Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:04:39.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. East and West in 1054

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

Richard Mayne
Richard Mayne
Affiliation:
Trinity College
Get access

Extract

At about 8 a.m. on Saturday, 16 July 1054, mass was being prepared in the church of Santa Sophia in Constantinople. The congregation was gathering; priests, deacons, and acolytes were assembled in the choir. Then, quite unexpectedly, three strangers—three Papal legates—entered the church. Passing through the nave, they made their way to the high altar, where they stopped to address the congregation in a few words of Latin or ill-spoken Greek. Turning, they placed upon the altar a strange document that one of them was carrying; then, in silence, they went back to the doors. Pausing in the narthex, they cried aloud the words: ‘Videat Deus et judicet!’—and with that they passed from the church. For a moment, there was confusion within. One of the subdeacons picked up the document and flung it to the ground; but then, as anger gave way to curiosity, it was recovered and carried to the patriarchal palace. Here, upon examination, it proved to be a bull of deposition and anathema directed against the Patriarch himself.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , 1954 , pp. 133 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Will, C., ed. Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo undecitno composite extant (Leipzig, 1861)Google Scholar, [Brevis et succincta] Commem[oratio], cap. iii, pp. 151b16–152a9; Edictum [pseudosynodi Constantinopolitanae (Σημείωμα)], ibid. pp. 161ff.

2 Bréhier, L., Le schisme oriental du XIe siècle (Paris, 1899).Google Scholar

Michel, A., ‘Praedestinatus, eine ungenannte Quelle Kardinal Humberts im Kampfe gegen Kerullarios’, in Festgabe Alois Knöpfler, ed. Gietl, H. and Pfeilschifter, M. (Freiburg, 1917), pp. 240–7Google Scholar; ‘Bestand eine Trennung der griechischen und römischen Kirche schon vor Kerullarios?’, H[istorisches] J[ahrbuch], xlii (1922), pp. 1–11Google Scholar; ‘Der Verfasser des Briefes Leos von Achrida. Eine Vätersammlung des Michael Kerullarios’, B[yzantinisc]-n[eugriechische] J[ahrbücher], iii (1922), pp. 49–66Google Scholar; ‘Die jährliche Eucharisten nach dem Bildersturm’, Oriens Christianus (Neue Folge), xii (1925), pp. 151–61Google Scholar; ‘Humbert und Kerull[arios]’, Quellen und Forschungen der Goerresgesellschaft, xxi and xxiii (Paderborn, 1924 and 1930)Google Scholar; ‘Die Accusatio Kanzlers Friedrich von Lothringen (Papst Stephan IX) gegen die Griechen’, R[ömische] Q[uartalschrift], xxxviii (1930), pp. 153–208Google Scholar; ‘Die grosse Kirchenspaltung’, Der Christliche Orient (Munich, 1930), pp. 8ffGoogle Scholar. (disowned by its author in art. cit. owing to editorial alterations); ‘Verstreute Kerullarios- und Humbert-texte’, R.Q. xxxix (1931), pp. 355–76Google Scholar; ‘Die Fälschung der römischen Bannbulle durch Michael Kerullarios’, B.-n.J. ix (1932), pp. 293–319Google Scholar; ‘Von Photios zu Kerullarios’, R.Q. xli (1933), pp. 125–62Google Scholar; ‘Die vier Schriften des Niketas Stethatos über die Azymen’, B[yzantinische] Z[eitschrift], xxxv (1935), pp. 308–36Google Scholar; ‘Die Anticipation des Paschamahles im Schisma des XI. Jahrhunderts’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, ii (1936), pp. 155–63Google Scholar; ‘Die Botschaft Petros’ iii von Antiocheia an seine Stadt über seine Ernennung’, B.Z. xxxviii (1938), pp. 111–18Google Scholar; ‘Amalfi im griechischen Kirchenstreit’, Attidel V. Congresso Internationale di Studi Bizantini, 1936 (Rome, 1939), i, pp. 32–40Google Scholar; Amalfi und Jerusalem im griechischen Kirchenstreit 1054–90, vol. cxxi of Orientalia Christiana Analecta (Rome, 1939)Google Scholar; ‘Lateinische Aktenstücke und Sammlungen zum griechischen Schisma (1053–4)’, H.J. lx (1940), pp. 46–64Google Scholar; ‘Ein Bischofsprozess bei Michael Kerullarios’, B.Z. xli (1941), pp. 447–52Google Scholar; ‘Die Echtheit der Panoplia des Michael Kerullarios’, Oriens Christianus, xxxvi (1941), pp. 168–204Google Scholar; ‘Die Rechtsgültigkeit des römischen Bannes gegen Michael Kerullarios’, B.Z. xlii (1942), pp. 193–205Google Scholar; ‘Die byzantinische und römische Werbung um Symeon II von Jerusalem (1085–6)’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte (1943–4), pp. 173ff.; ‘Die Friedensbotschaft Grados an Antiochen im Schisma des Kerullarios (1053–1054) und ihr Widerhall’, St[udi] Greg[oriani], ii (1947), pp. 163–88Google Scholar; ‘Sprache und Schisma’, Festschrift Kardinal Faulhaber (Munich, 1949), pp. 37–69Google Scholar; ‘Der Kampf um das politische oder petrinische Prinzip der Kirchenführung’, Festschrift zum Chalcedonense (1951); ‘Die römischen Angriffe auf Michael Kerullarios wegen Antiocheia (1053–4)’, B.Z. xliv (1951), pp. 419–27Google Scholar; ‘Die Weltreichs-und Kirchenteilung bei Rudolf Glaber (1044)’, H.J. lxx (1951), pp. 53–64Google Scholar; ‘Der kirchliche Wechselverkehr zwischen West und Ost vor dem verschärften Schisma des Kerullarios (1054)’, Ostkirchliche Studien, i (1952).Google Scholar

