CHAPTER TEN THE PAPAL ELECTORAL DECREE OF 1059 The original decree has never been found, and indeed may inten­ tionally have been deleted from the Register of Nicholas II. Almost certainly the side that spawned the forgery conspired to suppress it. In the Chronicon, Gregory of Catino transmitted the version that emphasized the role of the emperor; the other stressed the preroga­ tives of the cardinal bishops.1 At one time this was called the "pa­ pal" version, and the one in the Chronicon the "imperial." Even though the evidence is not conclusive, scholars now generally believe that the "papal" version is genuine, and the "imperial" version a for­ gery.2 Because the terms, "papal" and "imperial," are now judged to be too crude, they are respectively replaced by "genuine," and "for­ gery." Manuscripts of the "forgery" were broadly disseminated in Italy and Germany, and manuscripts of the "genuine" in France.3 On mainly ideological grounds it formerly was thought that the "forgery" was drafted in the late 1080s or 1090s in the circle of the 1 For one of the most recent studies citing virtually all of the literature, and repro­ ducing comparative texts of both versions see Detlev Jasper, Das Papstwahldekret von 1059: Überlieferung und Texigestalt (Sigmaringen, 1986). 2 Although Jasper himself has no doubt that the "papal" version of the decree is genuine, he cites the literature which argues for each side. Das Papstwahldekret, η. 9, p. 13; p. 14 and n. 53; p. 15 and n. 54; pp. 94-95; n. 220, p. 56. Paul Scheffer-Boichhorst wrote the groundbreaking study, Die Neuordnung der Papstwahl durch Mcolaus IL (Strassburg, 1879); Hermann Grauert carefully examined related documents and arguments of scholars that cast light on the authenticity of the two versions. "Das Dekret Nikolaus II. von 1059," Historisches Jahrbuch 1 (1880), 502- 602; p. 515 for the conclusion that the papal version is the genuine decree. Two other older studies are: Georg Waitz, "Über das Décret des Paptes Nicolaus Π. über die Papstwahl," Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte 4 (1864), 105-119; Cornelius Willi, "Über die Fälschung des Décrets Papst Nicolaus IL über die Papstwahl," ibid., 537-550; see also H. Grundmann, "Eine neue Interpretation des Papstwahl­ dekrets von 1059," Deutsches Archiv ßr Erforschung des Mittelalters 25 (1969), 234-236; Friedrich Kempf, "Pier Damiani und das Papstwahldekret von 1059," Arckwum Historiae Pontjficiae 2 (1964), 73-89. 3 Hans-Georg Krause, "Die Bedeutung der neuentdeckten handscriftlichen Überlie­ ferungen des Papstwahlsdekret von 1059: Bemerkungen zu einen neuen Buch," Zeit­ schrift der Savigny Stiftung ßr Rechtsgeschichte KA 107 (1990), 89-134, esp. η. 124, p. 126; idem, Das Papstwahldekret von 1059 und seine Rolle im Investiturstreit, Studi Gregoriani 7 (1960), esp. pp. 220, 225, 240. 146 CHAPTER TEN schismatic cardinals supporting Wibert or Clement III. Using other criteria Detlev Jasper estimates that it was written between 1076- 1080.4 Hans-Georg Krause disputes Jasper's reasoning, leaving the dating open to question. Krause points out that the "forgery" first emerges in the Über Beraldi/Chronicon. He agrees with the consensus that the decree was probably written before that time, but he ac­ knowledges that his and other estimates are only conjectures. Given the decree's profound consequences not only for regulating papal elections, but also for setting the balance of authority between the papacy and the empire, scholars have meticulously analyzed the manuscripts of both versions. Most of them argue that the authors of the decrees were concerned with politics within the curia or with the relationship between the papacy and the empire. The issue within the curia would have been whether the cardinal bishops should have more authority than the cardinal priests and the cardinal deacons. The issue with the papacy and the empire would have been whether the emperor should have a decisive role in choosing the pope. Gregory of Catino placed the decree simply within the context of papal electoral reform. He stated that Nicholas II had observed the abuses of past papal elections, and wanted to insure that they would be precluded in the future.5 In spite of evidence to the contrary, it can still be asked whether this straightforward objective was not what motivated Nicholas rather than any strategy to favor the cardinal bishops or the emperor. The version of the decree in the Chronicon would satisfy this objective, and would not have been controversial if another version of the decree had not appeared. But it can also be asked whether Gregory or one of his brothers might not have fabri­ cated the "forgery" to support Farfa's case in its struggle to maintain its liberties in the arbitration proceedings with the Ottaviani. An emperor with greater influence over papal elections would certainly 4 Jasper, Das Papstwahldekret, pp. 72, 85, 87-88. 5 Chron. 2, p. 245; De varia Romani pontifias creatione, Munich, Bavarian Staatsbibliothek Clm 147-152; CLM 148, fol. 19 lv: "Hic quippe Venerandus pontifex [Nicholas Π] cum omnia superius denotata optime didicisset, et cognovisset multoties sub maxima intentione, et cleri populique dissensione plurimes pontificum sedem apostolicam olim subripuisse, et quod deterius est pecuniys earn obtinuisse uel ui saeculari inuassise, propter pacem et concordiam unitatemque sacerdotalis dignitatis, et fastigium impe­ riale, generale congregauit concilium, in quo ut cuncta supra commemorata et inique exhibita destruerentur, et nee quiequam eorum a quouis imposterum fieret, hoc sanctum studuit decretum firmissimus statuere." .