The Gelasian Doctrine: Uses and Transformations

The Gelasian Doctrine:
Uses and Transformations
Robert L. Henson
In 494, pope Gelasius I w rote a long le tte r to th e em peror A n asta

si us I, w ithin w hich he rem arked: T here are tw o things, aug u st em peror,
by w hich th is world is chiefly rtdcd, th e consecrated au th o rity o f bishops
an d th e royal pow er. 1 T hroughout th e M iddle Ages certainly, say,
from th e n in th cen tu ry till th e th irte e n th and beyond anyone concerned
w ith th e relation betw een clerical and lay pow er was fam iliar w ith
G elasiuss distinction betw een th e consecrated a u th o rity o f bishops1'
( auctoritas sacrata pontificum ) and th e royal pow er (regalis potestas).
W hen medieval w riters repeated this sta te m en t, th e y were usually
invoking, and often in th e broadest possible w ay, th e problem o f
m onarchy and priesthood. F or even w hen q u o te d as a b rief dictum
w ith o u t its accom panying argum ent, G elasiuss assertion em blem atically
represented a concept o f regnum and sacerdotium. T h a t is, th e sta te m e n t
com monly seemed to th em a classic form ulation o f th e ideal relation
betw een th e tw o powers. Indeed, w ithout too m uch exaggeration,
one can say th a t till ab o u t 1200 and a t least in some respects th e re afte r,
medieval political th o u g h t consisted o f glosses on, and reactions to ,
Gelasiuss doctrine.2 C ertainly, scholars have generally recognized the
im portance of G elasiuss role, and have w ritten m uch ab o u t th is asser
tion as well as abo u t its subsequent influence.3
F rom th e n in th cen tu ry to th e tw elfth, G elasiuss sta te m en t reap
peared often and its m eaning changed radically as various w riters
quoted, m isquoted, paraphrased, and discussed it. Seen in these different
contexts, th e varying versions of th e G elasian form ula serve as a kind
o f litm us paper, an indicator revealing th e com position of th e arg u m en t
in which it was used. A fter exam ining G elasiuss m ore im p o rta n t s ta te
m ents on th e relations of Church and m onarchy, th is stu d y will briefly
La notion d'autorit au Moyen Age
14 La notion d'autorit au Moyen Agi
sk etch th e tran sfo rm atio n of G elasius's ideas in th e Carolingian period,

h u t will concen trate on th e transm ission, in te rp re tatio n , an d influence
o f G elasian te x ts during th e In v e stitu re Struggle.1
I I DUO SUNT . . .
In his le tte r to A nastasius, Gclasius*s rem ark ab o u t th e bishops*

auctoritas and th e em perors potestas co n stitu ted m erely th e beginning
o f an ex tended argum ent:
T h ere a re tw o th in g s, a u g u st e m p e ro r, b y w hich th is w orld is c h ie fly
ru le d , th e c o n se cra te d a u th o r ity o f bishops an d th e ro y a l pow er. O f th ese,
th e b ish o p s b e a r a b u rd e n w hich is so m u ch th e w e ig h tie r as th e y m u st re n d e r
an a c c o u n tin g in th e d iv in e ju d g m e n t e v e n fo r th e kings o f m an k in d . Y ou
know , m o st c le m en t so n , th a t a lth o u g h you su rp a ss th e h u m a n race in d ig n ity
(d ig n ita s), y e t y o u d e v o u tly how y o u r n e c k to th o se in c h arg e o f d iv in e
th in g s , a n d you seek from th e m th e m eans o f y o u r s a lv a tio n . A nd hence you
recognize th a t in th e re c e p tio n a n d p ro p e r a d m in is tra tio n o f th e h e av e n ly
sa c ra m e n ts, in th e sp h e re o f religion (religionis ordine), you m u st he su b je c t,
ra th e r th a n ru le. T h ere fo re you realize t h a t in th ese th in g s you d e p en d on
th e ir ju d g m e n t, a n d y o u do n o t a im to b e n d th em to y o u r w ill. F o r so fa r as
th e sp h e re o f p u b lic o rd e r (ordo publicae disciplinae) is c o n cern ed , th e bishops
th em se lv es know t h a t th e im p e ria l office ( im perium ) h a s b een co n ferred on
you b y d iv in e d isp o sitio n , a n d th e y o b ey y o u r law s le st th e y seem to oppose
y o u r a u th o r ita tiv e decision in w o rld ly m a tte rs . I f so. w ith w h a t zeal. I ask
y o u , is i t fittin g a n d p ro p e r to o b ey th o se w ho h a v e b e en ch arg e d wi t h th e
a d m in is tra tio n o f th e r e \e r e d m y ste rie s? s
T hough some o f th e m disagree on p articu la r aspects o f G elasius's

th o u g h t, m ost historians regard th is D uo s u n t* sta te m e n t as th e m ain
evidence th a t G elasius w as a political dualist, advocating th e eq u ality
an d au to n o m y o f th e tw o pow ers.6 B u t a few historians consider Gelasius
a hiero crat, whose th eo ry , elaborated here and in o th e r w ritings, su b
je cte d th e im perial office to pap al direction.7 Since m uch scholarly
controversy has orbited around D uo s u n t , we m u st see w h at it
says and w h at it does not say.
T he bishops auctoritas an d th e em perors potestas ride th e w orld,
h u t as th e tw o form s o f preem inence differ in character, th e y rule in
q u ite different w ays. T he w orld w hich th e y jo in tly rule can be u n d er
stood o nly as th e R om an E m pire. Gelasius assigned auctoritas to all
bishops individually; b u t he did n o t a ttrib u te it to th e in stitu tio n al
Church. N or did G elasius suggest here th a t th e R om an bishops aucto
ritas differs from th a t of his colleagues; indeed, th e D uo s u n t passage
says nothing specifically abo u t papal au th o rity .8 U nlike th e regalis
The Gelasian Doctrine 15
potestas, th e auctoritas is holy: it is sacrata. T he episcopal auctoritas

controls th e order o f religion', a preem inence which includes th e
ad m in istratio n o f sacram ents, and therefore a m onopoly over th e m eans
o f salvation. W ithin th is sphere, consequently, th e bishops exercise a
form o f ju d g m e n t (iu d ic iu m ) even over em perors. A nd in th is respect,
bishops bear a w eightier burd en of responsibility (gravius pondus)
th a n em perors, since th e y are accountable to God for th e em perors
soul; here, th e double m eaning of pondus ( influence or a u th o rity ,
as well as w eight or burd en ) reinforces G elasius's ex alted conception
of th e pontifical auctoritas. The P etrin e pow er o f binding and loosing
th u s form s a central com ponent o f th is auctoritas. In th e religious
dom ain, therefore, an em peror m ust show not only respect b u t also
obedience to th e bishop. Still, here G elasius claim ed no right to judge
th e em peror in any w orldly m atte rs, or to coerce in any w ay an em peror
who refused th e requisite obedience.
As a m an th e em peror needs th e p rie st's sacram ents, an d therefore
in th e order o f religion th e prince is subject to th e pontiff. W ith his
reference to th e regalis potestas, how ever, Gelasius was indicating th e
em perors office, ra th e r th a n his person, a n d he recognized th a t God
h ad bestow ed th e office. Indeed, as ru ler, th e em peror holds th e suprem e
dignity* on earth. H ence Gelasius accepted th e em perors unqualified
jurisd ictio n over bishops in th e sphere of public o rd er , as well as in
th e bishops obligation to obey im perial laws.
D id Gelasius intend, using auctoritas and potestas as au th o rita tiv e
technical term s, to co n stru ct a constitutional language th a t could define
an d shape th e relations betw een th e Church and th e em perors? T hough
his diction in th e le tte r to A nastasius, an d his th o u g h t in general, owe
som ething to R om an law ,9 th e duality' auctoritas-potestas can n o t be fo u n d
in Rom an law. On th e o th e r han d , th is d u ality h ad a long h isto ry
stretching back into th e constitutional term inology of th e la te R epublic
and early P rincipate,10 b u t it is scarcely credible th a t in his phrasing
Gelasius a d o p ted a trad itio n so rem ote from th e realities of 494. R a th e r,
he would have found th e key term s auctoritas and potestas m ost readily
in p u rely ecclesiastical trad itio n s w ith which, as th e leading clerk in
th e chancery o f Felix I I I , he was already fam iliar before his accession,
and he m ay have noticed Leo I s distinction betw een auctoritas sacer
dotalis an d im perialis potestas .n In fact, how ever, Gelasius used a w idely
varying term inology for references to th e episcopal, papal, an d im perial
offices. Most tellingly, he even reversed th e form ulation o f D uo s u n t ,
m entioning an im perial auctoritas and a pontifical potestas, and elsewhere
referred n eu trally to th e tw o pow ers .12 T his diversity in his co n sti
tu tio n al diction can, of course, be explained as elegant v ariatio n accord
ing to th e rhetorical norm s of th e fifth cen tu ry , for Gelasius deployed
these stylistic devices w ith m astery and brav u ra. Yet his key term s
were p ro bably som ething m ore th a n a sim ple rhetorical an tith esis, for
in his arg u m en t th e language is rem arkably congruent w ith th e th o u g h t.13
T h a t Gelasius also used o th e r term inology elsewhere proves only th a t
he did n ot a tte m p t to create, and did not believe th a t he had created,
a fixed co nstitutional language: G elasiuss form ulation had n o t y et
becom e a formula.
B u t an o th er G clasian argum ent throw s fu rth e r light on D uo s u n t .
In a trea tise on excom m unication, th e Tomus de anathematis vinculo,
G elasius addressed th e sam e question from a different perspective.
Indeed, th e te x ts supplem ent each o th er so indispensably th a t one should
consider only th e tw o to g e th er as constitu tin g G elasiuss doctrine on
th e relation betw een im perium and sacerdotium.
Before the coming of Christ, certain men, though still engaged in carnal
activities, werein a prefiguring way (figuraliter) kings and priests at the
same time. Sacred history reports that holy Melchizedek was such. Among
his own, the Devil imitated this, since he always strives in a spirit of tyranny
to claim for himself those things which belong to divine worship, so that
pagan emperors were called also supreme pontiffs (maximi pontifices). But
when He came who was the true king and pontiff, thereafter the emperor
did not assume the title of pontiff, nor did the pontiff claim the royal
dignity. . . . Mindful of human frailty, Christ regulated with marvelous direc
tion what would serve the salvation of his people. Thus He separated the
offices of the two powers ( officia potestatis utri usque discrevit) in accordance
with their own functions and separate dignities (actionibus propriis digni
tatibusque distinctis), wanting his people to be saved by a healing humility,
and not snatched away again by human pride, so that Christian emperors
would need pontiffs for eternal life, and pontiffs would use imperial regulations
for the conduct of temporal affairs. Thus spiritual activity would he set apart
from carnal encroachments, and on that account he who serves God would
not be involved in secular m atters. And on the other hand, he who was
involved in secular m atters would not seem to preside over divine things,
so th at the humility of both orders (utriusque ordinis: emperors and pontiffs)
would be preserved, with no one being exalted in both ways, and so that the
profession of both orders woidd he especially fitted to the character of their
functions.14
In D uo s u n t , one can discern G elasius's conviction th a t th e pon

tifical auctoritas an d th e royal potestas are separate and d istin ct offices,
b u t th e idea lies ju s t beneath th e surface: he does n o t sta te it. In th e
T om us, how ever, it has become explicit. T o furnish theological su p p o rt
for th is separation, G elasius in v en ted a m y th , a n arrativ e giving order
an d intelligibility to th e political realm . He con trasted th e Old T esta
m ent, in which holy M elchizedek was bo th king and p riest,15 w ith
pagan Koine, where th e Devil inspired th e em perors to assum e th e office
of pontifex m axim us. B ut Melchizedek h ad prefigured C hrist, th e tru e

king an d p riest , who decreed th a t C hristians should never hold b oth
titles: to foster hum ility H e separated th e offices o f th e tw o pow ers
according to th e ir functions an d dignities . I t w as b ad histo ry for
C hristian em perors retained th e title pontifex m axim us till G ratiun
finally jettiso ned it b u t a brilliant m yth.
Gelasiuss assertion th a t a C hristian em peror can n o t be a priest
con stitu tes an o th er o f th e links betw een D uo s u n t an d th e Tomus.
In late fifth-century C onstantinople, such adjectives as sacer o r sacra-
tissim us, com m only applied to th e em peror's person and to things
associated w ith him, em phasized th e num inous q u ality of his office,
and th e Church had long been willing to accept this usage.18 In Ita ly
and th e W est during this period, how ever, ep ith ets o f sacredness were
becom ing a monopoly o f bishops. In this co n tex t, th e G elasian co n tra st
betw een th e pontiffs sacrata auctoritas and th e em perors unsanctified
potestas assum es special significance. Like his denial of priestly sta tu s
to th e em peror, G elasiuss form ulation in Duo su n t reflected a te n
dency to secularize th e conception o f m onarchy.
Indeed, G elasiuss separation o f kingship and priesthood stru ck a t
a central prem ise o f contem porary political th o u g h t. F o r w ithin
C hristian th o u g h t generally from C onstantine to Ju stin ia n an d beyond,
th e em peror was regarded as king and p rie st , as G od's governing
rep resen tativ e on earth. He therefore had specifically ecclesiastical,
religious, and spiritual duties, obligating him to p articip a te actively
in th e m ost sensitive areas of th e C hurchs life in decisions ab o u t
dogma, for exam ple, in th e appo in tm en t o f bishops, or in th e repression
o f heresy. So long as th e em peror was perceived as supporting th e cause
of orthodoxy, no one com plained. Or a t least only heretics com plained
of th e em peror's role. B u t as soon as an em peror personally em braced
a heresy (like C onstantius I I , for instance), or w hen an orthodox em peror
pro tected th e religious rights of pagans, heretics, or Jew s (here, Theo
dosius th e G reat and V alentinian I I serve as exam ples), resistance
m ight crop up. A com parable crisisth e Acacian schism betw een th e
churches o f Rom e and C onstantinoplepreoccupied Gelasius th ro u g h o u t
his b rief pontificate.
Since Gelasius faced an openly schism atic em peror in C onstantinople,
he had am ple reasons for resistance. Y et evidently he never seriously
considered excom m unicating A nastasius, a n d did n o t even th in k it
possible to accuse an em peror publicly.17 M oreover, for a docum ent
th a t has som etim es been regarded as revolutionary, his le tte r to A nas
tasiu s in 494 is curiously polite. He begins, As though a born R om an,
I love, cherish, and respect th e R om an em peror .18 W ithin th a t lette r,
he tactfu lly avoided m entioning th e classic historical precedent for
resistance to a m onarch by a high p relate: A m broses im position of