The conclusions of Fr Jugie's many studies are synthesized in his Le schisme byzantin (Paris, 1941).

3 Escorial Vita Leonis IX papae, c. 7, ed. Tritz, H., ‘Die hagiographischen Quellen zur Geschichte Papst Leos IX’, St. Greg., iv (1952), pp. 191–364 (361 f.)Google Scholar; Kerull[arios] Ep. spec. ad Petr. Ant. c. 4 (Will, op. cit. p. 175); Edictum, x (Will, p. 167).

4 Leo, Ep. 1 ad Cerul. cc. 19 and 29 (Will, pp. 76b and 80b); Excomm[unicatio] (Will, p. 154a).

5 Leonis Achridani Ep. (ed. Will, pp. 56–60).

6 Leo, Ep. 1 ad Cerul. (ed. Will, pp. 65–85). On authorship, Michel, Humbert und Kerull. 1, pp. 44ff.

7 Humberti cardinalis dialogus (ed. Will, pp. 92–126).

8 Leo, Ep. ad Const. Mon. (ed. Will, pp. 85–9, 85a18 and 88a32); Leo, Ep. 2 ad Cerul. (ed. Will, pp. 89–92, 92b26); cf. Kerull. Ep. spec, ad Petr. Ant. c. 3 (Will, p. 174).

9 Humbert, Rationes (ed. Michel, Humbert und Kerull. i, pp. 97–111) 101,21 for Bari synod. For Leo's work, in Cod. Brux. 1360, ff. 172v–173v, cf. Michel, op. cit. ii, pp. 292–4 and Vita Leonis IX, lib. ii, c. ix on Leo's ‘libellum…luculentissimum’. The most useful, although imperfect, edition of the Vita Leonis is that of Watterich, J. M., Pontificum Romanorum Vitae, i (Leipzig, 1862), pp. 127–70.Google Scholar

10 Cf. Michel, Humbert und Kerull. ii, pp. 298ff.

11 Cf. the order of precedence in the Excomm. (Will, p. 153), the Commem. (Will, p. 150), and the bull of 10 June 1053 (Kehr, It[alia] Pont[ificia], vii, p. 250, no. 16); also Vita Leonis IX, lib. ii, c. ix. Against this, only Kerull. (Ep. Encycl. Will, p. 187 and Ep. spec. Will, p. 175), Leo Casinensis (Chronicon, ii, 85; M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica], SS vii 686), Lampert of Hersfeld (M.G.H. SS v 155), Bonitho (Watterich, op. cit. 1, p. 104), and Pantaleo of Amalfi (ed. Michel in Exkurs ii, pp. 52–4, of Amalfi und Jerusalem.‥, all favouring Frederick: but he did not rise to the cardinalate until 14 June 1057 (Kehr, It. Pont. viii, p. 138, no. 77).

