every reference of any spiritual authority
in order to stress that the divine will was that the two powers - symbolised
by two swords - be separated, and, if there had to be a primacy,
that should be of the secular power. As general characteristic of both
theories, it is noticeable the sometimes sophistically way to use the religious
evidences.
We cannot know which theory was right, and up to a point this
is not a matter of importance. At that time it seemed that the political
and not the religious arguments ended the conflict in Henry’s advantage.
This doesn’t mean that the impact of the theological debate was null -
the simple fact that such a confrontation was considered necessary is relevant
for the importance of religion in the political thinking of the Middle
Ages. But indeed the political force of Papacy was no match for the
still very powerful Empire; the pope had spiritual authority and only this
provided him with the means of interfering in the political issues. (44)
However the final outcome was the Worms Concordat (1122), a compromise
which makes it difficult to assert that either one of the rivals won the
competition. What can be asserted is that religion and politics, Church
and State, were not separated in the Middle Ages, and the extent of religious
involvement in society was impressive.
NOTES
1.This study has first been presented at the VIIIth Annual Conference
of the International Students of History Association, "Religion through
history", Wroclaw 1997. I’m indebted to the participants at the workshop
"Religion and politics" for their comments and criticisms.
2.And not only European - since Europe was identified with the Christian
World the moral leader of the continent was, in fact, world’s higher authority.
3.Probably the roots of the political involvement of Papacy go back
in the years of the barbarian invasions - it is notorious the episode of
452 when pope Leon I persuaded Attila not to attack Rome. The Roman Pontiff
started to play an even bigger part on the political stage of the continent
in the VIII-th century, using his moral authority in the Christian Commonwealth
to support the Carolingians, in return for protection and formal recognition
of his supremacy - the fact that Charlemagne received his imperial crown
from the hands of pope Leon III strengthened the position of the Holy See.
4.The emperor laid siege on Rome and temporary conquered the
city (1084). With the military aid of the Normans led by Robert Guiscard
the pope managed to get his town back - but the price he had to pay was
heavy, because the Normans devastated Rome and terrified the inhabitants.
5.The conflict between Henry IV and Gregory VII is narrated in an impressive
number of modern works. The classic English text, offering an introduction
to the problem and a chronological history of the contest, is provided
by the chapters in The Cambridge Medieval History, volume V, edited by
J. R. Tanner, C. W. Previte - Orton, Z. N. Brooke, Cambridge, 1957.
6.Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, volume II, Chicago, 1974, p.390.
7.Jacques Paul, L’Eglise et la culture en Occident IX---e - XIIe siecles,
vol. I - II, Paris, 1994.
8.And even the pope who initiated the First Crusade, Urban I, used
to be Abbott of Cluny.
9."The characteristic feature of church order in the first half of
the eleventh century was what the German historians have called Eigenkirchentum,
a word which can best be rendered as the ‘privatisation‘ of churches. The
old discipline had been superseded by a system of private rights, some
held by laymen and others by clergy, but all perceived as the personal
possession of their holders." The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity,
edited by John McManners, Oxford, 1990, p. 197.
10.Dictatus Papae is a document discovered in the correspondence registers
of Gregory - it contains 27 sentences and most likely is only an
index to an extended work in which Gregory declared the primacy of spiritual
power upon secular power. (see infra).
11.The fact that this didn’t happen diminished pope’s credibility,
and made the people wonder if he was indeed God’s representative on earth.
12.Christopher Brooke, Europe in the Central Middle Ages, Norwich,
1964, p. 273.
13.Ibid.
14.Ibid., p. 274. The king is Christ’s ‘figura et imago‘.
15.A very good indication of the intensity of the debate is the addressing
formula of the letters between these two, and also the names and terms
used by each of them to designate the other in the letters to their adherents.
16.Ideas and Institutions in European History, edited by Thomas C.
Mendenhall, Basil D. Henning, A. S. Foord, New York, 1964, p. 56.
17.The Cambridge Medieval History, volume V , p. 54.
18.This time from the New Testament. Ideas and Institutions in European
History, p. 56.
19."3.That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops…12. That it may
be permitted to him to depose emperors…16. That no synod shall be called
a general without his order…27.That he may absolve subjects from their
fealty to wicked men." The Middle Ages. Volume I Sources of Medieval History,
edited by Brian Tierney, New York, 1970, p.116-117.
20."2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal…9.
That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet…19.That he himself
may be judged by no one…22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor
will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness…26. That he
who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic."
Ibid.
21."1.That the Roman church was founded by God alone ." Ibid., p.116.
22.Readings in Medieval History, Volume II, edited by Patrick J. Geary,
New York, 1992, p.261.
23.Ibid., p.262.
24.Ibid., p.277.
25.Ibid., p. 279.
26.Ibid.
27.Ibid.
28.Ibid.
29.Ibid.
30.Ibid.
31.Ibid., p. 263.
32.Ibid.
33.Ibid.
34.Ibid., p. 280.
35.Ibid., p. 267.
36.Ibid., p. 266.
37.Ibid., p. 278.
38.Ideas and Institutions in European History, p. 72.
39.The Middle Ages. Volume I Sources of Medieval History, p. 122.
40.The Traditions of the Western World, general editor J.H. Hexter,
Chicago, 1976, p.198.
41.The essence of Gelasius ideas about spiritual and political authority
is found in this letter: "Two there are, august emperor, by which the world
is chiefly ruled, the sacred authority (auctoritas) of the priesthood and
the royal power (potestas). Of these the responsibility of the priests
is more weighty in so far as they will answer for the kings of men themselves
at the divine judgement." Sources of Western Traditions, Volume I, edited
by Marvin Peny, Joseph R. Peden, Theodore H. Von Laue, Boston, 1991, p.196.
The resemblance with Gregory’s statements is striking, and it is obvious
that he was deeply influenced by Gelasius, however his position being more
radical, for he, unlike Gelasius, did not think that he should obey the
emperor - on the contrary, the emperor should observe his regulations.
42.The Traditions of the Western World, p. 199.
43.Ibid., p.207.
44.The pope had the power of excommunicating whoever he thought necessary
for the welfare of Christianity. But this power was by no means unlimited
- because only a strong and able pope was able to act in this manner. The
essential problem is that of the pope’s prestige - if his influence
upon Christianity was strong enough, he could have even a king excluded
from this community. But if he was a controversial character the chances
of his decision being fulfilled were small. People could ignore his words
as well as obey them, because the pope didn’t have any military or political
means of imposing his will. R.W. Southern asserted that: "There was no
material arm to enforce these censure - they belonged essentially to the
world of the spirit."R.W. Southern, The making of the Middle Ages, New
Haven, 1966, p.133.
|
|
|