Letters
of (and concerning) Manasses I, Archbishop of Reims, and Hugh, bishop
of
Die and papal legate, to Pope Gregory VII (1077-1080)
Translated from the Latin by John S. Ott, Department of
History, Portland State University. Translations, introduction
and
notes are (C) John S. Ott and may not be reproduced without permission,
but the notes and translations may be employed without the author's
permission for classroom use. Last updated 2 January 2021.
Introduction
Manasses I of Gournay, archbishop of Reims from c. 1069-1080, was one
of the most powerful prelates in France during a time of acute
transformation and periodic crisis within the medieval church. Although
initially installed in his office with the full support of then-pope
Alexander II (1061-1073) and his archdeacon Hildebrand, the future Pope
Gregory VII, Manasses's falling out with, and eventual deposition by,
Gregory in 1080 stands as one of the more spectacular ecclesiastical
downfalls of the late eleventh century. If the reasons for
Manasses' hasty promotion from near total obscurity to high church
office are relatively clear and boil down to his friendship
with Alexander and Hildebrand, his decline and fall are rather more
complex
and go straight to the heart of a host of issues connected to Pope
Gregory
VII's vision of the medieval church and his program for its reform.
Gregory's
correspondence with (and about) Manasses of Reims is well known and
widely
available through the editions and translations of his papal Registers.
[1] Manasses's correspondence with Gregory and his legate for
France,
Hugh of Die [2], while available in editions of varying quality, is
little
studied by comparison. This is a shame, not only because Manasses
was a flamboyant and outspoken prelate--and one not afraid of voicing
his
displeasure at his treatment by Gregory's legate, Hugh--but because the
archbishop's
letters present his understanding of the privileges and powers of the
episcopal
office at a time when Gregory was insisting that bishops demonstrate,
above
all else, obedience to St. Peter and to papal authority. The
letters
below thus display Manasses's perspective on the compromises demanded
of
bishops in general, and himself in particular, during Gregory's
papacy.
In them he expresses dismay, hurt, and finally anger and defiance, at
his
treatment by his former friend and presumptive ally, Gregory. He
also
marshals a variety of legal and textual defenses on his own behalf,
appealing
to history, his metropolitan privilege, church law, and his personal
bond
with the pope. In the end, they availed him not: Gregory
pronounced
his official deposition on 27 December 1080. While Manasses clung
to
power for another nine months [3], he seems to have departed Reims for
good
by April 1081 and to have never returned. What became of him
afterward
is a mystery. He simply disappears from the historical record. [4]
Endnotes to Introduction
[1]
The edition of
Gregory's letters was realized by Erich Caspar, ed., Das Register
Gregors VII., 2 vols,
MGH,
Epistolae selectae, 2 [hereafter abbreviated Reg., followed by the
letter
and its date] (Berlin: Weidmann, 1955). There have been two
English translations of Gregory's letters, the first (and partial) by
Ephraim Emerton,
The Correspondence of Pope Gregory
VII.
Selected Letters from the Registrum (New York: Columbia
University
Press, 1932), the most recent (and complete) achieved by H. E. J.
Cowdrey,
The Register of Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085 (Oxford:
Oxford
University Press, 2002).
[2] Hugh was bishop of Die from 1074-1082, later archbishop of
Lyon from 1082-1109. He served as Pope Gregory's chief legate to
France
from 1075 on. Modern Die is
a sub-prefecture in the French département of Drôme, in
the Alpine foothills of southeastern France. In the Middle Ages it was
a small county. Hugh was a fairly severe and uncompromising man,
as his letters with Manasses, and Gregory VII's letter to Hugh himself,
make clear. On Hugh's legation to France and relationship with
Gregory, see: Theodor
Schieffer, Die päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich, vom
Vertrage von
Meersen (870) bis zum Schisma von 1130 (Berlin: Dr Emil Ebering,
1935),
pp. 92-101; and Kriston R. Rennie, "Extending Gregory VII's 'Friendship
Network': Social Contacts in Late Eleventh-Century France", History.
The
Journal of the Historical Association, 93 (2008), 475-96; along
with
Rennie's Law and Practice in the Age of Reform: The
Legatine
Work of Hugh of Die (1073-1106), Medieval Church Studies, 17
(Turnhout:
Brepols, 2010).
[3] Manasses's last known act as archbishop of Reims was to
consecrate a church at Braux-sur-Meuse (near the modern French border
with Belgium,
in Champagne-Ardenne) on 26 September 1081. For the charter, see H.
Lacaille, ed., Trésor des chartes du comté
de Rethel, vol. 1 (Monaco, 1902), p. 2. Others have dated
this charter to 1080 in order to have it accord with Manasses's
deposition in December 1080,
but I have seen no compelling reason to follow suit, especially since
Manasses was still acting in his capacity as archbishop (despite his
deposition)
as late as May 1081.
[4] The archbishop's disappearance has led scholars to propose
various outcomes for him: that he left France to reside at the imperial
court of
Henry IV (we know that he was with Henry, outside the walls of Rome, in
April
1081); that he eventually left on pilgrimage for Jerusalem. There is no
conclusive evidence for either position. The likeliest explanation, and
also
the simplest, is that he died. A manuscript narrating a long-lasting
property
dispute between the abbeys of Saint-Remi and Saint-Nicaise of Reims,
known
as the Libelli de
discordia inter monachos S. Remigii et S. Nicasii Remenses agitata
tempore Pachalis II papae (ed. Hermann
Meinart; Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1931), composed in the 1110s,
notes somewhat
laconically that he died and was succeeded in his office by Archbishop
Renaud [Renaud I, 1083-1096] (cc. 7-8, pp. 272-73).
The Letters (with other documents) of
Archbishop Manasses I of Reims, Hugh of Die, and Pope Gregory VII
(1077-1080)
The letters below have been arranged chronologically. Translations of
previously untranslated letters by Manasses and Hugh appear here;
Gregory's
letters, which are available in English translation elsewhere, have
simply
been noted and briefly summarized. The editions of the letters from
which
the translations have been made are noted at the closing of each
translation,
together with the footnoted material. I should quickly add that the
letters
appearing here by no means exhaust the correspondence between the pope
and
archbishop, which began immediately upon Gregory's ascension to the
papal
see in 1073. They do represent the complete extant
correspondence
from the last years of Manasses's episcopacy, however, when his
relationship with Gregory began to deteriorate.
A.
Hugh of Die to Pope Gregory VII (1077, after 10 September)
Hugh wrote this
letter after the synod he called at Autun, in Burgundy, in September
10.
In it, he gives Gregory an account of the synodal business
transacted. The archbishop of Reims had been summoned to the
council at the pope's request (Reg. 4.22, 12 May 1077), not to be tried
for simony but to assist Hugh
of Die in deciding a case concerning the bishop of Cambrai, Gerard II
(r. 1076/77-1092), who had, in the previous
year, been promoted into his office by King Henry IV of Germany.
Manasses did not go, but sent representatives, including one of his
archdeacons,
in his place. His deposition by Hugh of Die, clearly encouraged by two
high-ranking clergy from Reims, namely the provost and schoolmaster of
the cathedral, seems to have caught Manasses by complete surprise.
TO THE MOST reverend father and lord Pope Gregory,
from his sanctity's least useful servant, Hugh, priest of Die, [sends]
greetings.