penance on T heodosius th e G reat. In fac t, Ambrose him self h ad n o t
regarded T heodosiuss acceptance of ecclesiastical discipline as th e
C hurchs political victory over an em peror; rath e r, he saw it sim ply
as th e penance of a sinner.19 N or, ap p a ren tly , did anyone give th e inci
d en t an explicitly political in te rp re ta tio n before th e 490s. B u t Gelasius
m entioned th e ev en t in a le tte r to th e D ard an ian bishops: A m brose . . .
publicly an d openly suspended em peror T heodosius th e E ld er from
com m union, an d b ro u g h t th e royal pow er to penance. 20 H ere, as he
often did, Gelasius b u ttre ssed his arg u m en t w ith an historical exem plum ,
an d he was evid en tly th e first to use th is sto ry in a clearly political
sense.21 Still, th e m ention of A m brose an d T heodosius ap p eared in a
list o f exempla illu stratin g th e courage o f p rophets and prelates in th e
face o f riders: th e exem plum shows A m broses courage in resisting an
em peror, ra th e r th a n his exercise of a jurisd ictio n al pow er o f binding
an d loosing an em peror. T hus th e sto ry w as designed to condem n
A cacius (who h ad failed to show such courage), perhaps also to stifTen
th e D ard an ian bishops* resistance to A nastasiuss religious policy, b u t
n o t to suggest th a t anyone expected A nastasius to rep e n t o r en tertain ed
th e idea o f excom m unicating him .22 M oreover, one should n o t place
m uch w eight on th e rem ark th a t A m brose b ro u g h t th e royal pow er
to pen ance , for th e sta te m e n t does n o t conceal a claim to au th o rity
o ver th e im perial office. On th e contrary : th is reference to th e regia
potestas represents th e fam iliar rhetorical device o f m etonym y; th e
regia potestas w as th e em perors person, since an office can n o t p er
form penance. I n sh o rt, regia potestas in th e le tte r to th e D ard an ian
bishops can n o t be in te rp re te d as identical to th e regalis potestas o f th e
le tte r to A nastasius,23 w here th e la tte r phrase indicates th e im perial
office.
Clearly, G elasius was n o t p repared to follow in A m broses footsteps:
he d id n o t actively resist eith er A nastasius in C onstantinople o r Theo-
deric in Ita ly . Y et one finds curious tensions w ithin his th o u g h t. W hen
he m aintained th a t th e em peror m ay n o t subject a bishop to crim inal
proceedings even for high treaso n , he w as perhaps inconsistent; still,
th is assertion o f th e privilegium fo ri scarcely co n stitu ted a claim to
dom inion over th e im perial office.34 O ther G elasian letters, how ever,
co n tain argum ents w hich seem, a t first glance, irreconcilable w ith Duo
su n t an d th e Tomus. F o r exam ple: C hristian princes custom arily
su b m it to th e decrees of th e Church, an d do n o t set th e ir own power
above them . T he prince custom arily bows his head to bishops, an d does
n o t ju d g e th e m in capital cases. 25 W renched from its co n tex t, th e
sta te m e n t suggests, a t th e very least, hicrocratic tendencies. B u t th e
passage appeared in a le tte r to some bishops whom Gelasius reproached:
th e y should have com plained to th e em peror, he asserted an d this

passage form ed p a rt o f th e com plaint w hich th e y should have m ade.
In it6 co n text, obviously th e passage h ad a defensive purpose and
meaning.
T he ch aracter of G elasian arg u m en t becomes clearer in a different
le tte r, w ritten while G elasius w as still a deacon in F elix I l l 's
chancery:
The emperor . . . is the son, not the ruler, of the Church. I t is fitting for
him to learn, not to teach, what pertains to religion. He has the prerogatives
of his power, which he received from above for the adm inistration of public
affairs; and grateful for his benefits, he should usurp nothing against the
disposition of the celestial order. For God wanted those things which the
Church must administer to pertain to priests, not to the secular powers. If
the secular powers are faithful (Christians), God wanted them to be subject
to his Church and to its priests. For (the emperor) should not claim anothers
right, nor an office which has been assigned to another. . . . The Lord . . .
wanted priests to be installed and tried andwhen they return from
errorreadmitted by bishops and priests, not by public laws, not by the
secular powers. Christian emperors must subject the execution of judicial
proceedings to ecclesiastical leaders, not impose it upon them.28
Such a sta te m e n t can be read and, in th e la te r M iddle Ages, was

som etim es readas a radical assertion of d irect ecclesiastical a u th o rity
over th e em peror.27 B u t if one construes it in th is w ay, it co n trad icts
G elasiuss central doctrine on im perium and sacerdotium, and it conflicts
strikingly w ith G elasiuss conciliatory policy to w ard th e schism atic
em peror in C onstantinople. In th is le tte r, th e claim s o f th e p relates
superior d ignity h ave been pushed to th e lim it, b u t th e y do n o t im ply
jurisdictional a u th o rity over th e em peror, and in p a rt are q u ite tr a
ditional. A m brose h ad already rem arked th a t th e em peror is th e son
o f th e Church , and did n o t therefore consider th e im perium subject
to th e sacerdotium.28 T hough th e designation o f th e R om an p o n tiff as
p apa o r o f th e Church as mater was com m onplace by th e la te fifth cen
tu r y ,29 one cannot tra n sla te an honorific title or an ecclesiological
ep ith et into th e h ard rights and responsibilities w hich ju rists assigned
to th e R om an paterfam ilias -30 An earlier decretal h ad co n trasted discere
and docere,31 y e t Gelasius him self had been th e first to direct th is a n ti
thesis to an em peror: th e em peror m ust learn, ra th e r th a n teach , ab o u t
holy th in g s (sacrosancta).32 F o r an evaluation of G elasiuss th o u g h t,
how ever, th e crucial claim lies in tw o assertions: th a t God w an ted . . .
th e secular powers . . . to be subject to his Church and to its priests
(dens . . . seculi potestates . . . ecclesiae suae et sacerdotibus uoluit esse
subiectasjy and th a t th e em perors prosecution o f a com plaint or
altern ativ ely execution of a judicial sentence (exsecutio)33 m u st be
20 La notion d'autorit au Moyen Age
su b ject to bishops. B ut in th e form er assertion, Gelasius was discussing

only th e realm of those th in g s w hich th e Church m ust adm inister
( quae ecclesiae disponenda sunt); in th e la tte r, only th e ap p o in tm en t of
bishops an d hearings o f clerics charged w ith heterodoxy. Again, th e
defensive to n e is unm istakable: em perors should n o t claim an o th ers
rig h t . H ere again, G elasius was discussing, and opposing, im perial
in tervention in to w h at he perceived as purely ecclesiastical affairs.
E specially, th e em peror m ust n o t judge questions o f o rth o d o x y , n o r can
his recognition of (or refusal to recognize) a bishop as orthodox bind
th e Church or th e p ap acy , which will decide th e m a tte r au th o ritativ ely .
T hus, even before becom ing pope, G elasius distinguished sharply
betw een th e C hurchs autonom ous realm and th e em perors, an d his
sta te m e n ts ab o u t th e em perors subjection to th e Church refer exclu
sively to th e ecclesiastical sphere, th a t w hich pertain s to religion .
In th is le tte r, G elasius regarded th e separation and au to n o m y o f im pe
rium and sacerdotium as a divinely decreed order (dispositio celestis
ordinis) , w ithin w hich God has e n tru ste d to th e em peror th e adm inis
tra tio n o f public afTairs . B u t w ithin th e purely ecclesiastical sphere,
G elasius dem anded th a t th e em peror refrain from unin v ited in tervention,
com ply w ith th e C hurchs orders, and c a n y o u t w h at th e Church has
decided. All th is raised, of course, a question w hich D uo su n t an d th e
Tom us h ad failed to answ er, for n eith er of these provided a detailed
scenario on th e relations betw een im perium and sacerdotium: w hat are
th e boundaries o f th e ecclesiastical sphere? In reply to th is question,
G elasius insisted th a t bishops, and p articu larly th e vicar o f S t P eter,
m u st draw th e line betw een th e secular an d th e religious.34 To sum up:
G clasiuss claim s for th e purely ecclesiastical sphere rem ain congruent
w ith D uo s u n t and th e Tom us*5 Indeed, th e y apply to specific p ro b
lems th e b road principles elaborated, on a higher level o f generality
an d ab stra ctio n , in th e Tomus and th e le tte r to A nastasius.
N either in R om e n o r in C onstantinople did G elasiuss contem poraries
an d successors perceive his ideas as m arking a break w ith th e p ast.38
H is deference to th e em peror, his respect for th e im perial m ajesty were
fully trad itio n al. Among his ideas on th e im perium , indeed, one can
reg ard his denial of th e em perors priestly sta tu s as his only a tta c k on
trad itio n al an d contem porary views.37 Y et contem poraries m ay n o t
have grasped th e Tomuss im plications, or m ay even have been unaw are
o f it6 existence. One of G elasiuss successors crudely p arap h rased Duo
s u n t ,38 b u t a p a rt from th is th e papal chancery ap p a ren tly forgot
ab o u t D uo s u n t for alm ost 250 years, and ab o u t th e Tomus for
m ore th a n 350 years. Soon afte r G clasiuss d eath , in fact, pope A nas
tasiu s I I hum bly addressed th e em peror as Gods vicar in th e ful
fillm ent o f evangelic and apostolic precepts : a clear rep u d iatio n of
Gelasiuss doctrine in th e Tomus.39 A nd o th er voices a tte s t th a t th e six th

cen tu ry still generally accepted th e conception of th e em peror as king
an d priest.40
D espite its disappearance for more th a n tw o centuries, th ere were
good reasons for th e G elasian doctrines eventual retu rn an d for its
wide influence. In his rem arks on th e im perium , Gelasius used various
expressions for governance: regalis potestas designated th e im perial
office, h u t ordo publicae disciplinae, res m undanae, an d res publicae
administrandae indicated th e b road scope o f im perial governm ent.
By im plication, these term s included political rule over society, direction
an d ad m in istration of th e S tate , and m ore explicitly, m aking an d enforce
m ent o f laws. B ut in Duo su n t and o th er sta te m en ts on im perium
and sacerdotium, th e pontifical a u th o rity has little to do w ith govern
m ent in these trad itio n al senses. Since Gelasius w anted to avoid th e full
w eight o f th e im perial power in th e settle m en t of theological questions
an d sought a larger freedom for th e pontifical au th o rity in such m atte rs,
th e negative side of his doctrine acquired sh arp focus: th e em peror
m u st n o t intervene. On these questions, th ereb y , his horizon included
only th e aspiration to ecclesiastical autonom y in th e form ulation and
enforcem ent o f orthodoxy, an d in judicial proceedings again st clerics.
T hough these claims could be considered th e essentials in th e C hurchs
jurisdiction over th e clergy, one could scarcely regard them as com pa
rable to th e im perial governm ent. Y et Gelasius m aintained th a t th is
w orld is chiefly ruled by th e pontifical auctoritas and th e royal potestas,
and his Tornus se p arated th e offices of th e tw o pow ers . Because he evi
dently did not envision any su b stan tiv e ways in which th e episcopate
would share th e governance of th is w orld , his references to rule
an d to th e tw o pow ers like his sto ry abo u t C hrists sep aratio n of
th e two offices co n stitu ted a fiction.41 Still, even though he did n o t
a ttrib u te concrete governm ental powers to th e pontifical auctoritas,
he nonetheless created th e notion th a t th e Church shares, as an equal
an d coordinate p artn e r of th e em peror, in th e w orlds governance. I t
was only in th is respect th a t Gelasius w ent beyond th e claim s o f p re
decessors like H osius of Cordova and A m brose in th e ir defenses o f the
Churchs libertas, and beyond A ugustine.42 A nd precisely th is idea
proved to be, in th e long run, th e m ost durable as well as th e m ost
a ttra c tiv e innovation o f G elasiuss doctrine on th e tw o pow ers . The
idea o f th e tw o coordinate ruling powers was an ingenious fiction in
th e late fifth cen tu ry b u t beginning in th e n in th centu ry , it was
in terp reted literally, as an in stitu tio n al reality.
II ! T H E TW O P O W E R S IN T H E E C C L E S I A
J u s t as th e A cacian schism inspired th e form ulation of Gelasiuss

