Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:04:36.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Excommunication and Territorial Politics in High Medieval Trier

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Brian A. Pavlac
Brian A. Pavlac
Affiliation:
Assistant professor of history and director of the University of Notre Dame Innsbruck Program, Innsbruck, Austria.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In medieval German history excommunication, when considered at all, is usually examined from the perspective of the conflicts between empire and papacy, such as that between Pope Gregory VII and King Henry IV. Like the pope, the bishops of the German Empire were armed with the power to excommunicate. Excommunication therefore figured in local, regional politics, especially in the creation of territorial principalities within the German Empire. Territorial principalities formed during the High Middle Ages when the kingship weakened, and various powerful lords, secular and spiritual, began to build states which eventually gained near-autonomous status within the empire. When a secular dynastic lord struggled to expand his dominion over land and people, he often encroached upon church lands. To defend their churches bishops could and often did excommunicate their perceived oppressors. These regional conflicts were complicated by the dual role of prince-bishops: spiritual princes of the church and secular princes of empire. In competition with the lay nobility, prince-bishops were expanding their own secular dominions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 20 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1991

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. One early study on papal-imperial relations is Lea, Henry C., Studies in Church History: The Rise of the Temporal Power—Benefit of Clergy—Excommunication (Philadelphia, 1869),Google Scholar which describes many of the royal and papal conflicts over excommunication. See also Eichmann, Eduard, “Das Exkommunikationsprivileg des deutschen Kaisers im Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 32 (1911), pp. 160–194.Google Scholar A recent major study is by Vodola, Elizabeth, Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Los Angeles, 1986),Google Scholar who almost exclusively cites examples from English and French sources (see p. 163, n. 19). See also a brief summary by Logan, Donald F., “Excommunication,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Strayer, Joseph R. (New York, 1984), vol. 4, pp. 536–538.Google ScholarLogan, Donald F., Excommunication and the Secular Arm in Medieval England: A Study in Legal Procedure from the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Century (Toronto, 1968), p. 13,Google Scholar n. 3, notes that “not much modern work has been done on the history of excommunication.”

2. Lea, , Studies in Church History: Excommunication, p. 398,Google Scholar “Thus, in Germany the ecclesiastic was fully armed with both the spiritual and the temporal sword, and those who were obdurate to fear punishment in the life to come could easily be coerced into subjection by the secular penalties consequent upon disobedience.”

3. Hill, Rosalind, “The Theory and Practice of Excommunication in Medieval England,” History, New Series 42 (1957): 11,CrossRefGoogle Scholar notes how by the thirteenth century, in the church's “determination to maintain law and order, bishops used the sentence of excommunication so freely that at last it degenerated from a tremendous spiritual sanction into a minor inconvenience.” Logan, Excommunication and the Secular Arm in Medieval England, substantially concurs. But England, with its advanced royal, secular legal system, is hardly comparable with Germany, where in the ecclesiastical principalities the churchmen ran the courts. Goebel, Julius Jr, Felony and Misdemeanor: A Study in the History of Criminal Law (1937; reprint ed.Philadelphia, 1976), p. 266,CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 174, notes that in clarifying excommunication, “distinctions must be drawn in terms of regions and nature of immediate political control. To our knowledge this has never been done.” Indeed, the lack of other studies makes it hard to compare the archbishops of Trier's use of excommunication with neighboring prelates. In general though, they were typical of contemporary prince-bishops.

4. The biographies are edited in the Gesta Treverorum, ed. G. Pertz, vol. 8 of Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, (Hannover, 1847), pp. 175–260Google Scholar (hereafter cited as G. Trev.), and Gesta Treverorum, ed. Waitz, G., vol. 24 of Monumente Germaniae Historica Scriptores (Hannover, 1879), pp. 376–463Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Gesta Tr.). (The Monumenta Germaniae Hisiorica, Scriptores is hereafter cited as MGH SS.) Most of the documents are collected in Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Mittelrheinischen Territorien, Beyer, Heinrich, Eltester, Leopold, and Goerz, Adam, eds., 3 vols. (Coblenz, 1860–1874; reprint ed., Hildesheim, 1974)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as MRUb), and summarized in Milletrheinische Regesten: oder chronologische Zusammenstellung des Quellenmaterials für die Geschichte der Territorien der beiden Regierungsbezirke Koblenz und Trier in kurzen Auszügen, 4 vols. (Coblenz, 1876–1886; reprint ed. Aalen, West Germany, 1974)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as MRR); further documents are printed in Urkunden-und Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der altluxemburgischen Ten itorien bis zur burgundischer Zeit, vol. 1, ed. Wampach, Camilio, 10 vols. (Luxembourg: Druck und Verlag der St. Paulus Druckerei, 1935).Google Scholar