We have learned that your [faithful man] R.[1], to
whom we enjoined that he should relate to you faithfully, like your
son, what transpired at the council of Autun [2], at which he was
present, has [in fact]
returned to Paris. Since he neither returned to us, nor wrote to
us
anything about your condition, we request your paternity that you deign
to
convey to us his sentence concerning the arrangement of the churches of
Reims,
Bourges, and Chartres. Your paternity should also know that the
so-called
bishop of Noyon [3], who was closely investigated by us under the
pressure
of public examination, confessed his simony to us in the presence of
the
bishops of Laon and Langres, along with certain others. He then
confirmed
by oath upon the holy gospels that, having seen your letters and by
your
legation, he had rightly resigned the church which he had wrongly
occupied,
and swore that to the best of his knowledge and ability he was
legitimately
ordained. However, the bishop of Senlis [4], having received
investiture
by the king's hand, was ordained by that heresiarch of Reims [5], whom
you
forbade by your letters from accepting into the episcopate [a man] of
this
sort. The recently ordained bishop of Auxerre [6] did not receive
investiture
by the king, although he sought his blessing through the king's
advisors.
Moreover, concerning the archbishop of Sens [7], I hope you have
adequately
heard through the aforementioned R. what injury and insult he inflicted
on
your authority during our legation. Nor in saying this, God as my
witness,
am I seeking my own glory. And also [the archbishop of] Bordeaux
[8],
although summoned the past year to the council of Auvergne [9], neither
came
nor excused himself canonically, and was suspended from his episcopal
office
at the same council. Whereupon he, dismissing the interdict,
usurped
the office for himself. He was called a second time to the
council
of Autun, but because he sent no explanation to us, we suspended him
from
the priesthood.
Concerning all these things, we beseech you, write
back to our smallness what your greatness judges and what you would
then like to do. Furthermore, we earnestly request that you send
to us by the lord bishop of Valence the pallium [10] in order to
confirm the ordination of that most religious archbishop of Lyon [11]
against the barking of heretics, who are basely exulting about the
king's indignation against God's ordination. … Moreover,
we commend to the grace of your sanctity our
friend in Christ Manasses, who at the Council of Clermont surrendered
into
our hands the wickedly acquired provostship of the church of Reims.[12]
[We also commend] that sincere defender of the Catholic faith and most
honest
schoolmaster of the church of Reims, lord Bruno.[13] Both men are
worthy
to be confirmed by you and your authority in those things which are
God's,
since they were considered worthy to suffer abuse in the name of
Jesus.
For that reason you should consider them useful advisors in God's cause
and allies in the lands of France. The deposition of the heretic
of
Reims [14] [...] or order him to be sent to us [...] and be sealed by
the
signature of your authority.[...] since [they carried out?] an
episcopal
election [in spite of?] your excommunication, without consulting
us.
Your son Tiezo [15] has now returned to you, unless he was detained in
order
to call, or, God willing, celebrate the council at Poitiers on the 13th
of
January. In this council, we humbly beseech that the protection
of
your merits be with us. Pray for us, most holy father.
Notes to Letter A.
[1] This is probably the bishop of Langres,
Hugh-Rainard, concerning whom see below and Reg. 4.22.
[2] The council of Autun was held in
September 1077 and presided over by Hugh of Die, with the bishop of
Langres, Hugh-Rainard, assisting.
[3] Radbod II, bishop of Noyon-Tournai from
1068-1098.
[4] Likely Ivo II, bishop of Senlis from
1077-1079/81.
Senlis and Noyon were both
in the archdiocese of
Reims.
[5] Meaning Manasses I of Gournay, archbishop of
Reims
(069-1080).
[6] Robert of Nevers was bishop of Auxerre from 1076-1092. He was
the son of Count William I of Nevers, Auxerre, and Tonnerre.
[7]
Richer, archbishop of Sens from 1062-1096.
[8] Gozelin, archbishop of
Bordeaux from
1060-1086.
[9] Held under Hugh of Die at Clermont in
Auvergne
on
7 August 1076.
[10] A strip of linen or lamb's wool
signifying the archiepiscopal office, conferred directly by the pope.
[11] Archbishop Gebuin of Lyon, who ruled
from 1077-1081.
[12] Manasses, the provost of the chapter of Sainte-Marie of Reims, and
future archbishop of that diocese (1096-1106), will emerge as the
archbishop's most strident opponent. At the Council of Autun, he
ingratiated himself with Hugh of Die in the clear hopes of gaining
papal support in his campaign against the archbishop. It is worth
noting here that the provost had acquired his office by simony,
probably through the influence of his relative, Count Ebalus (or Ebles)
of Roucy, in 1076, only to surrender it into Hugh of Die's hands in
August of that year. Restored to office, the provost became an
implacable enemy of Archbishop Manasses.
[13] Bruno of Cologne was one of the leading schoolmasters of the
eleventh century, and was master of the school at Reims, where he may
have been installed as early as 1055. He became chancellor in
1075 or 1076, but was forced from the position, presumably by the
archbishop, in 1077 or 1078, when another schoolmaster, Godfrey of
Reims, assumed that important position. Bruno and the provost Manasses
worked assiduously for the archbishop's removal from 1077-1080.
In return, the archbishop seized the possessions of both men and
effectively barred them from the city.
[14] Again, referring to Archbishop Manasses. His heresy is not named,
but appears to consist of his having ordained the bishop of Senlis, who
had been promoted to his bishopric by the King of France--and, thus,
was considered a simoniac. At this point, a series of lacunae in the
edition obscure the concluding passages of the letter.
[15] Tiezo or
Teuzo
was a papal functionary often called upon to carry out Rome's business.
Source: Sacrorum conciliorum nova et
amplissima collectio, ed. Joannes
Dominicus Mansi,
35 vols.
(Florence and Venice: Zatta, 1759-98), 20:488-490.
B.
Archbishop Manasses to Pope Gregory VII (1077,
after 10 September, and before January 1078)
In this letter, Manasses protests to
Gregory his treatment at Autun, and gives the pope his explanation of
events. In particular, he denounces his high-handed treatment by
Hugh of Die and, most especially, the conduct of Hugh-Rainard, the
bishop of Langres, who
had assisted Hugh at Autun and who had pretended to possess full
legatine
powers. In fact, Hugh-Rainard seems to have been widely detested, as
the
clergy
of Cambrai, who wrote to their
colleagues at Reims at this same time, also disparaged him. No doubt
complicating matters, Hugh-Rainard happened to be a cousin of Manasses.
TO HIS REVEREND lord Gregory, pontiff of the holy
and apostolic Roman see, Manasses, by the Lord's grace archbishop of Reims, [offers] all due subjection and the
compliance of infinite servitude.
I am endeavoring to write to your majesty how,
reverend father, Lord Hugh of Die and his advisor and master, the
bishop of Langres', the slickest of all men found on earth, have dealt
with me, the servant
of your holiness.[1]
This year the aforementioned [bishop of] Langres
arranged to visit the cities and bishops of our province.
There he conducted himself so shamefully and, they say, so
self-indulgently, that songs about the lovers which he left behind in
the places he had departed are sung in our region by those like him. One of them begins as follows; may I beg your
indulgence, I am embarrassed to mention things of this sort to your
majesty:
Come,
beautiful and delicate (one)
with smooth skin, like a girl. [1bis]
On learning of this I began to grow sad with dismay, not only because
he steadfastly asserted himself not to be some sort of legate, but
rather
the advisor and master of your sanctity's legate [Hugh of Die], and
also
because he was our relative.
When he
perceived
this, namely that such infamy of his name was everywhere being spread
in
our parts, he began to impute to me what others, God as my witness,
were
saying [about him], and such a hatred boiled up in him for me that he
said
he would prefer to die rather than that I should remain in my diocese.
What more?
He
associated
with himself every ally whom he recognized to have or have had an issue
or
conflict with me.