d o ctrine, an o th er conflict betw een Rom e and C onstantinopleth e
Iconoclastic C ontroversy inspired th e first reappearances o f Duo
su n t . Still, w hen tw o eighth-century popes quoted th e G elasian sta te
m ent, th e y cited its au th o r sim ply as a certain learned an d venerable
fa th e r .43 B u t by th e early n in th cen tu ry , Gelasiuss nam e h ad acquired
high au th o rity .44 W hen th e F ra n k ish episcopate m et in 829 to form ulate
a sweeping program o f reform , G elasiuss dictum furnished a theoretical
ju stificatio n for th e episcopates role in th e reform , an d for th e bishops
a tte m p t to resist m onarehical encroachm ent on clerical prerogatives
an d ecclesiastical property. E v id en tly im der th e leardership o f bishop
Jo n a s of O rleans, th e synod of P aris qu o ted (or rath e r, m isquoted) th e
te x t: T here are tw o . . . august em presses b y w hich th is w orld is chiefly
ruled, th e consecrated au th o rity of bishops and th e royal pow er ,
concluding w ith G elasiuss rem ark on th e bishops w eightier b u rd en .45
More crucial th a n th e m isquotation, how ever, w as th e synod's expla
n atio n of G elasiuss sta te m en t: W e know th a t . . . th e body (corpus)
o f th e entire holy Church of God is divided chiefly betw een tw o exalted
persons , th a t is, betw een th e bishop and th e king. W ith th is ex p la
n atio n , Jo n as an d th e o th e r bishops certainly did n o t envision a hiero-
cratic dom ination over th e m onarchy, for th e re a fte r th e synods acta
cited F ulgentius w ith approval: I n th e Church no one appears superior
to th e bishop, an d in th e w orld no one loftier th a n th e C hristian
em peror.46 H ere, Jo n a s of O rleans decisively transform ed th e m eaning
o f th e G elasian te x t in th ree respects: first, he explained th e w orld
as identical w ith th e ecclesia; second, repeatedly referring to th e ecclesia
as a corpus, he conceived th e ecclesia th ro u g h an organological m etap h o r
o r even, one m ight say, in quasi-corporational term s;47 an d th ird , as
we see from th e synod's reform program , he viewed th e episcopates
responsibility as tru ly governm ental, th a t is, as th e d u ty o f form ulating
governm ental policy for th e la ity as well as th e clergy. In an o th er work,
Jo n a s sta te d th a t th e episcopate holds n o t m erely th e G elasian power
o f binding and loosing , b u t a higher ran k th a n th e king w ithin th e
corpus ecclesiae.'18 In these regards, th e application o f G elasiuss for
m idaand by 829 his te x t has evidently become fam iliar an d a u th o ri
ta tiv e reflected a new and central characteristic of Carolingian political
th o u g h t: th e conviction th a t th e ecclesia itself is th e fim dam cntal u nit
o f society and governm ent, w ithin w hich th e clerical an d lay hierarchies
ride jo in tly . T he w orld is th e ecclesia , as pope N icholas I rem arked
in an o th er co n tex t.49 T hereby th e ecclesia had n o t only replaced th e
G elasian m undus and its in stitu tio n al co u n terp art, th e C hristian R om an

Em pire, b u t has also subsum ed th e F rankish regnum . for in th e sense
o f k in g sh ip' or m onarchy regnum th u s becam e a co n stitu e n t or
com ponent o f th e Church.60 Since th e F ranks h ad largely lost th e R om an
notion o f th e S ta te as an a b s tra c t ju ridical fiction governing w ithin
fixed te rrito rial boundaries, and since th e y sought a fully C hristian
definition for th e in stitu tio n al fram ew ork o f th e ir society, it is n o t
surprising th a t th e quasi-corporational concept o f ecclesia p rovided a
su b stitu te for th e idea of S tate. H ere, th e im p o rta n t po in t is th a t
Jo n a ss in te rp re tatio n o f th e G elasian te x t created an au th o rita tiv e
sta te m en t o f th is Carolingian view.
A fter th e synod of P aris, Duo su n t was freq u en tly invoked to
su p p o rt th e political ideas o f th e F ran k ish episcopate. D uring th e second
q u a rte r o f th e n in th century, m oreover, th e Tom us surfaced again, and
Carobngian prelates quickly recognized its ideological kinship to Duo
su n t . A t th e synod o f T hionville in O ctober 844, a tte m p tin g to ree stab
lish peace, th e bishops a d m itte d th a t th e Church h ad been e n tru sted
for its governance to kings, b u t th e y understood th is ta sk o f governance
in th e sense of protection ra th e r th a n o f rule and dom inance. So th a t th e
episcopate could share effectively in th e governm ent o f th e p o p u lu s.
th e bishops dem anded th a t th e v ac an t bishopricsv ac an t because o f th e
political turm oilbe filled w ithout sim ony. T hey sup p o rted th is dem and
by com bining th e political theology o f th e Tomus w ith th e Carolingian
in te rp re tatio n o f D uo su n t : F rom Him w ho alone could rightly
become b o th king and priest, you well know th a t th e Church is ordered
in such a w ay th a t it is governed by th e pontifical a u th o rity an d th e
royal pow er.51 H ere, for th e first tim e, one sees a consciousness o f th e
connection betw een th e tw o te x ts.
A t th e synod of Fism cs in 881, H incm ar of Reim s d em o n strated even
more fully th e u n ity of th e tw o, for he rew orked th e passages on regnum
an d sacerdotium from th e le tte r to A nastasius and th e Tomus, fusing
them into a single argum ent. Significantly, how ever, H incm ar inserted
a new elem ent into th e discussion: T he dignity of pontiffs is so much
th e greater th a n th a t of kings, since kings arc an ointed into th e royal
office b y pontiffs. 52 W ith th is rem ark, H incm ar transform ed his new
version o f th e G elasian doctrine into a com m entary on th e Carolingian
trad itio n o f anointed kingship, which th e d y n a sty s accession in 751 had
inaugurated. In ap propriating th e Tomuss te x t, he m ay h av e recalled
earlier tendencies to sec F rankish rulers in th e double role o f rex et
sacerdos. B u t as th e principal arch itect o f F rankish ritu als for royal
an o in tm en t and as a central p articip a n t in such cerem onials, he u n d o u b t
edly knew th a t royal ano in tm en t set th e king a p a rt from o th er laym en,
and th a t contem poraries could in te rp re t it as conferring on th e king a
p riestly character. Still, llin ciiiar did n o t draw th e final consequence

a t Fism es, for from his rew orking of G elasiuss te x ts he inferred only
th e superior dignity o f pontiffs, b u t n o t th e ir jurisdictional authority'
over m onarchs.
T he Carolingian view th a t th e tw o powers rule w ithin th e ecclesia
rem ained v irtually unchallenged till th e In v estitu re Struggle, an d it
survived far into th e tw elfth century. P resupposing th is conception of
th e ecclesia, n in th -c en tu ry citations of D uo su n t expressed th e
asp irations of th e F ran k ish episcopate. B u t as we shall see, beginning
in th e mid-1070s, w henever D uo s u n t w as linked to th is Carolingian
ecclesiology, th e G elasian dictu m acquired y e t an o th er m eaning, and
served to defend royal prerogative.
I l l I G R E G O R Y VII
T hough rarely cited betw een th e early te n th ce n tu ry an d th e acces

sion o f G regory V U in 1073, G elasiuss sta te m en ts on th e tw o powers
quickly gained currency in th e Age o f Reform , as conflict broke o u t
betw een th e p apacy an d th e principal m onarchies. D uring th e p ro tra cted
struggles, bo th sides frequently qu o ted or invoked D uo s u n t , an d th e
Tomus again played a role, tho u g h a sm aller one th a n D uo su n t .
T he prom inence a n d u b iq u ity o f G elasiuss sta te m en ts can be understood
only as a consequence o f th e ir new value to th e p articip a n ts in th e
m om entous conflict so inadequately term ed th e In v estitu re Struggle.
B u t ju s t as th e C arolingians construed G elasius's sta te m en ts in th e light
o f th e ir own assum ptions ab o u t th e ecclesia, th e reform ers o f th e late
eleventh ce n tu ry and a few o f th e ir opponents radically rein terp reted
Gelasiu6. B y th e 1080s, one can argue, th e ir disagreem ents over th e
m eaning an d im plications o f th e G elasian doctrine reflected some o f
th e cen tral issues, an d th e wide d iversity o f views, in th e In v estitu re
Struggle.53
As its m ost im p o rta n t vehicle of transm ission, th e Pseudo-Isidorian
D ecretals rendered th e le tte r to A nastasius w idely accessible.54 B u t even
a p a rt from th is tra d itio n , in th e eleventh ce n tu ry th e D uo s u n t
sententia was p robably still a com m onplace. A nd until th e o u tb reak o f th e
In v e stitu re Struggle, th e m eaning of G elasiuss dictu m seemed clear.
W h ether qu o ted in an im perial ch arter,55 or, in less m undane contexts,
p ara p h ra sed b y P ete r D ainiani in th e service of th e R eform ,66 Duo
su n t im plied fam iliar principles: th e functional sep aratio n and dis
tinctness of th e tw o powers, th e ir interdependence, and th e ir obligation
to cooperate w ith each other. B y th e mid-1070s, th e reform er who
com piled th e canonical Collection in 74 Titles h ad included D uo s u n t
as one o f his excerpts,57 and th e re is no reason to believe th a t he in te r

p reted th e sententia differently. Moreover, G regory V II knew D uo
su n t . F or his knowledge o f G elasiuss te x t, how ever, G regory d id n o t
depend on th e Collection in 74 Titles, whose com piler differed m arkedly
from G regory in his vision of th e Reform and of its goals.4*8 In a le tte r
o f 1073 an d an o th er from 1080, G regory a p p ro p riated th e language of
D uo su n t , and ap p a ren tly still accepted trad itio n al views o f its
m eaning.59 B ut a t th e turn in g -p o in t in his struggle w ith king H en ry IV ,
G regorys understanding of th e G elasian dictu m changed radically.
On 15 M arch 1081, Gregory w rote his second le tte r to bishop H erm an
of Metz.80 As its principal purpose, th e le tte r aim ed to refu te th e
m adness o f those who, w ith im pious tongues, babble th a t th e au th o rity
of th e H oly an d A postolic See could n o t excom m unicate king H en ry .61
Long an d ju stly fam ous, th e le tte r is a m anifesto sum m arizing G regorys
m ain theological, canonical, and historical arg u m en ts for th e subor
dination o f th e la ity to th e clergy. T here, G regory q u o te d G elasiuss
le tte r to A nastasius, leaving o u t crucial p a rts of G elasiuss original te x t
(th e G elasian passages o m itted by G regory ap p ear in parentheses):
To the emperor Anastasius, pope Gelasius . . . said: There arc two things,
august emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, the consecrated authority
of bishops and the royal power. Of these, the bishops bear a burden which
is so much the weightier as they must render an accounting in the divine
judgment even for the kings of mankind. And with a few things interposed,
he says: You know, (most element son, that although you surpass the human
race in dignity, yet you devoutly bow your neck to those in charge o f divine things,
and you seek from them the means o f your salvation. And in the reception and
proper administration o f the heavenly sacraments, in the sphere o f religion,
you recognize that you must be subject, rather than rule) therefore, that in
these things you depend on their judgment, and you do not aim to bend
them to your will. **
T o say th e least, th e omission is tendentious. Gelasius h ad asserted

m erely th a t in th e sphere of religion (religionis ordine) , in th e recep
tion o f th e heavenly sacram ents , and to secure salvation, th e em peror
depends on th e ju d g m e n t o f bishops. B u t G regory has dropped Gela
siuss careful qualification and has passed ov er G elasiuss respectful
reference to th e em perors p reem inent dignity . By choosing to end
th e q u o tatio n where he did, moreover, Gregory has o m itted G elasiuss
im m ediately subsequent rem arks on th e divine origin of th e im perial
office an d on th e higher clergys willing obedience to im perial law. In
sh o rt, th e omission transform s G elasiuss sta te m en t, renders it a claim
to v irtu ally unlim ited jurisdiction over th e em peror. B ut th e co n tex t
fu rth e r clarifies G regorys in te n t. J u s t before th e q u o ta tio n from Gelasius,
G regory h ad argued th a t m onarchy took its origin . . . in pride, plunder.
trea ch e ry , m u rd er finally, in p ractically all of th e w orld's crim es ,

an d th a t th e priests of C hrist are th e fathers an d teachers o f kings
a n d princes and all th e faith fu l .63
I f G regorys omission w as tendentious, th e conclusions which he
drew from th e shortened te x t were sensational. Im m ed iately afte r th e
q u o ta tio n from Gelasius, G regory poin ted o u t th a t m any pontiffs
have excom m unicated kings an d em perors, th en cited th re e historical
(or pseudo-historical) exam ples:64 F irst, pope In n o cen t I excom m uni
ca te d th e em peror A rcadius. Second, an o th er R om an p o n tiff deposed
th e M erovingian king Childeric I I I , released th e F ra n k s from th eir
o ath s o f fealty to him , and su b stitu te d Pepin, th e fath e r o f Charle
m agne, in his place . A nd th ird , A m brose excom m unicated th e em peror
Theodosius. T hough G regory described th e excom m unications as a
consequence o f w rongdoing, he explained th a t th e pope h ad deposed th e
last M erovingian not so m uch because o f his iniquities as because o f th e
fact th a t he w as incapable of using such pow er .66 G regory concluded
th is p o rtion o f his arg u m en t by q uoting a pseudo-A m brosian w ork in
which th e su p erio rity of th e episcopal dignity over th e royal is likened
to th e brilliance o f gold in com parison w ith lead. (To have m atched
G elasiuss tw o pow ers w ith pseudo-A m broses tw o m etals was an elegant
rh etorical stroke.) F or you m ay see th e necks o f kings an d princes
bow ed to th e knees of priests (w ith th is passage from pseudo-A m brose,
G regory has evoked th e im age of th e p e n ite n t Theodosius), an d nothing
can be found in this w orld more excellent th a n priests, noth in g loftier
th a n bishops .66
W ith his th ree exem pla, G regory was less in terested in th e possible
parallels betw een H en ry IV and th e th ree m onarchs (for th e re was
none betw een H enry and th e useless Childeric) th a n he was in th e
pertinence of these th ree cases to his own actions in 1076 an d 1080.
T aken tog eth er, th e th ree precedents corresponded ex actly to and
p ro v ided an historical ju stifica tio n for G regorys rev o lu tio n ary a c t in
F eb ru ary 1076, repeated w ith m inor variations in March 1080, when he
excom m unicated king H enry, strip p ed him of th e rig h t to rule,67 and
absolved his subjects from th e ir fealty. In 1076 and 1080, he h ad explic
itly based his rig h t to perform these ju ridically d istin ct actsexcom m u
nication, deposition, and dissolution of o ath s on his own P etrine
potestas ligandi et solvendi .68 T hen in 1081, he cited G elasiuss sententia
as a classic an d a u th o rita tiv e form ulation of th e R om an p o n tiffs power
o f binding and loosing*' an em peror an d his subjects, for even in th e
sh o rtened form quoted by G regory, D uo s u n t clearly concerns th e
potestas ligandi et solvendi. T hereby th e th ree historical exempla dem ons
tr a te concretely how G regory in te rp re ted G elasiuss sta te m e n t th a t th e
em peror depends on th e ju d g m e n t of pontiffs. R u t w ith th e exam ple
o f Childerics deposition and th e o ath s of fealty, G regory ex ten d ed th e