12 Chronicon Casinense, ii, 83; M.G.H. SS vii 686.

13 Cf. Runciman, S., ‘The first crusaders' journey across the Balkan peninsula’, Byzantion, xix (1949), pp. 207–21Google Scholar, and the sources there cited.

14 Leo, Ep. ad Const. Mon. (Will, p. 89a2–11); Commem. (Will, pp. 151b3, 152b8); Kerull. Ep. spec. ad Petr. Ant. c. vi (Will, p. 177, 5); Chronicon Casinense, ii, 88 (M.G.H. SS vii 686).

15 Cf. Michel, Humbert und Kerull. ii, pp. 298–342 (texts, pp. 320–42); ‘Die Vier Schriften…’, pp. 308–36.

16 Contradictio (Will, pp. 136–50); Latin version of Niketas, ibid. pp. 126–36; for alternative ending of Contradictio, cf. Michel, ‘Verstreute…Texte’, pp. 355–76 (366–74).

17 Commem. (Will, pp. 150–1); Michel, ‘Die Accusatio…’, pp. 153–208.

18 Commem. (Will, pp. 151–2); imperial edict quoted by Kerull. in Edictum (Will, pp. 166–7); on dating, cf. Will, pp. 167–8 with Michel, ‘Die Fälschung…’, pp. 293–319, and especially p. 296 n. 1.

19 Will, pp. 150–4. On Humbert's authorship, cf. Michel, ‘Lateinische Aktenstiicke…’, pp. 46–64. A brief draft of the Commem. in Cod. Brux. 1360, ff. 176–176v is ed. by Michel, ‘Verstreute…Texte’, p. 375.

20 Ed. J. B. Bury, 2nd ed. (London, 1900–2), vi, p. 368 and n. 7.

21 For Bréthier, cf. n. 2, supra; Jugie, op. cit. p. 233 (but with many reservations); Laurent, V., ‘Le Schisme de Michel Cérulaire’, Échos d'Orient, xxxi (1932), pp. 97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fliche, A., La Réforme Grégorienne, 1, La Fórmation des idées Grégoriennes (Louvain, 1924), p. 280Google Scholar; Norden, W., Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903), p. 28Google Scholar; Vasiliev, A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire, 2nd Eng. ed. revised (Oxford, 1952), pp. 338–9Google Scholar; Ohnsorge, W., Das Zweikaiserproblem im früheren Mittelalter (1947), p. 77Google Scholar; Michel, passim.

22 Neumann, C., Die Weltstellung des byzantinischen Reiches vor den Kreuzzügen (Leipzig, 1894), p. 103 n. 1Google Scholar: ‘sogenannte Schisma’.

23 ‘The Byzantine Empire in the eleventh century: some different interpretations’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, xxxii (1950), pp. 71–85Google Scholar; and especially p. 74 n. 2, citing Bloch, H., ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West in the earlier Middle Ages’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, no. 3 (Cambridge, Mass., 1946), pp. 163–224 (191)Google Scholar, and Wellesz, E., A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxford, 1949), p. 140.Google Scholar

24 Holtzmann, W., ‘Studien zur Orientpolitik des Reformpapsttums und zur Entstehung des ersten Kreuzzuges’, Historische Vierteljahrschrift, xxii (1924–5), pp. 167–99Google Scholar; ‘Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I und Papst Urban II im Jahre 1089’, B.Z. xxviii (1928), pp. 38–67Google Scholar; Leib, B., Rome, Kiev, et Byzance à la fin du XIe siècle (Paris, 1924)Google Scholar; Deux inédits byzantins sur les azymites au début du XIIe siècle (Rome, 1924)Google Scholar; ‘L'eglise byzantine au XIe et XIIe siècles’, Byzantion, ii (1925), pp. 607–14Google Scholar; ‘Rome vue de Byzance au Xle siècle’, Byzantion, ii (1926), pp. 233–40Google Scholar; Herman, E., ‘Le cause storiche della separazione della Chiesa Greca secondo le più recenti richerche’, La Scuola Cattolica, lxviii (1940), pp. 128–39Google Scholar; ‘I legati inviati da Leone IX nel 1054 a Constantinopoli erano autorizzati a scomunicare il patriarca Michele Cerulario?’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vii (1942), pp. 209–18Google Scholar; Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates (Munich, 1940), p. 237Google Scholar (but with reservations); Obolensky, D., ‘Russia's Byzantine Heritage’, Oxford Slavonic Papers, i (1950), pp. 37–63Google Scholar. Cf. also nn. 2 and 23, supra.