He associated with, I
say,
He-Who-Ought-to-be-Eliminated, the bishop of Laon [2], whose hatred
remains foremost in his mind [3] concerning the
episcopacy
which he lost in your dignity's presence and I obtained through your
paternity's
intercession. [4]
He took up no less with
Ebalus
of Roucy, who daily does not cease to depopulate our church with
rapine,
homicide, arson and various persecutions. [5]
He
even associated with, together with certain leading men attached to our
church, the provost of the same church, Manasses: uneducated, the most
vile
sort of buffoon, a man lacking all authority, whom even secular
judgments,
to say nothing of ecclesiastical, would not admit -- and who even, I
have
no doubt, slept with his sister, a nun and abbess.
[6]
All these men together with their supporters set out for the
council
at Autun, conspiring against me.
Now, let your
serenity
hear by what means and how unjustly and absurdly they dealt with me --
the
servant of your sublimity! -- there.
It was asked by the bishop of Langres why the bishop of
Reims, who had been called to the council, was
not present.
On hearing this our legates,
namely W., the lord archdeacon of
Reims,
along with certain other leading clerics of our church [7], responded:
Our lord [Manasses],
fearing the ambushes of his enemies, from whom he has suffered the
utmost persecution, as you well know, was unable to be here. He was anticipating,
if the lord pope should boldly make the alpine crossing as he had
confided
to him in his letter, that either our lord should go out to meet him in
German
lands, or else the lord pope should come to him or send his legates to
him,
as he had indicated. It was also decided
that
you ought not to take his absence badly if two or three men of the same
diocese should be present at the council in the bishop's place, since
he
had not been summoned for any fault or crime which had been imputed to
him. [Pope] Leo wrote to the bishop of
Thessalonika [8] concerning
sending representatives in this way in clause 10: In summoning your
fellow
bishops we wish you to be most moderate, and not seem to revel in grave
injuries
to maintain the appearance of due diligence. Whence
if any major conflict should arise, for which it is rational and
necessary
to call a fraternal assembly, two bishops from each province, which the
metropolitans believe should be sent, should be sufficient to come to
your
fraternity. And although, terrified by the fear
of
death or being captured but fully assured of the expectation of his
legates
and also of the decree of his predecessor Pope Leo, he did not come at
your
summons although he was called, he commits his magistracy into your
hand,
to whom he is subordinate after God; and even if he had been commanded,
as
we said, on account of some wrongdoing or any crime, but simply because
he
should be present here, we pray, and he prays, that because he is not
present
here, you should not take it badly. Indeed if a
plea
or a display of either justice or the law cannot be extended to us or
to
him, and, guided by some sort of prejudice he wishes to harm him by
cupidity
or dislike, we call upon his behalf the lord pope, who established him
in
the see of Reims; indeed we call that very man who, shunning prejudice,
saw
fit to weigh truth and falsehood on the scales of justice.
Then the lord Hugh of Die, having been induced to
think that [Manasses] was more vile than he, and moved by anger and
shockingly agitated beyond all measure by the bishop of Langres and his
accomplices, did not do what he ought, but what he pleased, and in a
single moment carried out what your majesty had put off for six years
with the bishop of Châlons: he suspended, excommunicated, and
carried out whatever the bishop [of Langres] and his supporters wanted. [9] He utterly forgot the decrees of Pope Leo,
which he directed on behalf of the metropolitan Atticus of Epyrus to
the archbishop of Thessalonika in the following words:
I am greatly amazed,
dearest brother, but I am even more distressed, that you could be so
violently and cruelly angered against a man concerning whom you passed
no greater a judgment than that when summoned he deferred coming and
offered the excuse of sickness. Especially
since, if he had deserved [censure] of this sort, you ought to have
waited for whatever I would reply in writing to your decision. And shortly after: 'But even if
he had done something serious and intolerable, our censure ought to
have
been waited for, so that you would not first decide something until you
were aware of our judgment. Indeed, we
entrusted
our office to your charity, so that you might act out of pastoral
concern,
not in the fullness of power. Whence, while the many things which were
done
by you piously make us very happy, so those deeds which were wrongly
done
deeply sadden us.' [10]
Indeed, Leo the Great did not praise what his
legate, namely the archbishop of Thessalonika, did concerning Atticus
the metropolitan of Epyrus; [Pope] Nicholas did not praise what Rotoald
and Zacharias did concerning the patriarch Ignatius; and Pope Hilary
condemned and counted for
nothing whatever he considered illicit or he found had been allowed by
his
predecessors. [11] Moreover, I raise a
complaint with your paternity concerning the injury done to me by the
bishops of Die and of Langres on your sanctity's behalf.
The King of the Germans gave the bishopric of Cambrai to a
certain cleric when the [previous] bishop died. [12] When [this cleric]
sought my blessing I utterly
refused, knowing that the king was bound by your anathema.
The same man after our return went to the bishop of Langres [13]
and
stayed with him for six months, and, as was reported to me, promised
him
gifts. And then at the aforementioned
council
the bishop of Die, at the bishop of Langres' urging, excommunicated me
--
the servant of your sanctity -- and without my knowledge consecrated
that
same cleric whom I had rejected on your behalf. [14]
Whence, most reverend father, I request that the
clemency of your serenity uproot such fickleness and such pride, while
we, who are no Lombards! bend our necks to your power like a faithful
man and servant, and that you make us come into your presence [15]; and
in the meantime, until
I should come to you, I request that you permit me to be free from the
most unheard-of excommunication in our time.
May your sanctity be well, most reverend father.
Notes to Letter B.
[1]
This
letter's editors have suggested it may have been ghost-written by
Manasses's new chancellor, Godfrey of Reims (Erdmann and Fickermann,
eds., Briefsammlungen der Zeit Heinrichs IV., no. 107,
p. 178 n. 1).
[1bis] Compare Plautus, Casina 108:
'bella et tenella Casina'.
[2]
A clever pun
substituting the Latin eliminandum for the bishop of Laon's
name, Helinand.
[3]
Virgil,
Aeneid, 1.26.
[4] Manasses is referring here to Helinand of Laon's (1052-1096)
attempt to secure for himself the archiepiscopacy following the death
of Gervais
of Chateau-du-Loir in July 1067. Manasses, the papal candidate,
ultimately
prevailed of course, and Helinand seems to have borne considerable
hostility
toward his rival as a result.
[5]
Ebalus
was count of Roucy (he died before 1103), a territory quite close to Reims. The Roucy
clan
was a dominant force in local ecclesiastical politics.
[6]
Manasses
was provost of the cathedral from c. 1075/76-1096, and later became
archbishop of Reims (1096-1106). He was related to the Roucy clan and the son
of the vicedominus of Reims, a
powerful local aristocrat. His
sister, Adela, was the abbess of Notre-Dame of Laon.
[7] This was Wido, or Guido, archdeacon of Reims from c. 1070-1081. He
was a consistent partisan of the archbishop and a member of his inner
circle.
[8]
Pope
Leo I (440-461), Letter 14 (c. 10), to the bishop of Thessalonika,
reproduced in PL 54:674, trans. by Edmund Hunt, St. Leo
the Great. Letters (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of
American Press, 1957), 58-67.
[9]
Gregory
VII had been seeking to bring the bishop of Châlons, Roger III
(1066-1092) to account for various misdoings since 1074 (and perhaps
longer); indeed, the pope had appealed to Manasses, who was Roger's
clerical superior, to
assist him. Manasses had not acted with
the alacrity Gregory expected.
[10]
Cf.
Letter 14.
[11]
See
letters 91 and 94 of Pope Nicholas I (MGH Epp. 6:516-518 and 544-547);
letter 12 of Pope Hilary.