potestas ligandi et solvendi far beyond its trad itio n al m eanings, beyond
th e pow er to rem it or retain sins and to im pose penalties for sin.
T hus the le tte r o f 1081 m arks th e difference betw een G elasius and
G regory: U ndoubtedly Gelasius assum ed th a t m orally a n d in religious
term s th e bishop, bearing th e gravius pondus, is superior to th e m onarch;
th e n o tio n certainly becam e m ore explicit in Carolingian th o u g h t. F o r
G regory, th e gulf betw een clergy a n d la ity has become enorm ous: as a
spiritual emperor*, a m ere exorcist has greater power* th a n th e m ost
ex alted lay m an.69 F or bo th Gelasius an d G regory, th e pow er o f binding
an d loosing furnished th e key to indeed, co n stitu ted th e foundation
ofth e episcopates relation to m onarchs. B ut Gelasius confined th e
Churchs rig h t o f ju d g m en t to sacram ental m a tte rs an d to th e ordo
religionis in general. G regory, on th e o th er hand, believed th a t w ith th e
potestas ligandi et solvendi e n tru ste d to him , th e R om an p on tiff o r even
a lesser bishop can judge th e m o rality o f a m onarchs acts in th e exercise
o f his governing office, an d can punish a ru ler's crim es b y expelling him
from th e com m unity o f C hristians. T he o th e r tw o elem ents in th e G re
gorian potestas ligandi et solvendi w ere more radical. B y annulling oaths
o f fealty, G regory dissolved th e principal bond holding civil society'
to g eth er, for as he knew, W ith o u t th e observance of o ath s, th e office
o f th e royal dignity can in no w ay be ad m inistered .70 A nd w ith his
doctrine on deposition, G regory inferred th e rig h t to exercise a direct
ju risd ictio n over a m onarchy even w hen th e ju d g m en t was n o t occa
sioned b y th e m onarchs iniquities . T hereby G regory w en t even
beyond th e claim , advanced 123 years la te r b y In n o cen t I I I , to in terv en e
in secular m a tte rs b y reason of sin .71 W ithin th e G elasian tra d itio n ,
by his tran sform ation o f th e pontifical auctoritas G regory reveals th e
m eaning of, an d m easures th e distance betw een, G elasiuss dualism
an d his own hierocratic view.
IV I P O L E M I C A L L I T E R A T U R E A N D C A N O N L A W 72
T h ro u g h out th e second half of th e eleventh ce n tu ry an d th e re afte r,

reform ers perceived a revivified canon law as sim ultaneously a m ajor
in stru m en t and a crucial goal of th e R eform .73 In studying th e Pseudo-
Isidorian D ecretals and o th er collections from th e early M iddle Ages,
th ey recovered th e le tters an d treatises of earlier popes* including G ela
sius, an d e x tra cte d from th e m th e m ost useful excerpts for canonical
collections. T hus th e R eform m ovem ent directly inspired th e em ergent
canon law. Moreover, th e new canonistic jurisprudence was inseparable
from th e polemical literatu re o f th e In v e stitu re Struggle. Some canonists
n o t only com piled canonical collections b u t also w rote publicistic tre a

tises. Indeed, a few of th e trea tise s presented so m any te x ts in series,
an d a t m any points w ith o u t an y com m entary betw een th e auctoritates,
th a t th e tre a tise itself can alm ost be considered a collection. On both
sides, p artisan s qu arried th e older canonical collections an d th e new ones
for argum ents to su p p o rt diverse positions. T hereby th e key Gelasian
te x ts quickly becam e im p o rta n t auctoritates for th e au th o rs of polemical
treatises, as th e y were for th e com pilers of collections. Finally, w hen one
exam ines th e ir w ays of in te rp retin g te x ts, one canno t distinguish sharply
betw een th e herm eneutic style of th e treatises and th a t o f th e collections.
In these respects, from th e 1070s onw ard th e history of th e Gelasian
trad itio n is linked to th e evolution of canon law.
M any political treatises of th e In v estitu re Struggle ap p eared in
epistolary form .74 In fact, G regory V II com posed his second le tte r to
H erm an of Metz as a trea tise designed to reach a wide audience, espe
cially in G erm any, and had several versions prepared for circulation.75
D uring th e 60 years following its com position, th e m anifesto of 1081
en tered more canonical collections th a n an y o th er Gregorian le tte r.76
Some collectionsfor exam ple, those by bishop Anselm I I o f Lucca
an d cardinal D eusd editpresented long excerpts from th is lette r, b u t
o m itted th e G elasian q u o ta tio n .77 More com m only, how ever, th e excerpts
in th e canonical collections contain th e D uo su n t passage. All th ree
o f th e collections com piled by bishop Iv o of C hartres in th e mid-1090s
included th e D uo su n t te x t in th e ir excerpts from G regorys letter,
an d th e relev an t capitulum in his Panormia actually begins w ith th e
G elasian q u o ta tio n .78 Sim ilarly, as excerpted in several o th er la te elev
enth- and early tw elfth -cen tu ry collections, th e G regorian le tte r
co ntains G elasiuss te x t.79 R ubrics som etim es indicate th e m eaning which
th e canonists saw in G regorys letter: they perceived it as an argum ent
T h a t th e pope can excom m unicate and depose em perors, w hich certain
bishops have also done (thus Anselm of Lucca), o r as a sta te m e n t on
th e excellence of th e priesthood (th u s Ivo of C hartres), o r as an assertion
T h a t th e R om an pontiff excom m unicates kings who act u n ju stly
(th u s th e Collection o f Vatican lat. 3829).so
Y et th e full te x t o f G elasiuss le tte r to A nastasius was also accessible,
and by th e mid-1070s canonists had found it in Pseudo-Isidore. The
Collection in 74 Titlesth e earliest of th e surviving canonical collections
from th e R eform presented tw o im p o rta n t passages from th e letter,
an d placed them in a section bearing th e neu tral rubric On sacerdotal
au th o rity and royal pow er . One o f th e tw o concerned th e special
obligation o f obedience to th e R om an See.81 B ut th e o th er capitulum
was D uo s u n t , and th e re th e Collection in 74 Titles o m itted th e phrase
in th e reception and proper adm inistration of th e heavenly sacram ents
(sum endis caelestibus sacramentis eisque, ut competit, disponendis). Still,

since th e com piler retain ed th e phrase in th e sphere of religion ( reli
gionis ordine) , th e lim ited ch aracter of G elasiuss claim rem ained clear.82
T hus th e anonym ous can o n ist's omission did not tran sfo rm D uo s u n t"
into a sweeping assertion of ju risdiction over th e em peror,83 an d th ereb y
did n o t an ticip ate G regory's radical rein terp re tatio n in 1081.
A fter 1081, therefore, th ree versions of D uo su n t were circulating:
th e com plete te x t of th e le tte r o f A nastasius, chiefly in m an u scrip ts o f
Pseudo-Isidore; a b rief ex cerp t w ith a m inor omission in th e Collection
in 74 Titles; an d G regory's ingeniously edited q u o ta tio n .84 T he p o p u larity
of th e Collection in 74 Titles assured th e diffusion o f its sh o rt excerpt,
w hich passed into publicistic treatises an d o f course into o th er canonical
collections.85 In addition, w ithin his collection Anselm of Lucca placed a
long selection from th e P seudo-Isidorian version o f G elasiuss lette r,
beginning w ith th e D uo su n t sta te m en t, in th e section On th e pow er
and prim acy of th e Apostolic See . B u t .Anselm provided G elasius's
te x t w ith a rubric which clearly indicates th e new direction o f political
herm eneutics in th e Age o f Reform , a direction poin ted o u t b y Gregory
himself. As Anselm sum m ed it up, G elasiuss le tte r to A nastasius showed
T h a t th e w orld is ruled by th e a u th o rity of bishops an d by th e power
of kings, and th a t th e royal power m ust be subject to bishops .86 N o t
long th ereafter, D eusdcdit incorporated into his collection th e same
passage from th e le tte r to A nastasius, b u t gave it no exp lan ato ry ru b ric.87
In sh o rt, A nselm 's and D eusdedits collections n o t only increased th e
accessibility o f th e au th en tic G elasian te x t, b u t A nselm s also in terp reted
it as an argum ent echoing G regorys conception. Still, not everyone
agreed w ith Gregory and Anselm. In th e early or mid-1090s, Alger of
Liege took Duo su n t to m ean T h a t although th e tw o principal
powers are th e kingship and th e priesthood, nonetheless ju s t as priests
m ust be su b ject to kings in ea rth ly m a tters, kings m ust even m ore be
su b ject to priests in divine m a tte rs .88
Moreover, G elasiuss argum ent on C hrist's separation o f th e tw o
offices found a place in th e early canonistic trad itio n . B ut since Gela
siuss Tornus unlike th e le tte r to A nastasius did n o t ap p ear in the
Pseudo-Isidorian D ecretals, it could en ter th e collections only b y o th er
channels. Nicholas I provided such a route, for in a long an d angry
le tte r to th e B yzantine em peror Michael I I I , he quoted, w ith o u t a ttr i
bution and w ith a few m odifications, th e p ertin en t passage from th e
Tom us*9 B oth Anselm an d D eusdedit incorporated N icholass q u o tatio n
from th e Tomus into th e ir collections, where its au th o rsh ip was u n d er
stan d ab ly disguised behind N icholass nam e.90 A nd Anselm in terp reted
his su b stan tial excerpt from N icholass le tte r as an assertion T h at
em perors m ust obey bishops, not com m and th e m . In hi6 T ripartita,
Iv o o f C hartres ap p ro p riated a considerable p a rt o f th e G elasian te x t as

tra n sm itte d from N icholass le tte r, and presented it, u n d er N icholass
nam e, in th re e consecutive capitula: D enique h i" , Cum ad v eru m ,
an d Satis evid en ter . His rubrics in te rp re ted D enique h i an d Satis
ev id en ter as sta te m en ts exem pting th e clergy from ju d g m e n t b y th e
secular pow er, an d Cum ad veru m as an argu m en t for th e m utual
dependence o f em perors an d bishops.91 Also, om ittin g th e first sentence
o f Cum a d v eru m , Iv o published a tru n c a te d version o f its te x t
(beginning Q uoniam idem ) in b o th his Decretum an d his Tripartita.
In b o th , how ever, lie ascribed Q uoniam idem to C yprian, an d he
assigned it th e sam e m eaning th a t he h ad seen in Cum ad v eru m .92
T hro u g h o u t th is transm ission of th e G elasian te x t via N icholass
lette r, o f course, G elasiuss doctrine did n o t circulate u n d er his own nam e.
B u t a few others w ere fam iliar w ith th e te x t o f th e T om us, and knew
who h ad w ritte n it. In his collection, Alger o f Lieges concern w ith th e
problem s of heresy an d schism led him to include a dossier o f 20 capi
tula^ 19 o f th em G elasian, draw n from docum ents o f th e A cacian schism.
One o f these capitula w as D uo s u n t , a n d an o th er p resented, also
under G elasiuss nam e, a long excerpt from th e Tomus on C hrists
sep aratio n o f th e tw o offices.93 B u t w ith his a tte n tio n directed prim arily
to theological problem s, -Algers dossier evidently included th e tw o
G elasian sta te m e n ts on regnum an d sacerdotium as an incidental
b y -product of th is preoccupation. I n any case, Ivo o f C h artress au th o
rity proved m ore com pelling th a n A lgers, an d ap p ro p riatin g th e Tomus'*s
doctrine from Ivo, subsequent canonists associated it w ith N icholas I.
Because G regorys use o f D uo s u n t co n stitu ted so radical an d so
influential a rein terp re tatio n , a fte r 1081 one finds a sh arp b reak in th e
trad itio n . As we have seen, A nselm of Lucca viewed D uo 6 unt as a
hierocratic te x t. Among th e canonists, tw o of A nselm s contem poraries
also accepted G regorys explication o f th e G elasian sententia. F ro m th e
Collection in 74 Titles, B ernard of Ilildesheim to o k over th e tw o te x ts
which originally cam e from G clasiuss le tte r to A nastasius, D uo s u n t
an d th e capitulum on R om an prim acy, citing th em to argue th a n in his
defense o f ju stice, th e pope should spare no one, n o t even th e m ost
exalted o f persons.91 B ern ard 's friend and form er stu d e n t, B em old of
Constance, also found 74 Titles a useful source, for he tw ice published its
version of D uo s u n t to show th a t inonarchs arc su b ject to th e eccle
siastical pow er . A nd in b o th discussions, afte r q u o tin g D uo su n t
B em old ado p ted G regorys mode of argum ent, citing au th o rities for
th e Churchs rig h t to excom m unicate rulers and listing as exempla th e
excom m unications of various inonarchs.95 W ithin th e G regorian tr a
dition, th e re w ere also less radical uses for D uo s u n t an d th e Gelasian
sententia urging th e prim acy of Rom e. In 1112, for exam ple, a defender
of pope P aschal I I argued, from these tw o te x ts, th a t it 6 unlaw ful for