25 Cf. Holtzmann, art. cit. and n. 24, supra.

26 Every, G., The Byzantine Patriarchate (London, 1947), pp. 159ff.Google Scholar

27 Michel, passim, and especially ‘Von Photios zu Kerullarios’, pp. 125–62.

28 E. Amann, ‘Rome et Constantinople’, lib. i, cap. v of L'Église au pouvoir des laïgues (888–1057) (Fliche, A. and Martin, V., ed., Histoire de l'Église, vii (Paris, 1948), pp. 111–52, 135)Google Scholar.

29 Michel, ‘Von Photios zu Kerullarios’, pp. 133 ff.; Dvornik, F., The Photian Schism, History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948).Google Scholar

30 Le schisme byzantin, pp. 344–5.

31 E.g. P. Peeters, reviewing Michel, Humbert und Kerull. ii, in Analecta Bollandiana, xlix (1931), PP. 169–72 (171); Every, op. cit. p. 56.

32 Bréhier, op. cit. pp. 217ff.; Jugie, op. cit. pp. 47ff.; Bloch, art. cit. (n. 23 supra); Every, op. cit. pp. 159ff.

33 Titles employed by Norden and Amann respectively, loc. cit. (nn. 21 and 28, supra).

34 Bréhier, op. cit. pp. 63ff.; Michel, passim; Every, op. cit. p. 173 n. 1.

35 Skylitzes (Cedrenos, Synopsis Historiarum), J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeco-Latina, cxxii, col. 264; Psellos, Michael, Ἐνκωμιαοτικὸς εἰς τὸν πατριάρχην ΜιΧαὴλ τὸν Κηρουλλάριον ed. Sathas, K. N., Μεσαιωνικὴ βιβλιοθήκη, iv (Paris, 1874), pp. 303–87 (312–20).Google Scholar

36 Σύνοψις χρονική, ed. Sathas, op. cit. vii, 164; Psellos, op. cit. p. 324; Πρὸς τὴν σύνοδον κατηγορία τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, ed. Breéhier, , ‘Accusation du Patriarche Michel Cérulaire devant le synode’, Revue des études grecques, xvi (1903), pp. 375–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar and xvii (1904), pp. 35–76; Leo, Ep. 2 ad Cerul. (Will, 90a26); cf. Hussey, J. M., Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1937), pp. 138ff.Google Scholar

37 Bréhier, op. cit. pp. 93 ff.; Jugie, op. cit. pp. 443 ff.; Amann, op. cit. p. 140; Michel, ‘Der Verfasser…,’ pp. 49–66; Leo, Ep. 1 ad Cerul. (Will, pp. 68 a 5, 84 b 15); Ep. 2 ad Cerul. (Will, pp. 91 835, 91 b 31); Humbert, Contradictio, cap. ii (Will, pp. 137 b 23); Commem. (Will, pp. 151 b 10); Vita Leonis IX, lib. ii, cap. ix, Watterich, ii, p. 105.

38 Cf. Excomm. (Will, p. 154 b 7ff), and especially Cod. Brux. 1360, ff. 176–176v with Kerull.'s Encycl. (Will, pp. 184–8); also Humbert, Commem. (Will, p. 152 a 5); and Michel, ‘Die Fälschung…’, pp. 293–319. A correct translation appears, however, in the Edictum (Will, pp. 161–5).

39 Edictum (Will, p. 160, 28); Kerull. Ep. spec, ad Petr. Ant. (Will, p. 175, 5); Ep. Encycl. (Will, p. 185, 16). Like Humbert, he took care to anathematize only his particular opponents (Edictum, Will, p. 168, 6). On his previous disputes with Argyros, Ep. spec, ad Petr. Ant. cap. vii (Will, p. 177, 20ff).

40 E.g. Every, op. cit. pp. 171ff.; Runciman, S., A History of the Crusades, i (Cambridge, 1951). p. 97.Google Scholar

41 Ed. Graf, G., ‘Die Eucharistielehre des Nestorianers Al-Muḫtār Ibn Buṭlān’, Oriens Christianus, xxxv (1938), pp. 44–70, 175–91Google Scholar; preface, pp. 50ff.