[12]
This
was Gerard II, eventually bishop of Cambrai from 1077-1092, about whom
the canons of Cambrai wrote a letter of complaint.
[13] The same Hugh-Rainard, Manasses's bitter enemy.
[14]
Manasses was
unaware, or feigning ignorance, of the fact that Gregory VII had
absolved Gerard
II of Cambrai and sent him to Autun precisely to be consecrated by Hugh
of Die.
[15] This somewhat gratuitous reference to "Lombards" indicates
Manasses was aware of the pope's troubles with the rebellious bishops
of Lombardy, especially the archbishops of Milan. A similar awareness
of the vexing issues surrounding the Pataria is evidenced in the letter
of the clergy of Cambrai to the clergy of Reims on the subject of
clerical fornication.
Source: Carl Erdmann and Norbert Fickermann, eds,
Die Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit, vol.
5,
Briefsammlungen der Zeit Heinrichs IV
(Weimar: Böhlaus, 1950), no. 107, pp. 178-182
C.
Memorandum of Pope Gregory VII, overturning Hugh of Die's sentence
against
Manasses done at Autun in September 1077 (Reg. 5.17, 9 March 1078)
Sometime before 15 January 1078, Hugh
of Die issued another summons to Manasses, that he should come to a
second legatine council to be held in Poitiers. Manasses ignored it,
having already appealed to Gregory directly by letter, a missive he
followed up by traveling to Rome in person to face the accusations
being brought against him by Ebalus of Roucy. In this memorandum
of the decisions arrived at during the papal Lenten synod (25
February-3 March 1078), Gregory overturned Hugh of Die's pronouncements
and restored Manasses to his office, on the condition that the
archbishop swear on the relics of St. Peter to attend all future
summonses, reply to any future charges before the papal legate, and
faithfully manage the lands and possessions of the church of Reims.
This he seems to have done, returning to northern France sometime in
late May.
D.
Archbishop Manasses to Pope Gregory (after 22 May 1078 [Pentecost] and
before 22 August)
During his absence in Rome,
Manasses's enemies seized the opportunity to move against him--or so he
suggests in this letter, in which he presents himself as Gregory's
faithful servant.
Gregory, it seems, had used Manasses's submission to seek his military
support
on behalf of Matilda of Tuscany, a papal ally. Manasses also
seems
to have promised to return to Rome the following year (Easter 1079),
though
he did not. In any case, he uses this letter to take the
initiative
against Ebalus of Roucy, the provost Manasses, and the bishops of Laon
and
Soissons, arguing (in a clearly frustrated tone) that his attempts to
govern
the church according to his metropolitan rights had been severely
undermined
by their activities and by the doings of Guermond, the archbishop of
Vienne.
He also restates his willingness to attend any summons by a Roman
legate--that
is, by a legate from the city of Rome--but not an 'ultramontane'
legate:
a clear reference to Hugh, the bishop of Die.
TO THE SUPREME pontiff lord Gregory, his father
and
lord, Manasses, by the grace of God archbishop of Reims,
[offers] faithful servitude, obedient subjection, and prayerful
devotion.
At your request and by your intervention, my lord,
I relayed to the lady marquess M[atilda of Tuscany] everything which her
predecessor had believed about me; and to defend her I promise and
faithfully promised my counsel and aid, which she accepted. [1] On the matter of opposing G[odfrey of
Bouillon] and receiving Count A[rnulf
of Chiny], I am prepared to carry out whatever she asks.
To
confirm all these things, during the holy days of Pentecost I was with
our
brother and your faithful bishop Thierry at his city of Verdun, having
put
off all my pressing business for her sake during that sacrosanct time.
[3] But I, ever your faithful man and among all
churches prepared
to obey your law, urgently seek your counsel and ask you to carry out
judgment
concerning the archbishop of Vienne, Guermond, who degraded priests in
my
archdiocese, and then again restored them to office.[4] Although
he did not insinuate that he was a Roman legate, when he had filled his
purses, not in the name of truth, but in imitation of those who, as the
Apostle said, "place value on pious words" [5], he left my diocese and
returned
home. For that reason, and for the honor of God
and
the Roman church, correct as is fitting this sort of presumption and
pretense,
so that no one henceforward shall be so presumptuous in another's place. I also bring to your attention that while I was in Rome, two of my suffragan bishops, of Laon and Soissons, consecrated a third, of Amiens, in my
archdiocese
and without my knowledge.[6] [This happened]
against
your foremost decree, by which you had stated that no archbishop should
consecrate a bishop who had received the gift of an episcopate from a
layperson. And especially since those very
same men had been
present at the council of Autun [7], where Hugh the lord bishop of Die
promulgated
and stated before everyone that this was your ecclesiastical decree. This was thus done, apart from what we already said,
against
authority and the canons, and was considered, if you please, invalid
and
unprecedented, and indeed to all sane people incredible or, it might be
better said, unbelievable. But because as
you
know the consecration of bishops cannot be lawfully carried out by any
fellow
bishops without the metropolitan, I wish you to be prevailed upon and
entreated
so that you may with the zeal of justice correct for our honor, your
honor,
and the honor of God such heedless confusion of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy;
so that each and every person shall know to remain in his rank and
station,
and not heedlessly arrogate to themselves things that are foreign to
them. I beseech the benevolence of your honor
that you deign
to reserve for me the dignity which your predecessors reserved for my
archiepiscopal
predecessors, along with the privileges and other writings they left
for
the memory of later generations. May the
privilege
which you granted to me not be rendered void or broken, namely that
when
called I shall respond to you and to your Roman legates, but not when
called
by those ultramontanes, who, attaching themselves to the Romans, look
after
themselves, not the things of Jesus Christ, and who use their good
names
to act on behalf of their own cupidity, not for the church of God. Whence, on account of shameful censures and
summons of this sort, it is appropriate for you to deal with me, who
should be the one to convoke the bishops of all Gaul,
without calling on the legates, until I should come to you at Easter,
God willing. Moreover, I wish to beseech you and
forewarn
you strongly that since, during my recent absence while I resided with
you
[at Rome], many depraved and uncalled for things were done in the
regions
of my diocese, I cannot disregard but indeed shall appeal to your
oversight
for ecclesiastical correction of these matters.
Concerning Count Ebalus [of Roucy], who was
accusing me in your presence and was commending himself and his faith
to you with honeyed words, you have to judge whether the sincerity of
his faith toward you is real: whether my [faith] -- I, who am prepared
to obey you and God
in all things -- or his [faith] -- he, who attacks the church of
blessed
Peter, and in our region persecuted blessed Mary by receiving Manasses
and
his followers in his castle.[8] Manasses--concerning
whom we spoke, and whom we consented, by your command, would be
welcomed
among us if he should return to his mother church--burdened by an
awareness
of his wickedness, neither wished to return to us nor to live in
harmony
with the peace of the church, but instead, along with his henchmen,
does
not cease to wound me and the church with words and curses, because he
cannot
do it outright with deeds. Whence, I shall
remain silent about the same Ebalus, in whom I believe you have
executed a just and apostolic sentence, so that I earnestly beseech
your majesty concerning Manasses, that you either command him to return
to his lands and no longer assault the church, or that you direct the
punishment of apostolic force against him, his patrons, and his
accomplices. We have even deigned to write
a pointed letter to their protectors, [stating] that they should either
cease
sheltering [Manasses and his men] against church law, or find
themselves stricken
with a similar judgment.[9] If any sort of
accusation
on this account should find its way to you, you should neither quickly
jump
to conclusions, nor be aggravated toward me; but deal with it in our
presence
before you, because in no way do I want to exceed the bounds of
authority. Indeed, those men make themselves out
to be your legates;
but it is more just that I (through you) ought to deal with those
things
which belong to our providence, rather than any foreigners.