5. On the history of excommunication see: Hofmeister, Philip, “Die Excommunicatio regularis,” Zeitschrifi der Savigny-Stifiung für Rechtsgesthichte, kanonistische Abteilung 77 (1960), esp. pp. 136–138;Google ScholarGommenginger, Alfons, “Bedeutet die Exkommunikation Verlust der Kirchengliedschaft: eine dogmatisch-kanonistiche Untersuchung,” Zeitschnft für Katholische Theologie 73 (1951): 34–42, 48,Google Scholar describes some of its history; Helmholz, Richard H., “Excommunication as a legal Sanction: the Attitudes of Medieval Canonists,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kanonistische Abteilung 99 (1982): 204–212,Google Scholar lists the major canonistic opinions; Mirbt, Carl, Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 201–210,Google Scholar describes excommunication as defined during the Hildebrandine period; Vodola, , Excommunication, pp. 22–25,Google Scholar surveys the Gregorian changes. Logan, , “Excommunication,” p. 536,Google Scholar sees the Gregorian Reform as beginning a third phase when excommunication would also discipline and coerce Christians to obey the church.

6. Goebel, , Felony and Misdemeanor, p. 263.Google Scholar The emphasis as a medicinal treatment comes late in the high Middle Ages, Vodola, , Excommunication, p. 137.Google Scholar

7. Hyland, F. E., Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development and Effects (Washington, 1928), pp. 22, 25, and 38,Google Scholar where, following the canonists, he legalistically categorizes the prohibitions on the company and commerce with other Christians: 1. any voice greeting or sign or written note; 2. prayer; 3. marks of external friendship; 4. daily intercourse or association in business matters; 5. constant association in society. Hinschius, Paul, Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland, vol. 5 (1869–1897; reprint ed., Graz, Austria, 1959), p. 5.Google Scholar On anathema see Hinschius, , Kirchenrecht, pp. 7–9;Google ScholarHyland, , Excommunication, pp. 22–25;Google ScholarVodola, , Excommuniction, pp. 24–25.Google Scholar

8. This attitude often allowed people who appealed excommunications not to recognize their validity, since “God would maintain their innocence.” But it might increase time in purgatory; Vodola, , Excommuniction, p. 45.Google Scholar

9. Lea, , Studies in Church History, p. 318;Google ScholarLogan, “Excommunication,” p. 537,Google Scholar notes that performance of the full ceremony was rare; often just a judgment was made, then published. Hinschius, , Kirchenrecht, p. 12Google Scholar notes that publication also increased its efficacy.

10. Hinschius, , Kirchenrecht, p. 10.Google Scholar

11. Logan, , “Excommuniation,” p. 237;Google Scholar Hinschius, Kirchenrecht, p. 273. Vodola, , Excommunication, p. 36.Google ScholarEichmann, Eduard, Acht und Bann im Reichsrecht des Mittelalters (Paderborn, Germany, 1909), p. 117,Google Scholar adds heresy and support thereof, murder, arson. robbery on the highway, and treason to the crimes that later incurred both outlawry and excommunication.

12. Excommunication created other civil problems by preventing an excommunicate from acting as judge, plaintiff, witness, or even a notary in religious or secular courts. Eichmann, , Acht und Bann, pp. 89, 99–100.Google Scholar

13. Vodola, , Excommuniction, pp. 20–24.Google ScholarLea, , Studies in Church History: Excommunication, p. 361Google Scholar commenting on the conflict between King Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII says that excommunication “gave the church the right to intervene between monarch and his lieges, and placed at the mercy of a single man the corner-stone on which was based the whole feudal system—the oath of allegiance and fidelity. The simple anathema thus had become as potent in this world as it was held to be in the next.” This evaluation could also be applied at the territorial level.