42 Psellos, , Chronographia, ed. Renauld, É. (Paris, 1926–8), i, p. 121, 3.Google Scholar

43 Cf. Leonis Achridani Ep. (Will, p. 56a4); Kerull. Ep. spec, ad Petr. Ant. (Will, p. 174, 27); Petr. Ant. Ep. ad Cerul. (Will, pp. 202, ii, 204, 22).

44 Panoplia, ed. Michel, Humbert und Kerull., ii, pp. 41–281; on authorship, Michel, ‘Die Echtheit…’, xxxvi, pp. 168–204; cf. n. 41, and Psellos in nn. 35 and 36, supra.

45 Cf. n. 9, supra.

46 For Leo, Cod. Brux. 1360, ff. 172v–173v (cf. Michel, Humbert und Kerull. i, p. 45); for Frederick, Fragmentum Disputationis, (Will, pp. 254–9, re-ed. Michel, ‘Die Accusatio…‘, pp. 153–208).

47 Advanced independently by myself and by Tritz, H., ‘Die hagiographische Quellen, etc.’, in St. Greg. iv (1952), pp. 191–364.Google Scholar

48 Libri adversus Simoniacos, ed. Thaner, in M.G.H. Lib. de Lit. i, Fragmenta de S. Romana Ecclesia, ed. Michel, in Schramm, P. E., Kaiser, Rom, und Renovatio (Leipzig, 1929–), ii, pp. 97–111.Google Scholar

49 JL 4304, in Migne, Pat. Lat. cxliii, p. 727, no. 83. On authorship, cf. Michel, , Die Sentenzen des Kardinals Humbert, das erste Rechtsbuch der päpstlichen Reform (Leipzig, 1943)Google Scholar, Exkurs i, pp. 184–90. A comprehensive study of Humbert's Chancery work is now in progress.

50 Ep. ad Euseb. Brun. ed. Francke, K. in ‘Zur Characteristik des Cardinals Humbert von Silva Candida’, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, vii (1882), pp. 614–19.Google Scholar

51 Kerull. Ep. spec, ad Petr. Ant. cap. vi (Will, p. 177).

52 Cf. Ostrogorsky, op. cit. p. 235.

53 On the distinction, cf. especially Bloch, R., ‘Die Klosterpolitik Leos IX. in Deutschland, Burgund, und Italien’, Archiv für Urkundenforschung, xi (1930), pp. 176ff.Google Scholar

54 Cf. Herman, art. cit.; Haller, J., Das Papsttum, ii (1939), part ii, p. 284Google Scholar; Every, op. cit. p. 172; Ullmann, W., ‘Cardinal Humbert and the Ecclesia Romana’, St. Greg., iv (1952), pp. 111–27Google Scholar, discussing the Fragments De Sancta Romana Ecclesia in Schramm, op. cit. ii, pp. 120–36.

55 Cf. Dialogus, cap. 29 (Will, p. 106b15): ‘salva ergo, ut dignum est, reverentia corporis Domini nostri Jesu Christi et in fermentato et in azymo…’. The Excommunicatio attacks only the symbolism of the Greeks: ‘sicut Manichei inter alia, quodlibet fermentatum fatentur animatum esse.’ Cf. Vita Leonis IX, loc. cit.: ‘haeresis fermentaceorum, quae calumniatur sanctam Romanam sedem, immo omnem Latinam et Occidentalem Ecclesiam, de azymis vivificum Deo offerre sacrificium.’ In this respect, as on the question of beards, Kerullarios unjustly charged the Latins with an intolerance which was his own. Cf. n. 38, supra.

56 Cf. Leo, Ep. ad Petr. Ant. (Will, pp. 168–71 and Michel, Humbert und Kerull. ii, pp. 458–75), which although it includes the Roman creed (with the filioque), nevertheless praises as ‘sanam et catholicam atque orthodoxam’ Peter's own confessio fidei, from which the filioque is lacking (ed. Michel, op. cit. pp. 446–57). Later, however, in the Rationes, the Accusatio, and the Excommunicatio, the question was to assume more prominence.

57 The reference to ‘digamus’ in the Ep. ad Petr. Ant. (Will, p. 170a27), which Michel (op. cit. p. 425) regards as condoning Peter's previous marriage, is an allusion to I Tim. iii. 2, and carries little weight in face of the Excommunicatio, etc.