Finally, I must report this to you, because lord
bishop Hugh of Die suspended our bishop Drogo from the see of
Thérouanne.[10] He is so elderly,
that although he was for a long
time a priest before becoming bishop, he has now held the rank of
bishop for
a period of more than 60 [sic] years, and nears death with every
passing day. For that reason we wish
earnestly to implore you
that we deigned to restore him by your command to his office so that he
would
not die in a state of excommunication, which we were greatly afraid of. Concerning that which you asked of me, namely
that
for the protection of the bishop of Paris, I should send some knights
to
you, I want you to know that I had every intention of sending them; but
Fulco
the count of Arlon, then returning from Rome, intimated this to me on
your
behalf, since you had repeatedly importuned me about sending the
knights.[11] Likewise that in our region I
should zealously
and decisively help the lady marquess M[atilda]. In
this matter therefore, your messenger having arrived, the passage of
the
aforesaid expedition has continued on from our region [to Matilda].
May your
saintliness be well, most reverend father.
Notes to
Letter D.
[1] Matilda, marquess/countess of Tuscany
(1076-1115) was one of Gregory's most important allies in northern
Italy. Her "predecessor" here likely refers to her mother, Beatrice,
who had recently died (in 1076).
[2] This is of course the same Godfrey of Bouillon made famous during
the First Crusade (d. 1100). Arnulf was count of Chiny (before
1066-1106),
in the southeastern corner of modern Belgium.
[3] Thierry
was bishop of Verdun, a neighboring
diocese to Reims, from 1047-1089. Pentecost in 1078 fell on May 22.
[4] Guermond had
been promoted to the archbishopric of Vienne
just the year before, in 1077. Guermond's activities in the diocese of
Reims,
where he enjoyed no formal jurisdiction, greatly aggravated Manasses.
[5] 1 Tim. 6:5.
[6] Manasses had
in his previous letter to Gregory identified bishops Helinand of Laon
(1052-1098) and Thibaud of Soissons (1072-1080) as personal enemies.
The bishop of Amiens was Raoul, who had been acting in that capacity as
bishop-elect since at
least February 1076, but had not been, it seems, consecrated by
Manasses.
[7] In September
1077.
[8] Manasses is
speaking of the Roman church and Sainte-Marie, the cathedral church of Reims.
[9] This letter
is
lost.
[10] Drogo was
bishop of Thérouanne from 1030 until 21 August 1078. In fact he
was bishop for close to fifty years, not sixty.
[11] Arlon is
located in the southeastern corner of modern Belgium, along its border with Luxembourg.
Source: Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima
collectio, ed. Joannes
Dominicus Mansi, 35 vols.
(Florence and Venice: Zatta, 1759-98), 20:486-88.
E. Letters of Gregory VII to
Archbishop Manasses (Reg. 6.2) and to Hugh of Die and Hugh, Abbot of
Cluny (Reg. 6.3) (22 August 1078)
In his letter
of 22 August to Manasses, Gregory acknowledges Manasses's charges
against Ebalus, et al., and promises that his complaints shall have a
fair hearing before his legate Hugh of Die and Hugh, the abbot of Cluny
(1049-1109). (The pope's letter to the two Hughs follows up on
this and urges them to hold
a hearing.) Gregory pointedly rebuffs Manasses's assertion that he may
only be judged by a Roman legate, however, and cites legal precedents
defending the jurisdictional powers of his ultramontate legates.
F.
Letter
of Gregory VII to Hugh of Die (Epistolae
vagantes, no. 30, pp. 77-81, ed. and trans. H. E. J. Cowdrey)
(1079,
April-May)
In order to
resolve once and for all the controversy between the archbishop of
Reims and the
provost Manasses--to whose grievances Bruno of Cologne had added his
own
pleas concerning the seizure of his possessions at Reims--Hugh of Die
called
a council at Troyes, east of Paris, where he was to be joined by Abbot
Hugh
of Cluny (see also Letter H, below). This time, the archbishop and
several
of his senior clergy heeded the summons, and traveled to Troyes,
perhaps
in March or April of 1079. The council never convened, however, in
large
part because the archbishop's accusers feared to go. Manasses, as he
says in Letter H., carried out the part of the council's business that
pertained to him, and returned to Reims. In the meantime, word of
Manasses's
rough treatment of his clergy -- chiefly the provost and his
allies--had
filtered back to Italy (turpis de eo fama, or "a scandalous report concerning him,"
in the Latin), and reached Gregory's ears. At this point, Gregory
wanted
absolute assurances that Manasses's conduct was on the up and up, and
he
told Hugh of Die to again summon the archbishop along with six other
bishops
who would vouch for him. Hugh repeats this condition in the next letter.
G.
Letter
of Hugh of Die to Archbishop Manasses (1079, late, perhaps October or
early
November)
In this letter,
the first of two summons he issued, Hugh of Die executes Gregory's
wishes, and pointedly identifies that one of the accusations against
the archbishop
is simony--not, it seems, concerning his own office, but in his
handling
of other clerical offices. Hugh may be here referring back to
Manasses's
ordination of the bishop of Senlis in 1077 (an accusation raised at
Autun),
or he may mean, as I think likely, claims by Bruno of Cologne and the
provost
Manasses that he had promoted his favorites into clerical positions
within
the episcopal court and chapter. Either way, the archbishop's opponents
had refused to let the matter drop.
HUGH, BISHOP OF DIE and legate of the Apostolic
See, to Manasses archbishop of Reims, that he might not crave lofty
things but consent to what is humble.[1]
Granted that we know ourselves to be sometimes
located in the ranks, and sometimes in the spotlight, so that,
following the saying of the apostle, our presence should daily be the
concern of all churches
[2]; nevertheless, the care of things chiefly falls to us with greater
vigilance, and a legation for their benefit was enjoined specifically
upon our smallness by apostolic authority. Hence, we desire the holy
and venerable church of Reims, which we accept as being of greater
reverence and greater religion than the others of our legation, and
which we love with a more ready disposition, to be well advised in all
things, receiving what is owed to it by our office. We,
having heard of its grave desolation and wretched persecution,
grievously lamented, and have desired along with other tireless men to
rescue it from its foundering to the fullest extent possible.
For, as was made known to us by certain truthful
men, and broadcast not only throughout Gallia but also through nearly
all of
Italy, you undertake hardly any pastoral care of the flock entrusted to
you, but shamelessly glory in playing the soldier rather than living
canonically, contending the greater gift is to enjoy the presence of
any kind of military man rather than keeping company with those who
live religiously. Even if nothing
should happen to the flock under you from your indecent habits, but it
happens
that you alone rush headlong into danger, mother church will
nevertheless deservedly groan, for although she is deprived of not a
small part of her body, the remainder of her sons nevertheless may
restore her desolation by a more fitting comfort, when she sees that
she is unharmed and, as we said, to have endured no loss from you. But now rumor has surfaced that your tyranny
is such that in the church
of Reims it is
permitted to no one to fight for the Lord; to no one to strive after
what is good; and to no one to live canonically. Instead
if anyone, preferring the Lord to man, removes himself from your
society, if anyone wishes to embrace what is honest, virtuous, or truly
religious, having ventured this he is declared a perjuror and sower of
discord, and
is judged a detractor, hypocrite, and traitor by you and your
accomplices.