a m onarch to invest bishops w ith th e ir bishoprics.96
B u t an o th er cleric explored th e hierocratic possibilities o f Duo
su n t w ith striking rigor: O f th e 31 treatises w hich to g e th er are ascribed
to th e N orm an A nonym ous,97 one sho rt tr a c t argues th e G regorian posi
tion, an d th u s clearly does n o t fit into th e A nonym ouss otherw ise consis
te n t defense o f royal prerogative.98 T he tre a tise begins w ith th e briefest
possible q u o tatio n o f D uo s u n t , and th e rest o f th e tr a c t draw ing
on G regory's le tte r o f 1081 explicates D uo su n t . T hro u g h o u t th e
treatise, th e A nonym ous adhered uniform ly to his version o f G elasiuss
term s, co n trasting sacerdotalis auctoritas and regalis potestas. In its
relentless effort to prove th a t th e priestly auctoritas has a g rea ter and
more excellent prerogative (privilegium ) th a n th e royal potestas , th e
tre a tise developsan d occasionally goes beyondth e them es sta te d in
G regorys le tte r of 1081.99 T he A nonym ous gave prom inence to th e
priestly potestas ligandi et solvendi, certain ly a fam iliar G regorian them e,
an d to th e p riests pow er of dispensing salvation th ro u g h th e sa cra
m ents: b ap tism , penance, cucharist. T he priestly auctoritas can open
an d close heaven . Indeed, every priest is an angel o f th e L o rd , a
christus (th a t is, an anoin ted one an d v irtu ally C hrist ).100 In
co n tra st, th e royal potestas is a despised p rerogative in th e adm inis
tra tio n m erely of public affairs . T hen th e A nonym ous sum m ed up his
eulogy o f th e sacerdotium, and his argum ent for its su periority o ver th e
regnum :
Therefore, just as (the priestly auctoritas) is celestial and divine, it orders
and sanctifies the royal potestas, and it governs souls and bodies, and it works
powerfully in all of heaven and hell and the entire world. But as it is terrestrial
and corporeal, the royal potestas governs only bodies, and this imperfectly.
It has no power at all in heaven, and little enough in sonic narrow corner
of the earth. If we wish to compare this potestas with the priestly prerogative,
pale lead will be compared to brilliant gold. But it must also be said that the
king is the son of the holy Church, not the director (praesul); the pupil, not
the master; the subject, not (the ruler).101
In th e trea tise , it is diflicult to identify an y th in g th a t G regory w ould
seriously have disapproved. A nd though th e A nonym ouss tr a c t only
im plied an ecclesiastical rig h t to excom m unicate or depose ru lers,102 in
o th e r respects even G regory did n o t press his G elasian claim s so far.
A cleric o f Constance, activ e in th e 1070s an d 1080s, pursued a differ
en t line o f th o u g h t to express w hat th e G elasian dictu m m ight im ply
to a Gregorian. T he anonym ous clerics com m itm ent to th e R eform
an d in te rest in canon law led him to stu d y , an d to com m ent on, a m an u
script o f th e Collectio Quesnelliana. W hile reading G elasiuss le tte r to
A nastasius, which he encountered in th e Quesnelliana, he glossed the
32 La notion d'autorit au Moyen Agt
w ords auctoritas sacrata pontificum et regalis potestas w ith th e obser

vation: N ote th a t th e re are tw o august em perors (N o ta duos esse
imperatores augustosJ.103 H ere th e anonym ous canonist has evidently
in te rp re ted auctoritas pontificum as a reference to papal au th o rity , and
from G elasiuss sta te m e n t he inferred th a t th e Rom an pontiff is him self
an em peror. T he cleric could n o t have found this claim in G regorys
second le tte r to H erm an of Metz, an d indeed th e claim differs m arkedly
from th a t le tte rs argum ent on th e n a tu re and e x ten t o f papal au th o rity .
T hough it therefore does n o t m uch m a tte r wrh eth er th e cleric o f Con
stance com posed his gloss before or afte r 1081, his rvaluation of
G elasiuss sententia is com parable to G regorys tran sfo rm atio n o f th e
G elasian trad itio n : W ith his in te rp re tatio n o f D uo su n t , th e an ony
mous canonist reflected th a t new tendency, already visible in th e Reform
p ap acy during th e 1070s, to view th e R om an p ontiff as th e holder of
im perial prerogatives, or even as th e tru e em peror.1M
D espite these G regorian rvaluations, reform ers did n o t forget th e
original m eaning of D uo s u n t , as a defensive arg u m en t ag ain st lay
intrusion into ecclesiastical affairs. Surprisingly, th is trad itio n al in te r
p re ta tio n of D uo s u n t surfaced again in th e pap al chancery. In a
le tte r o f 1088 to king Alfonso of Leon an d Castile, U rban I I began by
p arap h rasin g Gelasius: T here are tw o things, king Alfonso, b y which
th is w orld is chiefly ruled, th e sacerdotal dignity and th e royal pow er ,
and explained th a t because of th e priesthoods responsibility for th e
king's soul, th e sacerdotalis dignitas is superior to th e regalis potestas.105
A fter congratu latin g Alfonso for th e reconquest o f Toledo, U rban
inform ed him th a t he had gran ted Toledo its ancient prim acy th ro u g h o u t
Spain. T hen th e pope rebuked th e king for his role in th e im prisonm ent
an d deposition of bishop Diego of Santiago de Com postela, com m anding
th a t Alfonso restore th e bishop to his see th ro u g h th e archbishop of
Toledo . Since U rban concluded w ith a vague th re a t, one m ay be
te m p te d to in te rp re t his invocation of th e G elasian form ida in G regorys
sense: as a justificatio n for th e exercise of papal jurisdiction over a
m onarch. B u t th e popes order to Alfonso aim ed only to draw a sharp
line betw een th e proper dom ains of regnum and sacerdotium, an d to
annul an a c t involving th e exercise of royal jurisdictio n over a p rela te.106
T hus his use of G elasiuss language served an essentially defensive p u r
pose, im plying no claim to jurisdictional au th o rity over th e regnum.
In a com parable w ay, v irtu ally from th e o u tbreak o f th e In v estitu re
Struggle, th e im perial defense incorporated Gelasian th o u g h t and lan
guage. In 1076, a fte r Gregory excom m unicated H enry an d suspended
his right to govern, H enry presented his case in a le tte r to th e Germ an
bishops: T he divine plan approved dualism (dualitas) as a general
principle of governance, a dualism subsisting in th e regnum and th e
sacerdotium. The tw o swords m entioned by P e te r in Luke 22:38 a n tic

ip ated an d typified this dualism o f regnum am i sacerdotium, o f th e
sp iritu al an d th e carnal sw ord , w hich should m aintain w ithin th e
Church a perfect harm ony and collaboration, each supp o rtin g th e
o th e rs claim to obedience.107 H ere, H enry clung conservatively to th e
Carolingian conception of kingship and priesthood functioning as coor
din ate pow ers w ithin th e ecclesia, an d indeed, th is featu re recurs in th e
pro-m onarchical w ritings. T hough th e striking te rm dualitas was new ,
th e language otherw ise reveals clear traces o f influence from Duo
su n t . B ut th e sp irit of H en ry s sta te m e n t is equally close to th e d octrine
of th e Tom us, stressing th e divinely decreed sep aratio n o f th e tw o
offices. F o r H en ry s central charge was precisely th a t G regory had
vio lated th e G elasian doctrine: he had arro g ated an d usurped for
him self b oth regnum and sacerdotium, th u s contravening tin* dualitas
ordained b y G od.108
G elasiuss influence reached its high-w ater m ark in th e early 1090s,
w ith th e Liber de unitate ecclesiae conservanda ,109 w hich elab o rated in
detail th e central idea in H en ry s le tte r o f 1076. Com posed by a m onk o f
H ersfeld, th e Liber de unitate not only argued th e m ost com pelling case
for th e im perial position, b u t also had a m ore profound grasp o f th e
G elasian doctrine, saw its full contours m ore clearly, th a n anyone
before th e late tw elfth cen tu ry . A t th e beginning o f Book 1, th e an o n y
mous au th o r sta te d his intention of replying to G regorys le tte r o f 1081,110
and in fact, im m ediately afte r quoting from th e lette r, he rem arked
ab o u t it: I f an edifying ch a rity h ad tem pered these w ords, th e discord
o f those by whom th e w orld should be ruled would indeed n o t have
hap p en ed . 111 T hen he set ab o u t refuting G regorys claim t ha t t he
Church can excom m unicato an d depose m onarchs, or dissolve o ath s of
fealty. Though he did not question th e a u th e n tic ity of th e trad itio n
th a t Ambrose h ad excom m unicated T heodosius, his account o f th e
incident differed sharply from G regorys: co n trastin g th e excom m uni
cations by Ambrose and G regory, he pointed o u t th a t A m brose had not
interfered with Theodosiuss im perial governance, w hereas Gregory
had caused schism. A nd he praised A m broses discretion , for his
action which was equally useful to th e Church an d to th e em peror
Theodosius him self th u s did not divide th e C hurch .112 A pplying
an historical critique, on th e o th er hand, th e monk of Hersfeld denied
th a t In n o cen t I h ad excom m unicated A rcadius.113 J u s t as crucially, he
subjected G regorys sum m ary of th e events o f 750-51 to a searching
scru tin y , and concluded th a t (a) in th e deposition of Childeric the
p ap acy s role was lim ited to mere consent; (b) th e Homan pontiff did
no t release the F ranks from th e ir fealty to Childeric, nor could he law
fully have misused his potestas ligandi et solvendi thus, since an o ath is
AUTORIT 2
indissoluble; an d (c) th e F ran k ish m agnates, ra th e r th a n th e pope,

elevated Pepin to th e kingship.114
I t was n o t enough to show th a t G regorys historical precedents
proved nothing. To d em o n strate th e canonical a u th o rity for th e th ree
precedents, G regory h ad presented his edited version o f D uo s u n t .
In reply to G regorys le tte r, th e au th o r of th e Liber de unitate assigned
to G elasius a conceptually central position w ithin his arg u m en t.115
T h ro u g h o u t th e trea tise , in fact, he quoted Gelasius 41 tim es, culling
te x ts from six o f G elasius6 works. To exploit G elasiuss au th o rity as
fully as possible, th e anonym ous m onk h ad an advan tag e over m ost
w riters on bo th sides of th e controversy. Since few canonists and polem
icists knew th e full te x t o f G elasiuss T om us, few were aw are th a t
G elasius h ad created th e arg u m en t on C hrists separatio n o f th e tw o
offices. B ut th e m onk o f H ersfeld h ad th e Tom us before him as he
w orked.116 T hough he perceived th a t th e tw o te x ts w ere conceptually
linked and closely com plem entary, he evidently found th e Tom us even
m ore p e rtin e n t to his them e th a n th e le tte r to A nastasius, for he quoted
six tim es (twice q u ite briefly, to be sure) from th e passage concerned
w ith C hrists separation o f th e offices.117 B oth D uo su n t an d this
passage from th e Tom us strongly influenced his diction a t various points,
b u t surprisingly he quoted D uo s u n t only once and th e n as a single
sentence introducing a q u o ta tio n from th e T om us.ns Much o f th e an o n y
m ous m onks arg u m en t becam e v irtu a lly a com m en tary on th e tw o
te x ts, for ta k e n to g eth er, th e y served as key au th o rities su p p o rtin g his
m ain propositions on regnum and sacerdotium: J o in tly ruling th e world,
b o th th e royal potestas an d th e pontifical auctoritas are divinely conferred,
an d it is a great heresy to resist G ods will by presum ing to g ran t th e
im perial office.119 Moreover, th e tw o powers are separate, equal, and
co o rd inate, each is suprem e in its own sphere, an d neith er m ay intervene
in th e o th e rs realm . Indeed, God alone can judge a m o n arch .120 These
propositions correspond to th e monk of H ersfelds m ain charges against
G regory: T hough as clerics G regory and his bishops should n o t involve
them selves in secular m a tte rs , th ro u g h th e ir usurpations th e y sought
to destroy th e divinely decreed order an d cooperation o f th e tw o
principal things by w hich th e w orld is governed .121 A nd th ey usurped
for them selves th e offices of bo th pow ers, since kingship plainly lies
w ith th e m or w herever th e y w ish .122 T hus th e G regorians refusal to
observe G elasian principles underlay th e schism w hich th e y created.
In F rance, D uo s u n t acquired a different nuance. Provoked to
w rite b y G regorys le tte r, soon a fte r 1102 H ugh o f F leu ry com posed a
treatise on th e royal pow er an d th e sacerdotal d ig n ity .123 H e began
th e first ch a p te r by quoting, and attack in g , G regorys rem arks on th e
sinful origin of kingship.124 D efending th e divine origin o f regnum and
sacerdotium alike,125 H ugh m aintained th e bishops* autonom y in v arious