14. Benson, Robert L., Bishop Elect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesuistical Office (Princeton, 1968), p. 129,Google Scholar cites Huguccio (d. 1210), a twelfth-century commentator on the canon law, who maintains that “excommuniction suspends the effectiveness of the vassal's duty (executio obligationis), but the full force of the fealty is restored as soon as the lord had made his reconciliation with the Church.” According to Hyland, , Excommunication, p. 19,Google Scholar this sort of extreme interpretation was only reached in the twelfth century. See also Vodola, , Excommunication, pp. 67, 118–119.Google Scholar

15. See Hageneder, Othmar, “Exkommunikation und Thronfolgerlust bei Innozenz III,” Römische historische Mitteilungen 2 (1957–1958), pp. 9–50;Google ScholarVodola, , Excommunication, pp. 68–69.Google Scholar

16. Eichmann, , Acht und Bann, esp. pp. 65–68, 85–89, 117.Google Scholar

17. Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, vol. 2, ed. Weiland, L., no. 73 of Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Hannover, 1896)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as MGH Consi. 2). See Klingelhöfer, Erich, Die Reichsgesetze von 1220, 1231/2 und 1235: Ihr Werden stud Ihre Wirkung im deutsche Stoat Friedrichs 2, Quellen und Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des deutschen Reiches im Mittelalter und Neuzeit, vol. 8/2 (Weimar, 1935), pp. 51–58, although on pp. 165–169,Google Scholar he cites documents where Frederick II, in practice, did try to delay the imposition of outlawry. Eichmann, , Achi und Bann, p. 85,Google Scholar also noses laws like MGH Const. 2, no. 405 from 1225, no. 442 from 1237, and no. 443 from 1240 which declared the inability to hold or grant a fief while excommunicate.

18. Klingelhöfer, , Reichsgesetze, p. 169.Google Scholar

19. On Egilbert see Erkens, Franz-Reiner, Die Trierer Kirchenprovinz im investilurstreit, (Cologne, 1987), pp. 66–68 and 97–110.Google Scholar

20. On the Limburgers' position in the region see Erkens, Franz-Reiner, “Zur verfassungsrechtlichen Stellung der Herzöge von Limburg in 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,” Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 43 (1979), pp. 169–195.Google Scholar

21. For these events see G. Trev., p. 189.

22. Further, Emperor Henry IV aided the archbishop by breaking Henry von Limburg's castle and censuring him at an imperial assemblage. From the document restoring properties to Pröm, MRUb 1, no. 403; MRR 1, nos. 1561, 1562. Egilbert surely prompted the king in the matter; in the document he was the first witness, before the archbishop of Cologne who nominally ranked higher.

23. Gospel of Matthew 16:19.

24. G. Trev., p. 197; Renn, Heinz, Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus 936–1136 (Bonn, 1941), pp. 171–173;Google ScholarGade, John A., Luxemburg in the Middle Ages (Leiden, Belgium, 1951), p. 59.Google Scholar

25. G. Trev., p. 197.

26. Hinschius, , Kirchenrecht, pp. 135–136.Google Scholar This new form of excommunication led into latae sententiae, where naming the individual violator was not necessary to excommunicate those who did violence to clerics and monks. It also increased the power of the papacy, since supposedly only the pope could absolve the excommunicates. Vodola, , Excommurncation, pp. 28–35;Google ScholarHyland, , Excommunication, pp. 3, 48–50.Google Scholar

27. On the Landfriede and its relation to the Truce of God and Peace of God see Engels, Odilo, “Vorstufen der Staatswerdung im Hochmittelalter: zum Kontext der Gotresfriedensbewegung,” Historisches Jahrbuch 98 (1978): 71–86;Google ScholarErdmann, Carl, Origins of the Idea of Crusade (Princeton, 1977), pp. 60–61;Google ScholarGernhuber, Joachim, “Staat und Landfrieden im deutshen Reich des Mittelalters,” La Paix (Brussels, 1961), pp. 27–77.Google Scholar

28. Wampach, , Urkunden, vol. 1, no. 356;Google Scholar MRR1, no 1737.

29. The count is a witness in Wampach, , Urkunden, vol. 1, no. 359.Google Scholar

30. G. Trev., p. 202. Apparently other nobles took advantage of Godfrey's weakness. See Monumenta Germanioae Historica, Leges, vol. 2, ed. Pertz, G. (Hannover, 1837),Google Scholar where Emperor Henry tried to order Godfrey to call up his vassals in order to compel the count Palatine William and his son Siegfried to stop their plundering and violence in the Trier province.