Whence it happened that certain brothers of the church of Reims having a saner and more
considered disposition, sent themselves into a sort of exile rather
than be tainted by living with you or oppressed by your dominion. And
they, having frequently and repeatedly addressed the lord pope,
complained about your fanaticism numerous times, accusing you of many
things and especially of the simoniac heresy. Indeed
because our office as legate enjoins that the integrity of the lord's
ship should not be undone, and that we set the oars of justice against
tumultuous waves if we have the means to
do so, and to lay anchor in the port of tranquility, we have determined
that
a location should be set for resolving the case between you and your
accusers,
so that, with both sides having had their say in this matter of such
enormous discord, a settlement might be imposed and the city of Reims,
restored to
its pristine liberty, might endure and rejoice.
Thus we
mandate to you and we command by apostolic authority that, putting
aside all
objections concerning the unsuitability of the timing, and representing
yourself
at the council at Lyon [3], you
respond
to Manasses [the provost] and his companions, and because it is fair
that
you will carry out what the synod decrees without prejudice. Moreover you know that we have selected Lyon
because of the suitability of the place, and because the aforesaid
clergy who did not dare to come to Troyes do not fear to go there as we
have arranged. You shall come. You shall come, I say, with six bishops who
are not tainted by infamy, so that by the presentation of their
evidence
the accusation of your adversaries shall either be confirmed, or it
baselessness
proved. Farewell.
Notes to Letter G.
[1] Rom. 12:16.
[2] 2 Cor. 11:28.
[3] From Hugh's
point of view a necessary condition given that Manasses had sent others
to represent him in the past.
Source: Wolfenbuettel,
Herzog August Bibliothek Ms. 27.9 Aug. 2, fol. 251r-v. The relevant
folios have been edited by: Martina Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik: Matthias
Flacius
Illyricus als Erforscher des Mittelalters, Beiträge zur
Geschichte
und Quellenkunde des Mittelalters, vol. 19 (Stuttgart: Thorbecke,
2001),
pp. 273-74
H.
Letter of Archbishop Manasses to Hugh of Die (1079, November or
December, and in any case before 3 January 1080)
This is the final letter by
Archbishop Manasses to either Hugh of Die or Gregory VII that has been
preserved. In it, Manasses mounts a defense of his position and gives
his reasons for refusing Hugh's summons to the council called for Lyon
in early 1080. The letter
is long and, in Manasses's desire to spell out his position as
thoroughly
as possible, somewhat repetitive. He seems to be unaware that the
requirement that he produce six bishops to vouch for his conduct was
not
a contrivance of Hugh of Die, but a condition established by Gregory
himself.
[NB: The translation
below
is not yet fully completed.]
TO LORD HUGH, bishop of Die, Manasses, archbishop
of Reims [sends] greetings.
You urged me to hasten to you at the council of Lyon. I consider it
fitting to let you and the entire council know via
letter
why I shall not come, lest anyone, either
privately or publicly, should be able legitimately to fault us in this
matter. For indeed, it is known not only
throughout nearly all the Gauls, but even in Italy and Rome, how two
years before in the same province matters were violently and unjustly
conducted against us by you and certain others.[1] Suffering
violence
and premature judgment, I went to Rome and appealed to Roman and
apostolic
judgment concerning it. Indeed, because you were
not present, I
remained
in the same region by the order of the lord Apostolic [the pope], and
waited
for your arrival for nearly eleven weeks.[2] And
when you did not come, nevertheless in the presence of the lord
Apostolic and general council, the dispute between us and those who
were present in your place as you had directed was aired. From
their
accusation and our defense, what we had endured was
judged
to have been carried out heedlessly and violently and should not have
been tolerated; and it was corrected. Then I
declared to the
lord Apostolic as everyone listened that, if I should wish, I should no
longer
put
myself in your hands in ecclesiastical judgments; and since I ought not
to
be subject to you beyond the law, I laid out my just reasons in the
hearing
of the same Roman assembly. The
lord
Apostolic subsequently inquired whose judgment I should wish to be
subject to in councils held in Gaul, and I immediately chose instead
the
abbot
of Cluny. It was decreed that in Gallic
councils,
as we just said, your judgment should suffice in the cases of
others,
but only the abbot of Cluny
should pass judgment on us. Then the same lord Apostolic ordained
that
I should make a solemn vow to him of the following sort, namely
that
if I should be called to a council in the regions of Gaul either by a
messenger
or by letters from the apostolic see, I should not fail to come unless
I
had been hindered by a lawful excuse; and he added this, that if he
should issue a counter-mandate, I need not go at all. For
that reason when a council was recently called by you at Troyes, in
which
summons the name of the abbot of Cluny was likewise inserted, I
hastened
there with all of my abbots and clergy and beneficed men of my church
[3];
because, as I said above, I discerned no mention from the lord
Apostolic
of an order contradictory to the aforementioned vow; because I
understood
that the abbot of Cluny, who ought to judge me, would be there; and
because
in your [subsequent] cancellation [of the council] I found that you had
faced
no obstacle which made it impossible; nor had I received letters such
as
there had been in the councils [previously] countermanded by you or by
the
abbot of Cluny. Hence, hastening there, as I said,
although
you did not come, I carried out the part of this same council which
pertained
to me and thus freed myself of the aforesaid vow according to the
consequence
of the agreement.[4] For that reason we
will
not come to this council at Lyon,
because
we have not one, but many canonical excuses why we should not.
First, because in the summons I have heard no
mention of the lord abbot of Cluny,
who, by the command of the Apostolic lord, ought to adjudicate. Second, because it is not being held in these
regions of Gaul, where we were
ordered to submit to its judgments, as we will explain in what follows. Third, because the region lying between us and
Lyon is in complete tumult from the tempests of war owing to the
capture of the count of Nevers, the bishop of Auxerre, and their
soldiers, with the result that safe passage across it is granted to no
one from the kingdom of the Franks.[5] For
when those same two men may be seized and held captive in a dungeon on
account of our lord king of France,
we expect that we will be captured and imprisoned by the men of this
province
on account of the king, because we are the king's bishops.
And for that reason, according to the law of Justinian in the
second
book of the Code, we have a legitimate excuse when we fear in going
danger
to our health and bodily pain. Moreover,
when
we became aware that this council would be celebrated in this same
province
and by these very men, where and by whom in this other council we were
dealt
with violently and inhumanely, and so unfairly, that we saw all of it
overturned
at Rome, and on account of which matter we were released from their
hands
in the general Roman council, with the consequence that in the end we
had
neither to submit to their judgment nor to their laying hands on us. In all these matters we are fully supported by
the
sacred authorities, since if we are afraid of the force of multiple
hazards,
we ought to select a place [for the council] that is closer to us, in
which
it would not be as difficult to bring forth witnesses and to conclude
the
case. We are referring to those things as
the
"force of multiple hazards" similar to what was done against us
violently
and heedlessly by those men in the same province but in the other
council,
which was not upheld by Rome,
but rather overturned. The chosen place
[for
the upcoming council] is neither near to us, nor would it be easy to
produce
witnesses, because by road it lies nearly fifteen days from us.
Indeed, because we have received from you two
completely different summons to a single council within three weeks, we
will first deal with the first [summons], then with the second. In
the first you said that we should come to the council to respond to our
accusers,
namely Manasses and his companion. And I
am telling
you that I, and Manasses on behalf of all of his companions save two,
have
made peace. One of them, namely Bruno, is
neither our
cleric nor was born nor baptized here, but is a canon of St. Cunibert
of
Cologne
in the German Empire.[6] We have not really
sought
out his friendship, since we are completely ignorant about his life and
legal status, and because, when he was with us, having gathered to
himself multiple benefits from us, we were treated poorly and worse.[7] As for the other, namely Pontius, he was
disproved at the Roman council
in our presence.[8] For that reason we neither
wish
to respond to one or the other in ecclesiastical judgment, nor ought we
to. Moreover, you said that you had chosen Lyon
because of
the suitableness of the place, for the reason that the aforesaid
clerics,
who did not dare to come to Troyes,
were not
afraid to go [to Lyon].