respects, th e ir a u th o rity in m a tte rs of religion, and even th e su periority
o f th e ir dignitas over th a t of th e king. Indeed, th e re is a certain G elasian
to n e as H ugh repeatedly refers to th e tw o pow ers , b u t it is G elasian
language in th e Carolingian mode, for th e tw o powers to g e th er rule th e
C hurch.124 In H ugh's th o u g h t, e a rth ly governance reflects theological
principles, and th e stru c tu re of th e heavenly hierarchy. A fter a brief
discourse on th e T rin ity , Hugh freely p arap h rased th e G elasian form ula:
The principal powers by w hich this w orld is ruled are tw o, th e royal
an d th e p riestly . F or C hrist alone (as H ugh th e n explained, tliis tim e
in th e trad itio n deriv ing from th e T om us) can be a t th e sam e tim e king
an d p riest , w ith th e im plication th a t, in this regard, th e e a rth ly king
an d bishop hold separately these tw o pow ers which C hrist u n ited in
him self.127 The harm ony of kingship and priesthood in C hrists person
should serve as a model for th e relations o f regnum and sacerdotium.128
In a som ew hat different theological vein, H ugh sta te d th a t God the
F a th e r is g reater th a n C hrist b u t in rank or sequence, n o t by His
n a tu re (sed ordine, non natura). Sim ilarly, th e bishops who them selves
are less th a n th e king in ran k or sequence, b u t not in dignity ( ordine.
non dignitate) m ust be subject to him .129 Hence H ughs theological
simile: The king has th e image of God th e F a th e r, an d th e bishop th e
image o f C hrist. 130 The simile was an c ie n t,131 and surely did n o t please
contem porary reform ers. A lm ost 50 years earlier, cardinal H u m b ert o f
Silva Candida h ad parodied such politico-theological speculation by
p u ttin g a com parable m etap h o r in to a bishops m outh: T he R om an
pope is th e F ath e r, th e em peror is th e Son, and I, who run back an d fo rth
betw een th em , am th e H oly S pirit! 132 B u t th ere is a new elem ent in
H ughs otherw ise conservative argum ent: th e fusion of G elasian th o u g h t
an d language w ith a carefully m odulated royal theocracy.
H u g h s contem porary, th e N orm an A nonym ous, found more radical
uses for th e Gelasian sententia. In his defense of royal prerogative, th e
A nonym ous quoted D uo su n t th ree tim es,133 and borrow ed its language
a t o th er points. To in teg rate th e fam iliar form ula into his argum ent,
th e Anonym ous first h ad to explicate it in a special sense: b y referring
to th e w orld , he m aintain ed, Gelasius m eant th e holy Church w an
dering in th is w orld .134 W ith th is exegesis th e A nonym ous could
conclude th a t king and bishop ride jo in tly w ithin th e Church, an d could
therefore construe th e form ula as an a u th o rity against th e reform ers
efTorts to exclude royal dom ination of th e C hurch.125 C orrespondingly,
he sanctified governance in general: Indeed, th e power of ruling is
holy, an d rule itself is holy.130 A nd he saw th e kings ano in tm en t as a
liturgical transform ation, m aking him a christus an d a priest, ju s t as th e
bishops in vestiture renders him a king.
Kings are ordained in the church of God, and at the holy altar are conse
crated with sacred unction and benediction, so that they may have the power
to rule the Christian people, . . . which is the holy Church of God. . . . For
this purpose, also the episcopal order is instituted, and consecrated with
holy unction ami benediction, so that it too may rule the holy Church.137
I n sharing th e rule o f th e Church, both th e consecrated king an d th e
bishop are th e vicars o f C hrist and b ear C hrists im age .138 The
A nonym ous described th e royal accessionth a t is, th e em powering of
th e kingas an in v estitu re b y G od.139 C onsequently, it is scarcely
surprising th a t th e A nonym ous defended th e kings rig h t to invest
bishops, b u t regarded th e object of investitu re as solely th e possession
o f tem poral prop erties an d th e pow er to rule G ods people .140 In
th e act of handing over th e pasto ral stafr to th e fu tu re bishop, th e king,
to whom th e bishops were e n tru ste d by God, so th a t he m ay rule over
them . . ., conveys a p a rt o f this investitu re to th e bishops .141 Diffe
ren tly sta te d , th e A nonym ous conceived th e king's in v estitu re o f bishops
as a p artial tran sfe rone m ight even say: a subdelegation o f th e
governing prerogative delegated to him by Christ: from C hrist th e K ing to
th e ea rth ly king, from th e e a rth ly king to th e bishop. Because everyone
who rides can rightly be called a king, in th e bishops in v estitu re a
king is installed by a king, th e lesser by th e greater .142 T he episcopate
should therefore be considered a royal priesthood (regale sacerdotium),
w hich is derived from th e king , since th e bishop th u s has th e kings
power and office .143 W hen th e A nonym ous, a t this p o in t, again quoted
Duo s u n t , in th e co n tex t o f th e larger argum en t one sees th e full
m eaning w hich th e A nonym ous assigned to th e form ula: T ogether, th e
king (who is also a priest) and th e bishop (whose potestas m akes him also
a king) ride th e ecclesia, b u t th e king rules th e bishop. Insofar as th e
bishop governs, he has received his potestas from th e king in th e inves
titu re . B oth for king and for bishop, th ereb y , th e A nonym ous repudiated
th e G elasian principle firm ly separating th e tw o form s o f power. And
w hereas Gelasius h ad envisioned a horizontal and essentially nonhicrar-
chical relation betw een m onarch and bishops, th e A nonym ous conceived
a v ertical and stric tly hierarchical relation, w ith th e g reater g ranting
potestas to th e lesser.
T hree b rief conclusions will illu strate, from different perspectives,

th e crisis in th e history of th e G elasian doctrine.
F irst, even during th e late eleventh- and early tw elfth -cen tu ry reviv al
o f canon law , th ere were few w ho knew th e Tomus an d its au th o rsh ip ,
an d since th e Tom us's argum ent on th e separation o f th e offices was
generally ascribed to N icholas I , even fewer who saw th e links between
th e tw o te x ts. In short, Duo su n t rem ained an influential b u t isolated
sententia, lacking th e theological foundation which th e Tom us would

have provided. In this sense, during th e In v e stitu re Struggle th e full
G elasian doctrine on th e tw o powers h ad all h u t disappeared.
Second, new w ays of th o u g h t m odified perceptions o f th e pontifical
auctoritas w ithin th e citations an d applications o f th e G elasian du ality .
D uring th e Carolingian period, th e G elasian form ula was alread y com ing
to identify sim ply th e tw o principal loci o f governm ental power. G re
gory V II had in terp reted D uo su n t as an arg u m en t ju stify in g his
own conception of a radically enlarged potestas ligandi et solvendi. At
th e opposite end o f th e political spectrum , th e N orm an A nonym ous
saw th e sacerdotal auctoritas solely as th e governing potestas which royal
in v estitu re conferred on a bishop. In th is sense, during th e In v e stitu re
Struggle, even as th ey repeated th e trad itio n al distinction betw een th e
auctoritas pontificum and th e regalis potestas, m ost thinkers h ad tu rn ed
th e ir a tte n tio n tow ard th e form s of concrete governing pow er claim ed on
b eh alf o f th e pontifical auctoritas. T h a t is, during th e In v estitu re Struggle
reform ers and th e ir opponents were increasingly preoccupied w ith th e
bishops exercise of jurisdictional potestas and w ith th e p ap acy s new
claim s to potestas over th e secular world, b u t one could no longer locate
th e significant issues w ith a sim ple distinction betw een th e sphere of
public o rd er and th e sphere of religion , for in th e ordo religionis, as
Gelasius had defined it, few contested the C hurchs an cient h eritag e of
auctoritas.
And finally, in th e tw o decades following G regorys le tte r o f 1081,
th e G elasian trad itio n fragm ented. T h a t is, D uo s u n t becam e p o lit
ically indeterm inate. S tartin g from more or le6S th e sam e prem ises th a t
is, from a version of G elasiuss sententiacanonists a n d publicists dis
covered th a t one could draw widely divergent conclusions: hierocracy,
dualism , or royal theocracy. T hus we can discern a t least th ree herm e
neutic trad itio n s, each appealing to G elasiuss au th o rity and claim ing
to be Gelasian in its in terp retatio n of Duo s u n t . In p a rt, this in d e ter
minacy sim ply reflects th e fragm entation of earlier political trad itio n s
during th e In v estitu re Struggle, and th e polarizing bittern ess o f its
conflicts. B ut in p a rt it illustrates th e continuing value of an ancient
au th o rita tiv e te x t, its rem arkable susceptibility to rein terp retatio n and
to fresh applications in a new age. G elasiuss te x ts rem ained au th o rita tiv e
in th e political th o u g h t of th e tw elfth century. Indeed, D uo s u n t
m ay have been quoted as often in the tw elfth ce n tu ry as in all previous
centuries. B ut in th e tw elfth cen tu ry , hierocrats and dualists alike would
appeal to th e same sententia, for there was no longer a coherent Gelasian
trad itio n , no longer a single Gelasian doctrine.
NOTES
1. jk 632; E. S c h w a r tz cd., Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma,
Abh. Akad. Mnchen, 1934, No. 10, Munich, 1934 (hereafter: S c h w a r tz ) , 20. The
abbreviations used throughout are common to most medieval journals.
2. Percy Ernst Schram m , Kaiser, Knige und Papste, 4 vols, in 5 parts, Stuttgart,
1968-71, 1.73: man kann nun die ganze weitere mittelalterliche Staatstheorie auf-
gliedern unhand dieses Satzes.
3. The only monograph on the Gelasian tradition is, unfortunately, quite unsatis
factory: Lotte K n a b e , Die gelasianische Zweigeicaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Jnves-
titurstreits, Historische Studien 292, Berlin, 1936.
4. On another occasion, I hope to reexamine some themes which could receive only
cursory treatment here.
5. jk 632; S c h w a r tz , 20.5-16.
6. This school of interpretation is especially indebted to Erich C a sp a r, Geschichte
ties Papsttums, 2 vols., Tubingen, 1930-33 (hereafter: CP), 2.63-73, 753-58. But Caspar
also saw in the text the Keim des Hierarchischen (2.68-70).
7. The view that Gelasius was a thoroughgoing hicrocrat has been most vigorously
argued by Walter U llm a n n , The Growth o f Papal Government in the Middle Ages,
3rd ed., London, 1970, 14-28, 462f, 478, maintaining the same interpretation as the
first edition (London, 1955). See Friedrich Ke.mpf, Die papstliche Gewalt in der mit-
telalterlichen Welt: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Walter Ullmann, Saggi storici intorno
al papato, Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 21, Rome, 1959, 117-69 at 166f; Giuseppe
M a r tin i, Alcune considerazioni sulla dottrina gelasiana, Bullettino delTIstituto storico
italiano, 75, 1963, 7-21. U llm a n n s recent study, Der Grundsatz der Arbeitsteiiung
bei Gelasius I., Hislorisches Jahrburh 97-98. 1978, 41-70, came to my attention too late
for consideration here.
8. But cf. U llm a n n , Growth 20f.
9. E. J. J o n k e h s . Pope Gelasius and Civil Law, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 20,
1952, 335-39; Janet L. N e ls o n , Gelasius I s Doctrine of Responsibility, Journal of
Theological Studies, n.s. 18, 1967, 154-62 at 158-60.
10. C a sp a r, GP 2.65f, 753; Francis D v o rn ik , Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anas-
tasius I, BZ 44, 1951 (-- Festschrift Franz Dlger), 111-16 at 113f.
11. C a sp a r, GP 2.66f, 753-58; Leo I, ep. 118, PL 54.1040, alsoep. 156.3, PL 54.1130.
12. Wilhelm E n s s lin , Auctoritas und Potestas: Zur Zwcigcwaltenlehrc des Papstes
Gelasius I., Hislorisches Jahrbuch 74, 1955, 661-68.
13. To evaluate Gelasius style and thought, cf. the letter of pope Symmachus,
clumsily paraphrasing Duo sunt ( j k 761; S c h w a r tz . 154.31-155.10).
14. jk 7 0 1 ; S c h w a r tz . 14.5-23. Scholars often cite the Tomus as Tractatus IV,
the name assigned to it in the older edition by Andreas T h ie l, Epistolae Romanorum
pontificum genuinae 1, Braunsberg, 1868, 557-70. In its surviving form the Tomus
is a set of fragments put together in false sequence, but Gclasiuss authorship cannot
be doubted; C a sp a r, GP 2.755L
15. Gen. 14:18; cf. also Ps. 109:4, and Heb. 5:10, 7:11.
16. W\ E n s s lin , Gottkaiser und Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden, SB Akad. Mnchen,
1943, No. 6, Munich 1943, 67-77, 93-108.
17. j k 622, jk 6 1 1 (S c h w a rtz . 16.8-11, 46.22); C a sp a r, GP 2.72L
18. jk 632 ( S c h w a rtz , 19.27).
19. W. E n s s lin , Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Theodosius d. Gr., SB Akad. Mn
chen, 1953, No. 2, Munich, 1953, 73.
20. JK 664 (recensio longior), Otto GnthF.R, ed.. Collectio Auellana, CSEL 35,
Vienna, 1895-98 (hereafter: G n th e r ) , 390.18-21, No. 95.
21. Rudolf S c h i e f f e r . Von Mailand nach Canossa: Kin Beitrag zur Geschichte
der christlichen Herrscherbusse von Theodosius d. Gr. bis zu Heinrich IV., DA 28.
1973, 333-70 at 344f, 363.
22. F o r som ew hat different in terp retatio n s, cf. E n s s lin , Ilistorisches Jahrbuch 74,
1955, 663: S c h i e f f e r , DA 28, 1973, 344f.
23. Cf. N e ls o n , Journal o f Theological Studies, n.s. 18, 1967, 155 esp. n. 2.
24. jk 6 6 4 ; G l n t i i e r , 389.18-390.7. The Churchs aspiration to the privilegium
fori began in the fourth century; C a sp a r, GP 1.136 n. 3, 206f.
25. j k 665; S chwartz , 28.35-29.1.
26. jk 6 1 1 ( S c h w a rtz , 35.30-36.4); though issued under Felixs nam e, it circulated
in manuscripts as a Gelasian letter.
27. For an example, see U llm ann , Grotcth 20, 22f.
28. Ep. 21 c. 36, PL 16.1061.
29. U llm a n n , Growth 18, 22f, citing earlier litera tu re.
30. Cf. N e ls o n , Journal of Theological Studies, n .s. 18, 1967, 160: JK 611 a ttrib u te s
to th e pope . . . th e rig h ts an d obligations of a paterfamilias .
31. JK 381 (Celestine I, ep. 21, PL 50.529): C a sp a r, GP 1.386.
32. JK 601 ( S c h w a rtz , 82.20). written for Felix III (484).
33. Neumanns Ilandlexikon zu den Quellen des rmischen Rechts. 9th ed. rev.
E. S e c k e l, Jena, 1907, 197f; Adolf B e r g e r , Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 43.2, Philadelphia, 1953, 465.
34. JK 622; S chw artz , 18.36-19.4.
35. The claim to the privilegium fori ( j k 664: G u n t h e r , 389.18-390.7) may consti
tute an exception to this statement.
36. D v o rn ik , BZ 44, 1951, 113-15; E n s s lin . liistorisches Jahrbuch 74, 1955. 663.
37. D v o r n ik , BZ 44, 1951, 115.
38. jk 761; S chwartz , 154.31-155.10.
39. j k 744 ( T h ie l, ed.. Epistolae 1.620); C a sp a r, GP, 2.82f.
40. D v o r n ik . B Z \ \. 1951, USf.
41. ENSSLIN, Historisches Jahrbuch 74, 1955, 665.
42. C a sp a r, GP, 2.66-73.
43. j e 2483; MGH Epistolae 5.51.29-33.
44. The few Carolingian texts discussed here were selected to represent the key
features of the ninth-century tradition. There is no satisfactory account of Gelasiuss
influence on Carolingian political thought and ecclesiology. But one can gain a notion
of its extent from the many references in Hans Hubert A n to n , Fiirstenspiegel und
Ilerrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit, Bonner historische Forschungen 32, Bonn, 1968.
45. Concilium Parisicnse 1.3, MGH Concilia 2.6l0f, No. 50D. On Jonas and the
synod of Paris, see A n to n , Fiirstenspiegel, 204-18.
46. F u l g e n t i u s , De veritate praedestinationis et gratiae Dei 2.38, PL 65.647.
47. Tilman STRUVE, Die Entwicklung der organologischen Staalsauffassung im
Mitlelalter, Stuttgart, 1978, 93-95.
48. De institutione regia c. 1, ed. J . R e v ir o n , Les ides politico-religieuses d'un
vque du IX e sicle : Jonas d'Orlans et son De institutione regia , Paris, 1930, 134f.
49. j e 2796; MGH Epistolae 6.475.34, No. 88.
50. Gerhart B. L a d n e r. The Concepts of Ecclesia and Christianitas and their Rela
tion to the Idea of Papal Plenitudo potestatis from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII,
Sacerdozio e regno da Gregorio V il a Bonifacio V III, Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 18,
Rome, 1954, 49-77 at 50f; also, the older study by Heinrich L i l i e n f e i n , Die
Anschauungen von Staat und Kirc.he im Reich der Karolinger, Heidelberg, 1902, 22-45.
51. Synod of Thionville (Diedenhofen) and Yutz c.2, MGH Capitularia 2.114,
No. 227.
52. Synod of Fismes c. 1. PL 125.1071.