31. G. Trev., p. 199; MRR 1, no. 1789.

32. G. Trev., p. 251; MRR 1, no. 1847.

33. MRR 1, nos. 1851, 1852, 1853.

34. Indeed Crone, Marie-Luise, Untersuchungen zur Reichskirchenpolitik Lothars III (1125–1137) zwischen reichskirchlicher Tradition und Reformkurie (Frankfurt am Main, 1982), pp. 94–97, 248,Google Scholar sees Albero as the chief organizer of the German church against King Lothar, but that seems exaggerated.

35. Die Urkunden Konrads III. und series Sohnes Heinrich, ed. Hausmann, F., vol. 9 of Monumenta Gennaniaelfistonca, Diplomata (Vienna, 1969), no. 164;Google Scholar MRUb 1, no. 543.

36. Hillen, Roland, “Luxemburg und Trier,” Mitteilungen zur trierischen Landesgeschichte und Volkskunde 3 (1958): 169.Google Scholar On Henry IV (“the Blind,” after 1180), Count of NamurLuxemburg see Gade, , Luxemburg in the Middle Ages, pp. 64–70.Google Scholar Henry's predecessor, his grandfather Conrad, had in 1135 regulated the relationship between the counts as advocates and St. Maxiinin, MRUb 1, no. 483.

37. More on the military aspect was discussed in my paper, “An Archbishop as War-leader: Albero of Trier (1131–1152)” delivered at the 20th International Medieval Congress, Kalamazoo, Mich., 10 May 1985.

38. MRUb 1, no. 503, MRR 1, no. 1995.

39. MRUb 2, no. 13; MRR 2, no. 305.

40. MRUb 1, no. 641; MRR 2, no. 223. Brinken, Bernd, Die Politik Konrads von Staufen in der Tradition der Rheinischen Pfalzgrafschaft, (Bonn, 1974), pp. 148–152,Google Scholar reviews this case in detail, although from the perspective that Frederick von Merzig was part of a coalition directed against Archbishop Hillin's power.

41. Bast, Josef, “Die Ministerialität des Erzstifts Trier: Beiträge zur Geschichte des niederen Adels,” Trierisches Archiv Ergänzungsheft 17 (1918): 86.Google Scholar

42. Other examples of an admonishing clause threatening excommunication for violation of a document's terms under Arnold I are MRR 2, no. 399 concerning giving a mill to Cloister Molesme; and MRUb 2, no. 779, MRR 2, no. 483 recording the agreement Arnold settled in a dispute over the lucrative Rhine and Mosel river tolls at Coblenz. In the latter example, first Arnold proclaimed the excommunication against violators in the monastery where the document had been drawn up; then proceeding to the town hall, his advocate declared outlawry against violators.

43. Krüger, Hans-Jurgen, “Der Lothringische Adel im Hochmittelalter (zum Buch von Michel Parisse),” Jahrhuch für westdeutsche Landesgeschichte 2 (1976): 36,Google Scholar feels this support of Folmar indicates the weakness of Barbarossa's attempt to secure loyalty in the western Empire.

44. Gesta Tr., p. 386.

45. At Mouzon in February 1187; MRR 2, nos. 570, 571; MGH SS 10, p. 520; MGH SS 3, pp. 162–163.

46. Pope Gregory VIII ordered Folmar not to excommunicate anyone else without papal permission, Jaffée, Regesta Pontificorum, no. 16074.

47. MRUb 2, no. 94; MRR 2, nos. 607, 613; Jaffé, Regesta Pontificorum, no. 16423. Rudolf kept his position of cathedral provost, while Folmar, soon losing the protection of the king of France, retreated into English possessions on the Continent, where he died shortly thereafter.