And
we argued against this, because we are far more afraid to go to Lyon
than
those men were to go to Troyes, and because given how much greater and
wealthier we are than those men, how much more likely and quickly we
would be seized and still worse utterly fleeced in return for our
freedom by some random tyrant.
For we seem to be, from an abundance of iniquity, caught up in a new
custom,
such that day by day we lament bishops who have been seized and thrust
in
prison, just like we saw happen to the bishop of Auxerre, of whom we
spoke
above; just like the bishop of Liège, whom we know was seized
during
Christmas Eve vigils; and just as, as you yourself know, the lord
Apostolic
was dragged from the altar on Christmas night, and right in the middle
of
the Mass, by the greatest of wickedness.[9] Hence it is commonly
said,
we chastise more lightly the danger done to others than that done to
ourselves.
It appears to one and all that Lyon is in no way a suitable place for
us;
it appears that no journey there is without danger; and for that
reason,
according to the sentence of the aforementioned Roman legation, and on
account
of the offense recently inflicted on us in that province, we have a
legitimate
excuse [to ignore the summons] in this matter.
Concerning the second summons consequently we say
this: because you said that, even if the accusers should not be
present, I should come to the council prepared to expurgate myself,
together with six bishops whose life was not tainted by infamy. And let
us by contrast respond that, if my accusers are not present, we should
not respond to anyone concerning this. Even if they
were there, we pronounce that we ought to respond
only if they confirm in person that they saw or heard these things. And this was established by the sacred
authorities, and was commended to us by the lord Apostolic in the
previously mentioned Roman council, under this same condition. Moreover we have honorable witnesses in this
matter who were present, and we shall undertake to prove this through
them. Moreover, we are expecting no
accusation from the aforesaid Manasses and his friends, because they
themselves -- unless perhaps they returned [like dogs] to their
vomit [10] for the occasion of this council -- made a peace-pact with
us,
excepting for the two of them, as I said, Bruno and Pons, to whom, by
the
preceding rationale, I neither wish nor I ought to respond. And if any one of them among those whom we said was
in
agreement with Manasses' legation, broke the peace and subsequently
travelled
there, and wish to say whatever they want against us, they should not
be
received; because neither my supporters nor my canons will have enough
time
to get there so that they can provide testimony concerning my lifestyle.
Moreover, because you commanded us to appear there
with six bishops, you put us in an incredibly tight spot given the
time, as a mere twenty days may be counted from the day when your
letters were sent to me until the day when, if we were to go there, we
should depart [in order to make it on time]. Indeed,
in the sacred authorities it is established that if any cleric of an
inferior order, much less a bishop, should be accused of any sort of
crime, he ought to have either an entire year, or half a year, or a
year-and-a-half grace period in which he may
prepare and look out for himself in the time provided. You, however,
having
set aside both a longer or shorter grace period, require this of us in
the
span of a mere twenty days -- and when our dioceses are not, as they
are
around Rome and in other regions, located within seven or ten miles.
Indeed,
several of ours are separated from one another by forty, or fifty, even
sixty miles or more! Forget a
year-and-a-half,
which is the legitimate grace period given by sacred authority to those
who are accused of any sort of crime: how shall we manage to round up,
in
twenty days, six bishops of our realm, and especially six who are not
tainted
by infamy, when in the span of all those days one can scarcely manage
to
walk from one bishopric to the other?[11]
Now, about those bishops whose life has not been
tainted by infamy, what shall we say, when we know that our lord Jesus
Christ was called a glutton and a drinker of wine, and a friend of tax
collectors and sinners, and of the possessed? Who, I say, was so holy,
and so perfect, that
he should not be seized from time to time by rumor of some sort of
notoriety? We are unable to conceive by
what standard of sanctity of this kind we might be able to round up six
bishops, unless it should
happen that the holy fathers Remigius, Martin, Julian, Germanus,
Hilarius,
and Dionysius should rise up from their tombs.[12] If the
admonition
had been just and if it had required us to join with six bishops of
this
sort who reside in these parts, it still would have been utterly
impossible
to assemble them in so brief a time. And what shall we say of the
impossibility by which we are ordered to seek out only those untouched
by
any blemish of infamy? Assuredly we said and we confirm that this
summons of yours, which requires so much of us, lends itself to a
canonical
excuse on account of its impossibility. For the aforesaid summons
heaps upon us not only what is impossible, but also what is
unbelievable.
In the first place, in the total absence of accusors, it requires that
we
bring forth six bishops, who are not tainted by infamy. But even
if,
in the total absence of accusors, we sought merely to bring along six
clerics,
that would be unheard
of.
But six bishops? That is truly incredible. And six bishops such
as
have not been tainted by infamy, and that you should have put us up to
this
without there being accusors, as you've done--this has never been heard
of
in the history of the world.[13]
Indeed, you said that our infamy had reached Gaul
and Italy, and on account of this, I ought to appear in order to purge
myself along with six bishops not stained by infamy. To this we
wholly replied that our accusors, and those who have dealt with us
blindly--that these
very men have wished to fill up Gaul and Italy with an infamy unjustly
attributed to us. But we, going to Rome and utterly destroying
what had been
so heedlessly done, emptied Gaul and Italy of infamy, and utterly
cancelling out whatever lies had been spread by them, we, God willing,
made certain
that this infamy had neither been true nor could be truthfully
said.[14] Because, I say, you said that even if my accusors were
wanting, I ought
to expurgate myself with so many witnesses, and of such quality,
tracked
down in such a short span of time--why should I, even if the rumors
were
true (which they most certainly are not), do this when the accusors are
absent? Do we not teach in the canons and decrees that no
criminal case among bishops and clergy ought to be decided without
legitimate accusors? What shall we do about that decree of the holy
pope and martyr Evaristus [15], "Let wicked reports stir no one up, nor
anyone believe anything without absolute proof"? What? The Lord
knew Judas was a thief, and yet because he was not accused he was not
thrown out, but remained among the apostles. For the blessed pope
Eutychianus [16] said on the subject of not commuting the authority
of the holy fathers,"We forbid that any causes shall be heard by
ecclesiastical judges, which are not covered by the law, or which are
known to be forbidden."
And there is another reason for being excused,
namely that, even if it had been just for the testimony of six bishops
to be brought forth in so short a span of time, and you were to have
asked this of other archbishops or bishops, you neverthless ought not
to have asked it of me, namely for the reason that many from among our
suffragan bishops at that
time, both willing and unwilling, were participants in that violence
which
was done against us while, as we said, we were weakened by illness in
Rome.
. . .
But now that we have said enough about these
things
for the time being, it is fitting that we should return to the promise
which
we said above that we had made to the lord Apostolic. The substance of
it
was that I should go to a council in the regions of Gaul called either
by
a nuncio or by the letters of the Apostolic See, unless I were hindered
from
going by a canonical excuse, and that in these regions I should not
hinder
an apostolic council from being held. When "in the regions of Gaul" was
said,
no one ought to consider that this meant "anywhere beyond the
Alps."
You can figure this out easily enough, because when "not hindering
councils
in the regions of Gaul" was inquired into, "except in those regions in
which
we are able to be of help or hindrance" was not said. Where, moreover,
do
you think that we can offer aid or hindrance, unless in the kingdom of
the Franks? How can we possibly create a disturbance, either at Lyon or
anywhere
outside the kingdom of the Franks, where no recognition or reverence
for
our king or ourselves flourishes? For that reason, if you wanted to,
you
would see easily enough that "in those regions of the Gauls" without a
doubt
meant "where the kingdom of France is located."