53. Many scholars have noted Gelasiuss role in the Investiture Struggle. A few
examples: Gerd TELLENBACn, Church, State, and Christian Society at the Time of the
Investiture Contest, trans. R. F. B e n n e t t , Oxford, 1940, 158f: Gottfried K o ch , A u f
dem Wege zum Sacrum imperium: Studien zur ideologischen Ilerrschaftsbegriindung der
deutschen Zentralgewalt im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert, Vienna, 1972, 45f, 63f; and most
recently, I. S. R o b in so n , Authority and Resistance in the Investiture Contest, Manchester,
1978, 135-39, 142-44.
54. Paul HlNSClllfS, cd.. Decretales Pseudo-1sitiorianae et Capitula Angilramni,
Leipzig, 1863, 639-41.
55. MGH Heinrici II. Diplomata 468, No. 366 (1017).
56. Disceptatio synothilis inter regis advocatum et Romanae aecclesiae defensorem.
MGH LdL 1.93; ep. 3.6. 4.9, 7.3, PL 144.294, 315, 440. Seeesp. J. Joseph R y a n , Saint
Peter Damiani and his Canonical Sources, Toronto, 1956, 81-83, 90-92, 94, 105f.
57. Diuersorum patrum sententie (hereafter: 74T), 41.227, ed. J . T . GlLCliRlST,
Monumenta iuris canonici. Corpus glossalorum 1, Vatican City, 1973, 142.
58. Horst F u h rm a n n , Cher den Reforingeist der 74-Titel-Summlung (Diversorum
patrum sententiae), Festschrift Jir Hermann Heimpel, 3 vols., Gottingen, 1971-72,
2 . 1101- 20 .
59. Reg. 1.19 ( j l 4790), 7.25 ( j l 5168), ed. E. C a sp a r. Das Register Gregors V II.,
MGH Epistolae selectae 2. Berlin. 1920-23 (hereafter: C a sp a r), 31.505f. From the wording
of these two letters, L a d n e r (in Sacerdozio e regno. 51f) suggests that in 1073 Gregory
still accepted the Carolingian concept of ecclesia, hut had abandoned it by 1080. Even
in the letter of 1080, however, the Gelasian language points toward the old ideal of
collaboration between the two dignitates. The two letters deserve more discussion than
is possible here.
60. Reg. 8.21 ( j l 5201), ed. C a sp a r, 546-63. Gregorys second letter to Herman
elaborates, and adds much to. the arguments of the first ( j l 5000: Reg. 4.2, ed. C a sp ar,
293-97).
61. C a sp a r, 547.18-20.
62. C a sp a r, 553.14-22.
63. Ca spar , 552.13-553.2.
64. C a sp a r, 553.23-554.15.
65. C a sp a r, 554.3-11. On the history of this text. Edward P e t e r s . 7'he Shadou
King: Rex inutilis in Medieval Late and Literature. 751-1327, New Haven, 1970, 39-45,
118-34.
66. C a sp a r. 555.1-9; Gregory had used the quotation with the antithesis plumbum-
aurum in his first letter to Herman (Reg. 4.2, cd. C a sp a r. 296), and repeated it in a
reproachful letter to William the Conqueror ( j l 5254; Reg. 9.37, ed. C a sp ar, 631).
The pseudo-Ainbrosian textwhich merits further studycan be found, under Gerbert
of Aurillacs name, in PL 139.169-78 a t 170f; for the scholarly literature, see
S c h i e f f e r , DA 28, 1973, 363. n. 132, and esp. George 11. WILLIAMS, The Golden Priest
hood und the Leaden State: A Note on the influence of a Work Sometimes Ascribed
to St. Ambrose: the Sermo de dignitate sacerdotali. Harvard Theological Revietv 50,
1957, 37-64.
67. On the juridical meanings of the two depositions, John G i l c h r i s t , Gregory VII
and the Juristic Sources of his Ideology. Studia Gratiano 12, 1967 ( Collectanea Stephan
Kuttner 2), 3-37 at 29-36.
68. Reg. 3.6*, 7.14 No. 7, ed. C a sp a r. 253f, 483-87.
69. Ca spar , 555.10-14.
70. In a letter of April 1078, the Saxons made this point to Gregory; B ru n o , Saxo-
nicum bellum c. 108. cd. H.-E. L oiim ann, MGH Deutsches Mitlelulter 2, Leipzig. 1937,97.
71. C. R. Ch en e y and W. H. S em p le, ed.. Selected Letters of Pope Innocent I I I

concerning England. London. 1953, 64, No. 21. But cf. C a sp a r, GP 2.70f, who misin
terpreted Innocent** argument as referring solely to the remission or retention of
sins, and therefore somewhat misleadingly stated that Gelasius considered the emperor
dependent on pontiffs *ratione peccati**.
72. For help of various kinds on the canonists* transmission of Gelasian texts. I
am extremely grateful to Stephan Kuttner and Charles McCurry.
73. On the connections between canon law and the Reform, sec the recent account
by R o b in s o n . Authority and Resistance, esp. 39-49.
74. Carl E rd m a n n , Die Anfange der staatlichen Propaganda im Investiturstreit.
HZ 154. 1936, 491-512 at 503-05.
75. On the diffusion of the text, see C a sp a r. 544-46: Carl M ir b t. Die Publizistik
im Zeitalter Gregors V II.. Leipzig. 1894, 22-26. 98f. surveys the reactions to the letter
in the polemical treatises.
76. John G i l c h r i s t . The Reception of Pope Gregory VII into the Canon Law
(1073-1141), ZRG Kan. Abt. 59, 1973, 35-82 (hereafter: G i l c h r i s t ) at 69-72.
78-82.
77. Anselm, Collectio canonum 1.80, ed. F. T h a n e r . In n sb ru ck , 1915, 53-55; Deus-
d edit. Collectio canonum 4.184, ed. V. W o lf v o n G l a n v e l l . P ad erb o rn , 1905, 489-91:
Polycarpus 1.20.11 ( G i l c h r i s t . 46).
78. Decretum 5.378, PL 161.437f; Panormia 5.109. PL 161.1235f: Tripartita 3.9.23
(Paris, Bibliothque nationale lat. 3858B. fol. 152vb).
79. G ilchr ist , 44. 48, 52. 59f.
80. A nselm , Coll, canonum 1.80, ed. T h a n e r , 53: Tripartita 3.9.23 (P a ris. Bibl.
n a t. la t. 3858B, fol. 152vb); Vatican lat. 3829. fol. 278r (GiLcnRiST, 48).
81. 74T 41.228, ed . G i l c h r i s t , 142.
82. 74T 41.227, ed . G i l c h r i s t , 142.
83. Cf. R o b in s o n , Authority and Resistance, 138: W'ith the omission, the sententia
suggests that the emperor is subject to the sacerdotium in all matters concerning the
Church**. Not quite: it suggests that the emperor is subject in the ordo religioniswhich
was, after all, Gelasius*s point.
84. To trace in full detail the canonical transmission of Gelasius*s textsor even
merely of the letter to Anastasius and the Tomuswould require a separate study.
Here wc are concerned only with the large outlines of the transmission.
85. In the Prolegomena (lxxxvii, n. 16) to his edition of 74T. G i l c h r i s t hus promised
a study of 74T's influence during the period 1076-1141.
86. Anselm, Coll, canonum 1.71, ed. T h a n e r . 38f.
87. Dcusdedit, Coll, canonum 4.49, ed. W o l f v o n G l a n v e l l , 422f.
88. Liber de misericordia et iustitia 3.70 rubr., PL 180.96If. Formerly dated ca. 1105,
the Liber de misericordia has been convincingly assigned to the period just before the
influence of Ivo*s collections was felt; Nicholas M. H a r in g . A Study in the Sacra men-
tology of Alger of Liege, Mediaeval Studies 20, 1958, 41-78 at 41f.
89. JE 2796; MGH Epistolae 6.454-87, No. 88 (865) at 485f. On the transmission
of this and other letters by Nicholas to the canonists of the late eleventh century,
see Ernst P e r e l s , Die Briefe Nikolaus I.: Die kanonistische berlieferung, IVeues
Archiv 39, 1914, 45-153.
90. Anselm, Coll, canonum 1.72, ed. T h a n e r , 39-48 at 48; T h a n e r did not identify
the Gelasian authorship o f this passage. Deusdedit, Coll, canonum 4.172, 173, ed. WOLF
v o n G l a n v e l l , 482f.
91. Tripartita 1.62.6, 7, 8 (Paris, Bibi. nat. lat. 3858B, fols. 63vb-64ra).
92. Decretum 4.188, PL 161.307; Tripartita 3.16.18 (Paris, Bibi. nat. lat. 3858B,
fols. 147vb-148ra).
93. Liber de misericordia 3.65 (Tomus), 3.70 ( Duo sunt ), PL 180.960-62.

