CHAPTER THREE

POLEMICAL WARFARE IN THE PAPAL AND ROYAL CHANCERIES (1073–1082)

Introduction

The 1050s and 1060s had witnessed four intellectual controversies all of which were important to public-sphere formation in the last half of the eleventh century. These included the debate on the Eucharist, the schism regarding anti-pope Cadalus of Parma, and the discus- sion of the validity of the sacraments of simoniacs.1 The early-period polemics, addressing the latter two issues, were central in shattering the elitist early-medieval public sphere. The new guration was semi- elitist in nature and resulted in an upsurge of public debate indepen- dent of the ‘state’ and the ‘church’. The guration is forcefully exem- pli ed by the polemics of Guido of Arezzo and by the De ordinando ponti ce. As well as these intellectual discussions, the eleventh century witnessed a general shift to a more popular orientation, manifested in the Peace of God movement, early heretical groups and the Pataria in Milan. All these compositional publics (‘Teilöffentlichkeiten’) were non-institutionalised in the sense that they had a restricted number of participants and focused on a limited number of themes. It is only against this background that the importance of the polemical warfare in the papal and royal chanceries can be fully appreciated, since it was crucial to the changes that resulted in the semi-institutionalised public sphere. Not only did these of cial contributions justify polemic warfare in the struggle for the ‘right order’; they also set the discursive terms for the mid-period discussion. This treatment of the letters of the two chanceries, therefore, focuses on how the polemical letters changed the nature of the public debate, replacing what has been called a negative view of political authority with one characterised by ‘enthusiasm’.2

1 Robinson 1978a: 9. 2 Tierney 1982, in his overview of the growth of constitutional thought, observes that the negative view which was prevalent in the early Middle Ages was replaced by enthusiasm in the polemic against King Henry. 174 chapter three

Before considering the epistolary output of the chanceries, a word or two about the protagonists in the struggle is in order. Hildebrand, better known as Pope Gregory VII, is one of the enigmatic historical gures that is so dif cult to capture.3 While some regard Gregory as a genius,4 a revolutionary,5 and a militarist,6 others stress the fundamentally conservative outlook of the pope7 as well as his lack of originality.8 The early stages of Hildebrand’s life are still very much in the dark.9 Most likely, his education included only the traditional education received by churchmen in the period,10 and the literary style of his letters, the stylus medium, is probably attributable to his teacher, Laurentius of Amal .11 The pope had only rudimentary knowledge of canon law.12 Although the once-disputed question of his monastic profession has been answered in the af rmative,13 the question of whether Hildebrand had

3 Robinson 1978b: 5: ‘There was in Gregory VII’s conduct as pope an element of “charismatic leadership” ’; Cowdrey 1998a: 55: ‘Friends and critics alike notice Hildebrand’s pre-eminence.’ With regard to private characteristics, the terms applied to characterise the pope range from ‘christocentric’ (Goez 1978) to ‘mystical’ (Congar 1961) and ‘ascetical’ (Cowdrey 1995c). 4 Haller 1951. 5 Brooke 1972: 60–1: ‘. . . when Hildebrand became Gregory VII, a new and revolu- tionary view of the papal of ce was enthroned in the Holy See’; Schmale 1961a: 265: ‘Der von religiöser Leidenschaft erfüllte Gregor VII. hat eine Revolution ausgelöst . . .’; Blumenthal 2001: 9–10: ‘Die dort skizzenhaft aufgereihten weitreichenden päpstlichen Vorrechte wirken in ihrer Schroffheit und Absolutheit revolutionär.’ 6 Erdmann 1977. See also the discussion by Blumenthal 2001: 123–36. 7 With regard to the personal side of the reform pope, in addition to two relatively recent biographies, numerous investigations into different aspects pertaining to the individual characteristics of the reform pope also exist; see Macdonald 1932a; Cowdrey 1998a; Blumenthal 2001. For a bibliographical overview, see Robinson 1985a. 8 Robinson 2004b: 302: ‘Certainly Gregory VII was not an original thinker: it would be dif cult to identify a reforming idea of which he was the sole originator.’ 9 The most penetrating analysis is that of Blumenthal 2001: 16–94. 10 The claim in earlier research—that he received this education by Wazo and in the environment of the so-called school of Liège (Sackur 1893: 139)—has also been repudiated by recent research. 11 Goez 1978: 212 observes that Laurentius of Amal was a master of rhetoric. 12 Schieffer 1978: 104 notes the paradox that Gregory, who had limited knowledge of canon law, instigated the bloom of the canon-law science. Nothing indicates that Gregory had a canon-law background (Fuhrmann 1987: 129). Moreover, his letters and privileges are not rich in terms of canon-law content (Fuhrmann 1989: 130). For an inconclusive attempt to outline what Hildebrand learned from Laurentius, see Holtzmann 1947. 13 Cowdrey 1998: 71: ‘Unlike his seven predecessors, Hildebrand was most of his life a monk with whom the many monastic gures in Rome could identify themselves.’ See also Blumenthal 2001.