And indeed, we promised to come to the council
unless prevented by a canonical excuse; we said this just above because
we have
not one, but many canonical excuses. Let us review. [Manasses restates
all
the canonical objections he has just raised.]
For the rest, we want you to know that if anyone,
speaking fallaciously, wishes to refute any of these indictments, you
will know for certain that we admit and hold to those that are of
established authority and cannot be questioned. However much we will
canonically excuse ourselves before you, as if we were debtors in your
servitude, we are able to show
by clear reason; but even if no other canonical excuses were open to
us,
we should still by no means set out to your hearing.
We beseech you before this council with charity
and
humility, and if you wish to listen we will give useful counsel, namely
that
you should not hold the scales of judgment against us, and striving to
surpass
both measure and reason you have strived to impose upon us a weight
which
neither we, nor our fathers, were accustomed to bear. It would be
better
if, acting mildly and not flaunting justice, you win throughout France
the
advantage and honor of the Roman church, rather than, by antagonizing
France,
you hinder its justice and subjection to the Roman church. Because if
you
are disposed to continue in your stubbornness--as we conveyed to the
lord
pope in these very words--and wish to suspend or excommunicate us by
your
will alone, the path we should follow was shown to us and the model to
which
we should be molded is placed before us. I should follow the
words
of the blessed Gregory, who says, "Often, in binding and loosing his
subordinates, the pastor follows the motions of his will and not the
merits of the case."[17] . . . Likewise the blessed Augustine said in
his book on the words of the Lord: "See whether you bind your brother
justly or unjustly, since unjust chains are burst by
justice."[18] Moreover I assert that if you excommunicate me, the
privilege of Peter and of the lord pope, that is, the power of binding
and loosing, will fail. Whence Leo the Great in the sermon [19] on his
anniversary
said the following: "The privilege of Peter resides wherever justice is
borne
from his equity." From these words we may freely infer that the
privilege
of Peter does not reside
anywhere
a judgment is not borne by his equity.
Notes to Letter H.
[1]
Manasses
is referring to the September 1077 council of Autun.
[2]
Gregory's
Lenten council held in Rome
in March 1078.
[3] Called by Hugh of Die, but not formally convened, in spring 1079.
[4] Here Manasses is being disingenuous. Though Hugh had called
off the council of Troyes and did not go, because the
form of his cancellation did not
resemble the form of earlier such cancelled councils, Manasses went to
Troyes anyway, on what was a rather pointless display of obedience to
the letter of the
law.
[5]
The
bishop of Auxerre was Robert of Nevers (1076-1092), brother of the
count of
Nevers.
[6] This is of course Bruno, the schoolmaster at Reims.
[7] The "multiple benefits" in this case probably refers to the
chancellorship which Manasses conferred upon him in 1075 or 1076, in
addition to his standing as schoolmaster.
[8] This Pontius (Pons) and his grievance are obscure; he may have been
a supporter of Bruno or Manasses the provost.
[9]
The
bishop of Liège was Henri (1075-1091), with whom Manasses has
spent
Pentecost in 1078. Pope Gregory VII had been seized while celebrating
the
Mass and imprisoned by one of his Roman enemies, Cencius the Prefect
(Cencius Stephani) on Christmas Eve 1075.
[10] Prov. 26:11.
[11] This is a legitimate gripe, compounded by the fact that there were
scarcely six dioceses to be found in the province that were not vacant,
their occupants suspended, or were occupied by bishops openly hostile
to Manasses.
[12] These saints were all widely venerated in France.
[13] The Latin reads: hoc a saeculis
auditum non est.
[14] Manasses is here referring to his trip to Rome to attend the
Lenten synod of 1078.
[15] Pseudo-Evaristus, Ep.
2.11, from the Pseudo Isidorean
Decretals 3.2 (decreta pontificum). (Tradition holds that
Evaristus was pope between ca. 99-107 C.E.)
[16] Pseudo-Eutychian, from Pseudo-Isidorean
Decretals 25.9 (decreta pontificum). (Eutychianus was pope from
275-283 C.E.).
[17] Gregory the Great, Homiliae in
evangelia, hom. 26 (homily on John 20:19-29).
[18] Augustine of Hippo, De verbis
evangelii (Mt. 18:15-18), Sermo 82, IV.7.
[19] Pope Leo I (440-461 C.E.)
Sources: Museum Italicum, seu Collectio veterum
sciptorum ex bibliothecis Italicis, vol. 1, Pars altera, ed. Jean
Mabillon and Michel Germain (Paris:
Montalant, 1724), pp. 119-127; Recueil des
historiens des Gaules
et de la France, ed. Michel-Jean-Joseph Brial, vol.
14, new edn (Paris: Victor Palmé, 1877), pp.
781-786.
I.
Letter of Archbishop Manasses to Pope Gregory VII (lost; written before
3
January 1080 and at the same time as, or slightly before, Letter H)
In Letter H above, Manasses refers to a
letter he wrote to Gregory complaining of Hugh's "pertinacity."
It was presumably dispatched at the same time as his long complaint to
Hugh. Gregory
responded on 3 January 1080, but Manasses's letter is lost.
J. Letter of Pope Gregory VII to Archbishop Manasses (Reg. 7.12,
3 January 1080)
In his reply to Manasses's earlier
letter, Gregory chastises him for making excuses to not attend the Lyon
council;
assures him that he will be guided through the dioceses of Langres and
Lyon
to the council site by Hugh of Die and Hugh-Rainard, and guarantees
that
his case will be given a fair hearing in the presence of Abbot Hugh of
Cluny
and Peter, the cardinal-bishop of Albano (1072-1089). Moreover, he adds
that
Manasses should not come to Rome but resolve his issues before the
council.
Should Manasses fail to attend--which he did--Gregory warns him that he
will
uphold and confirm by his apostolic authority any sentence that Hugh
passes against him.
The council was convened in February,
and Manasses was duly pronounced deposed by Hugh of Die. Gregory then
confirmed the sentence at his Lenten synod held 7 March 1080.
K.
Letter of Pope Gregory VII to Archbishop Manasses (Reg. 7.20, 17 April
1080)
Gregory notifies Manasses that he has
confirmed Hugh's sentence in his Lenten synod, but offers the
archbishop one more
chance to redeem himself and be restored to his position. Acting from
an
abundance of mercy, Gregory says, Manasses may have until 29 September
1080
to purge himself before six bishops from his province, on the condition
that he restore the goods and possessions belonging to Bruno the
Schoolmaster
and the provost Manasses, and retreat either to the abbey of Cluny or
the
abbey of La Chaise-Dieu (in the diocese of Clermont). He may
also,
Gregory adds, clear himself of the charges against him by oath before
Hugh
of Die, Abbot Hugh of Cluny, or should the abbot be absent, before
Amatus
of Oloron, another papal legate. Should he refuse the offer,
Gregory
declares that the sentence will remain in place.
L.
Letters (4) of Pope Gregory VII: to the people and clergy of Reims; to
Ebalus count of Roucy; to the bishops of the province of Belgica
Secunda; and to King Philip I (Reg. 8.17-20, 27 December 1080)
In these letters, dispatched from
Rome on the same day, Gregory calls upon the recipients to resist
Manasses, who, Gregory indicates, was devastating the church of Reims
and its possessions. He further pronounces Manasses irrevocably
deposed, and urges the clergy
and people to proceed to a new election. The bishops are absolved
of
their oaths of obedience to their former archbishop and are told to
resist
him as an invader. King Philip, to whom Manasses had gone for support,
is
told to break all contact with him.