94. Liber canonum contra Heinricum quartum c. 22, MGH LdL 1.492, appropriating
74T c. 227 (with a minor change) and c. 228. Cf. also Liber canonum c. 25, MGH LdL
1.495-98, on precedents and authorities for the excommunication of princes.
95. Apologeticae rationes contra scismaticorum obieetion es, and De solutione iura-
mentorum; MGH LdL 2.97, 148.
96. Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papae. MGH LdL 2.663. The text follows Pseudo-
Isidore, rather than 71T.
97. On these brilliant and enigmatic treatises, the book by George H. W illia m s,
The Norman Anonymous o f 1100 /ID, Harvard Theological Studies 18, Cambridge,
1951, remains fundamental. The only complete edition is by Karl P e l l e n s , Die Texte
des normannischen Anonymus, Wiesbaden, 1966 (hereafter: P e l l e n s ) .
98. Text of j1 0: P e l l e n s , 76-79; W illia m s, Norman Anonymous, 223f. The possible
explanations for jlOs contradictory doctrine are: (a) It was a scholastic exercise by
the Anonymous fiir seine Schiiler ( P e l l e n s , 76, n. 2). But if so, what were the other
30 tracts? (b) The sole surviving ms of the tracts was, like Bruxelles ms 5576-604, a
miscellaneous collection of Streitschriften by various authors (R o b in so n , Authority
and Resistance, 145). But the Anonymouss style is unmistakable throughout the tracts,
including J 10. (c) Consequently, jlO cannot simply be as W illia m s suggested ( Norman
Anonymous, 35f)a fragmentary exemplar of a lost Gregorian work mistakenly
copied into the ms. (d) As some earlier scholars have proposed, here the Anonymous
could have summarized the Gregorian position for future refutation, since his other
tracts attack most of the points made in jlO. Though (d) remains the most plausible
suggestion, the problem needs further study.
99. W illia m s , Harvard Theological Revietc 50, 1957, 56-59; also th e notes by P e l -
l e n s , 76-78.
100. In Reg. 9.37 ( j l 5254), ed. C a sp a r, 631, Gregory described sacerdotes as christi,
but in his letter of 1081 he did not apply the term to the priesthood.
101. jlO ( P e l l e n s , 78f; W illia m s , Norman Anonymous 224); see W illia m s, Harvard
Theological Revietv 50, 1957, 58. The antithesis filius-praesul comes from Gelasius
( j k 611; S c h w a r tz , 35.31), misidenlified by both W illia m s and P e l l e n s . This passage
appears at the end of the tract, which breaks off with an incomplete sentence.
102. jlO ( P e l l e n s , 76; W illia m s , Norman Anonymous 223). Suggesting the priest
hoods right to judge and condemn monarchs, here the Anonymous has implicitly
ascribed to the sacerdotalis auctoritas what Gregory in 1080 explicitly ascribed to
St Peter and St Paul: the right to take away and to grant empires, kingdoms, and
principalities at will (Reg. 7.14a, ed. C a sp a r, 487).
103. Johanne AuTENRiETH, Die Domschule von Konstanz zur Zeil des Investiturstreits,
Forschungen zur Kirchcn- und Gcistcsgcschichte n.s. 3, Stuttgart, 1956, 47. For a
characterization of Anonymus A (Al'TENRiETns name for the author of the gloss),
see ibid., 143-68. The gloss appears on fol. 105r of the Quesnelliana ms at Einsiedeln,
Stiftsbibliothck, 191.
104. On the imperialization of the papacy in this period: Schram m , Kaiser, Knige
und Ppste, 4.1.57-102; U llm a n n , Groulh, esp. ch. 10.
105. j l 5367; PL 151.289. Here Urban used the verb antecedere, which could indicate
a superiority of rank or dignity, without jurisdictional implications.
106. Cf. R o b in s o n , Authority and Resistance 138, who considers the passage ten
dentious . But see Alfons B e c k e r, Papst Urban II. (1088-1099), MGII Schriftcn 19
(2 parts), Stuttgart, 1964- , 1.227, who rightly explains Urbans assertion of authority
as ganz im geistig-moralischen Bereich .
107. Carl E rd m a n n , ed.. Die Briefe Heinrichs IV ., MGII Deutsches Mittelalter 1,
Leipzig, 1937, 19, No. 13; the dictator responsible for this letter was Gottschalk of
Aachen. With its innovative treatment of the important and problematic two swords
motif, his statement deserves a more extended analysis than this study permits.
108. For a different view of the letters ecclesiology, cf. U llm ann , Growth, 345-48.
109. Text: MGH LdL 2.184-284. For a selective list of the pertinent scholarly litera
ture: Werner A PFBLD T, Konigserhebung Pippins und Unlosbarkeit des Eides im I.iber
de unitate ecclesiae conservanda, DA 25, 1969, 313-46 at 313f, n. 3. The Liber de
unitate may have influenced Sigebert of Gembloux; Jutta Bei'MANN, Sigebert von
Gembloux und der Traktat de investitura episcoporum, Vortrage und Forschungen.
Sonderband 20, Sigmaringen, 1976, 60-75. But apart from this, the work apparently
remained unknown to contemporaries.
110. Liber de unitate (hereafter: Ldu), 1.1, MGH LdL 2.185.16. Though the author
mentions scripta , he evidently used only the letter of 1081.
111. Ldu 1.3, ibid., 186.36L
112. Ldu 1.8, ibid., 194.28-195.26; S c u i e f f e r , DA 28, 1972, 365f.
113. Ldu 1.8-9, 2.15, MGH LdL 2.195.42-199.11, 228.34-39.
114. Af f e l d t , DA 25, 1969, 313-46.
115. On Gelasiuss influence: Zelina Z a f a r a n a , Ricerche sui Liber de unitate
ecclesiae conservanda , Studi medievali, ser. 3o, 7, 1966, 617-700 at 691-97.
116. The editor, W. S c iiw e n k f.n b e c iie r, had understandable difficulties in distin
guishing between the authors close paraphrases and his often rather free quotations.
For some additions to and a correction of the editors identifications, see Z a f a r a n a ,
Studi medievali, ser. 3o, 7, 1966, 691. n. 1: two excerpts attributed to Gclasius in the
Ldu are of uncertain origin. The authors other principal authorities were Augustine
(quoted slightly more often than Gelasius), Cyprian, and Gregory I (both cited less
frequently). Though direct use of the Tomus was rare, the Ldu was not the oidy
publicistic treatise that cited it; but cf. Z a f a r a n a , 693, n. 13. As surmised by Z a f a r a n a ,
664, it is likely that the author found the text in the Collectio Quesnelliana.
117. The passage in the Tomus is relatively short ( S c h w a rtz , 14.5-23): Ldu 1.3,
MGH LdL 2.186.39-187.1: Ldu 2.15. ibid. 225.45-226.8, 230.11-13, 230.21-25, 230.25-34;
Ldu 2.26, ibid. 248.26-29. In addition, the author quoted five times from other parts
of the Tomus.
118. For the quotation of Duo sunt : Ldu 2.15, ibid. 225.44f; the subsequent
quotation from the Tomus follows without a break. For echoes of Duo sunt : Ldu 1.3,
ibid. 186.36f, 187.2f; Ldu 2.15, ibid. 228.40f, 231.6-8. One could easily cite as many
examples of the Tomus*s influence.
119. Ldu 2.20, ibid. 237.3f.
120. Ldu 1.12, 12, ibid. 200f. 204.
121. Ldu 2.15, 2.26, ibid. 231.6-8, 248.23L
122. Ldu 2.15, ibid. 230.35-37.
123. Tractatus de regia potestate et sacerdotali dignitate, MGH LdL 2.466-94. Hughs
use of the duality regia potestas and sacerdotalis dignitas (prol., ibid. 466.21) is itself
an adaptation from the Gelasian tradition; see Urban l l s diction in JL 5367.
124. De regia potestate 1.1, MGH LdL 2.467.25-28.
125. Idem 2.1, ibid. 483.9f, 485.7L
126. Idem prol., 1.13, 2.1, ibid. 466.20f, 482.1-6, 483.9-20, 485.10L
127. Idem 1.2, ibid. 468.22-24. Though there are no grounds for assuming that
Hugh had read the Tomus, he was evidently familiar either with Nicholas 1*6 text
borrowed from the Tomus, or more probably, with Peter Damianis reworking of the
same idea (which he almost certainly took from Nicholas) in his Disceptatio synodalis
(MGH LdL 1.93).
128. De regia potestate prol., MGH LdL 2.466.34-38.
129. Idem 1.2, ibid. 468.18-22; prol.. ibid. 466.27L
130. Idem 1.3, ibid. 468.27-37.

131. It can be traced back to Ambrosiaster in the fourth century; Ernst H. K an -
to r o w ic z . The King's Tuo Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, Princeton,
1957, 89, n. 7, 91, 161.
132. Adversus simoniacos 3.21, MGH LdL 1.225.281.
133. In jlO, however, he based a diametrically opposed position on Duo sunt*.
134. j28, MGH LdL 3.684.45-685.2 ( P e l l e n s . 222). For an almost identical text:
j24, MGH LdL 3.663.25-28 ( P e l l e n s , 198). The wording of the Gelasian quotations
is the same as in jlO.
135. j2 4 , j2 8 , MGH LdL 3.663.42f, 684.43-45 ( P e l l e n s , 199, 222).
136. j2 4 , MGH LdL 3.668.42-669.2 ( P e l l e n s , 137).
137. j24, MGH LdL 3.663.14-25 ( P e l l e n s , 198).
138. j24, MGH LdL 3.664.12f ( P e l l e n s , 199). The complex christological aspects of
the Anonymouss argument can be mentioned here only in passing; see W illia m s,
Norman Anonymous, 127-32, 161-85, and K a n to r o w ic z , King*s Two Bodies, 42-61.
139. j2 8 , MGH LdL 3.685.33-37 ( P e l l e n s , 224).
140. j24, j28, MGH LdL 3.667.41-668.29, 685.40-42 ( P e l l e n s , 135f, 224). But the
investiture confers neither ordo nor ius sacerdotii nor sacerdotales gratiaethat is,
no sacramental powers. The Anonymous denied that a bishops regalian jurisdiction
(acquired through his investiture by the king) can be distinguished from a purely
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Note his claim that the claves regni cetorum pertain more
to the king than to the bishop, and his discussion of the power of the keys (j24,
MGH LdL 3.672.11-44; P e l l e n s , 145f); W illia m s , Norman Anonymous, 192f. For just
as the Anonymous insisted that governance over souls cannot be separated from
governance over bodies (j24. MGH LdL 3.663.29-664.3; P e l l e n s , 198f), he asserted that
there is only one form of potestas in king and bishop alike, and therefore only one key .
141. j2 8 , MGH LdL 3.685.38-40 ( P e l l e n s , 224).
142. j2 4 . MGH LdL 3.667.27-29 ( P e l l e n s , 135); W illia m s, Norman Anonymous,
182-85.
143. j24, MGH LdL 3.668.29-33 ( P e l l e n s , 136). On the episcopate as a sacerdotium
regale, see R. L. B e n so n . The Bishop-Elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office,
Princeton, 1968, 297-302.
SUMMARY
The concepts of auctoritas and potestas and the doctrine of the separation
of powers appear in the writings of Pope Gelasius I (492-496), then in the
Gelasian tradition of thought and language from the eighth to the twelfth
centuries. Though the original meaning of Gclasiuss doctrine was not for
gotten, during the next two decades thinkers also used Gclasiuss writings
to justify papal theocracy and royal theocracy.
RSUM
Les concepts d'auctoritas et de potestas ainsi que la doctrine de la sparation
des pouvoirs apparaissent dans les crits du pape Glase I er (492-496). On les
retrouve ensuite dans la tradition de pense et le langage glasiens du
v m e jusqu'au XIIe sicle. Bien que le sens originel de la doctrine glasienne
n ait pas alors t oubli, les penseurs des deux dcennies suivantes utilis
rent les crits de Glase pour justifier la fois une thocratie papale et une
thocratie royale.

The Gelasian Doctrine: Uses and Transformations

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Gelasian Doctrine: Uses and Transformations

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Gelasian Doctrine:

Uses and Transformations

In 494, pope Gelasius I w rote a long le tte r to th e em peror A n asta

sk etch th e tran sfo rm atio n of G elasius's ideas in th e Carolingian period,

In his le tte r to A nastasius, Gclasius*s rem ark ab o u t th e bishops*

T hough some o f th e m disagree on p articu la r aspects o f G elasius's

potestas, th e auctoritas is holy: it is sacrata. T he episcopal auctoritas

In D uo s u n t , one can discern G elasius's conviction th a t th e pon

of pontifex m axim us. B ut Melchizedek h ad prefigured C hrist, th e tru e

resistance to a m onarch by a high p relate: A m broses im position of

th e y should have com plained to th e em peror, he asserted an d this

Such a sta te m e n t can be read and, in th e la te r M iddle Ages, was

su b ject to bishops. B ut in th e form er assertion, Gelasius was discussing

Gelasiuss doctrine in th e Tomus.39 A nd o th er voices a tte s t th a t th e six th

J u s t as th e A cacian schism inspired th e form ulation of Gelasiuss

G elasian m undus and its in stitu tio n al co u n terp art, th e C hristian R om an

p riestly character. Still, llin ciiiar did n o t draw th e final consequence

T hough rarely cited betw een th e early te n th ce n tu ry an d th e acces

as one o f his excerpts,57 and th e re is no reason to believe th a t he in te r

T o say th e least, th e omission is tendentious. Gelasius h ad asserted

trea ch e ry , m u rd er finally, in p ractically all of th e w orld's crim es ,

o f Childerics deposition and th e o ath s of fealty, G regory ex ten d ed th e

T h ro u g h out th e second half of th e eleventh ce n tu ry an d th e re afte r,

n o t only com piled canonical collections b u t also w rote publicistic tre a

(sum endis caelestibus sacramentis eisque, ut competit, disponendis). Still,

Iv o o f C hartres ap p ro p riated a considerable p a rt o f th e G elasian te x t as

of pope P aschal I I argued, from these tw o te x ts, th a t it 6 unlaw ful for

w ords auctoritas sacrata pontificum et regalis potestas w ith th e obser

sacerdotium. The tw o swords m entioned by P e te r in Luke 22:38 a n tic

indissoluble; an d (c) th e F ran k ish m agnates, ra th e r th a n th e pope,

sacerdotium alike,125 H ugh m aintained th e bishops* autonom y in v arious

T hree b rief conclusions will illu strate, from different perspectives,

sententia, lacking th e theological foundation which th e Tom us would

52. Synod of Fismes c. 1. PL 125.1071.

71. C. R. Ch en e y and W. H. S em p le, ed.. Selected Letters of Pope Innocent I I I

93. Liber de misericordia 3.65 (Tomus), 3.70 ( Duo sunt ), PL 180.960-62.

130. Idem 1.3, ibid. 468.27-37.

Você também pode gostar

In his le tte r to A nastasius, Gclasiuss rem ark ab o u t th e bishops