58 Bréhier, op. cit. p. 113; Herman, art. cit.; Runciman, op. cit. i, p. 97; cf. also n. 54, supra.

59 Cf. Herman, art. cit. p. 211 and n. 3. As Michel has pointed out (‘Die Rechtsgültigkeit…’, p. 194), the Excommunicatio undoubtedly had episcopal, even if not Papal, force: cf. Gregory the Great, Hom. in evang. i, 26, no. 6; Ps-Isidore (Ps-Urban, i, capp. 7 and 8, ed. P. Hinschius (Leipzig, 1863), p. 145; Diversorum sententiae Patrum, Tit. 81 (Michel, A., Die Sentenzen des Kardinals Humbert, das erste Rechtsbuch der päpstlichen Reform (Leipzig, 1943), p. 142, no. 3).Google Scholar

60 Michel, ‘Lateinische Aktenstücke…’, pp. 53ff.; Herman, art. cit. pp. 216ff.

61 Against Herman, art. cit. pp. 213–14; cf. Michel, ‘Die Rechtsgültigkeit…’, p. 205; Kerull. Ep. spec. adPetr. Ant. cap. vi, Will, p. 177. On Hildebrand, cf. Peter Damian, Ep. 3, 4 ad Heinr. Ravenn. (Migne, Pat. Lat. cxliv, col. 292; Chronicon Casinense, ii, 98 and iii, 12, in M.G.H. SS vii 694, 704).

62 Kerull. Ep. spec. ad Petr. Ant. cap. iii, Will, p. 174, 15.

63 Comment, cap. iii (Will, pp. 151–2); cf. Vita Leonis IX, lib. ii, cap. ix: ‘Itaque gloriosus apostolicus libellum composuit luculentissimum adversus iam dictas praesumptiones et nimias vanitates eorum, conatus illos ad viam veritatis adducere; sed postmodum incorrectos ecclesiastico damnavit anathemate’-followed by relevant excerpts from the Comment., supra. Cf. nn. 3 and 47, supra.

64 Excomm. (Will, p. 153a16).

65 Commem. loc. cit. and Vita Leonis IX, loc. cit.

66 Cf. n. 39, supra.

67 Cf. n. 39, supra.

68 Cf. n. 3, supra.

69 Cf. JL 4334 and JL 4335, in O. von Heinemann, Codex Diplomaticus Anhaltinus (Dessau, 1867–), i, pp. 104–5. The datum of a third document from this period (between 12 February and 19 April 1054), is printed by A. Brackmann, ‘Papsturkunden des Nordens, Nord- und Mittel-Deutschlands’, Nachr. v.d. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. z. Göttingen, Phil. hist. Kl. (1904), p. 121, no. 3. None of these is exactly or even conventionally dated, and the cursus of the first two differs markedly from the normal. Cf. n. 49, supra.

70 Commem. Will, pp. 151b3, 152b8. Cf. n. 14, supra.

71 Cf. n. 18, supra: ‘in osculo pacis accepta orthodoxi imperatoris licentia donisque imperialibus Sancto Petro et sibi.’ According to the Chronicon Casinense (Petrus Diaconus interpolating Leo, M.G.H. SS vii 686), the ‘licentia’ granted to Monte Cassino an annual rent of two pounds in gold. The document itself may be no. 144 in the as yet unpublished Registrum Petri Diaconi; cf. H. Bloch, art. cit. (n. 23, supra), p. 191 n. 88. The Chronicon also records that some of the Emperor's gifts were stolen from the legates by the Count of Teate: but a carved agate said to have been brought back from Constantinople by Humbert was in the possession of the abbey of St Aper in Toul until 1684, when it passed into the Cabinet du Roi at Versailles. Cf. Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Inscriptions, 1, i (1717), p. 276, with an engraving of the stone.

72 Cf. n. 65, supra.

73 Vita Leonis IX, cap. x and xi. On date, cf. Tritz, art. cit. pp. 219–29, and J. May, Zur Kritik mittelalterlicher Geschichtsquellen, i (Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Gymnasiums Offenburg, 1888–9), pp. 4ff.

74 Chronicon Casinense, iii, 9 (M.G.H. SS vii, 701).

75 Despite the monumental work of Michel, A., Papstwahl und Königsrecht oder das Papstwahlkonkordat von 1059 (Munich, 1936)Google Scholar, and ‘Das Papstwahlpactum von 1059’, H.J. lix (1939). pp. 291–351Google Scholar, and the study by H. Bloch cited in n. 23 supra, the whole problem of the Norman alliance, its relation to the Election Decree, and Humbert's part in both, has yet to be systematically explored.