48. Scheffer-Boichorst, Paul, Kaiser Friedrsch I. letzter Streit mit der Kurie (Berlin, 1866), p. 163–164.Google ScholarHauck, , Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 5 vols. (1911–1935; reprint ed.Berlin, 1952–1953), 4:324.Google Scholar

49. Gesta Tr., p. 386.

50. MRUb 2, no. 69.

51. Examples are MRUb 2, nos. 121, 260 concerning restrictions on advocacy; nos. 191, 252, 257 on tithes; no. 263 about creation of a memorial; no. 313 documenting the transfer of legal jurisdiction over a hundred; nos. 222, 176, 240, 181, 122 recording gifts of parishes or churches.

52. MRUb 3, no. 482. Schoop, August, “Verfassungsgeschichte der Stadt Trier von den ältesten Immunitaten his zum Jahre 1260,” Westdeutsche Zeitschrzft Für Geschichte und Kunst, Erganzungsheft 1 (1884), p. 111Google Scholar says of this incident that “Wo weitliche Waffen nicht ausreichen, greilt er [the officialis as representative of the archbishop] zu geistlichen, schleudert den Bann gegen mächtige Herren, weiche ihr Geluste nach kirchlichem Eigentum nicht bezwingen können.”

53. MRUb 3, nos. 1016, 1386, 1287, 1420 are charters from the count of Luxemburg, certain Champagne knights, the marshal of Champagne and finally Thibault, king of Namur and count of Champagne, supporting the heirs of the Joinville in their claims.

54. The lands were donated in 1215, according to MRUb 3, no. 33; ibid., nos. 127, 128 from 1220.

55. Henry's sons MRUb 3, no. 1187 from 1253; Diether, MRUb 3 no. 804 from 1244. One of the original donors had been the aunt of Diether's father, Florentinus of Molberg.

56. Ibid., no. 79 in 1218.

57. According to MRUb 3, nos. 586, 587 from 1237, they were paid 58 marks, 6 pence and one cartload of wine.

58. Ibid., no. 757 from 1242 and no. 761, where the claimant was paid 10 marks.

59. MRUb 2, no. 247, in 1210 Gerhard gave up his rights.

60. MRUb 3, no. 11 is Theoderic's version, which also mentions an interdict; no. 12 is Archbishop Dietrich's.

61. MRUb 3. no. 313 from 1227. The whole advocacy, both the chief advocate and his deputies, was again regulated a year later, MRUb 3, no. 342.

62. Gesta Tr., p. 402. Pellens, Karl, Der Trierer Erzbischof Dietrich II. von Wied (1212–1242) (Ph.D. diss., Universität Freiburg, Switzerland, 1957), p. 56.Google ScholarThe Gesta Epucoporum Meltensum, MGH SS 10, ed. Waitz, G. (Hannover, 1855), pp. 547–549,Google Scholar describes these events, but does not mention Dietrich of Trier. It does show the limit ofexcommunication when it describes John calling for reinforcements, p. 548: “Since the same bishop was indeed not able to restrain the evil of the said city with the spiritual sword, he invoked the aid of the secular branch,” meaning armies from the duke of Lotharingia and the count of Bar.

63. Mansi, J. D., Sacrorurn Conciliorum Nova el Amplissima Collectio, 53 vols. (1759–1798;Google Scholar reprint ed. and continuation, 1901–1927), vol. 23, pp. 477–486. Pellens, , Dietrich, p. 32.Google ScholarGoebel, , Felony and Misdemeanor, p. 263,Google Scholar “For [transgressors] the churchman who wields in his immunity his own stout secular arm can make real the curse.” He had also excommunicated forgers at an earlier council (whose main purpose was excommunicating heretics); Gesta Tr., p. 402; Mansi, , Sacrorum Conciliorum, 23: 243–244.Google Scholar See MRUb 3, no. 261 for Dietrich'sjurisdiction in the matter. His actions against forgers ensured the value of the money circulating in the diocese and his monopoly of the mint, important for the local economy.

64. Chapters 3–8, Mansi, , Sacrorum Conciliorum, 23: 479–480.Google Scholar

65. Eichmann, , Acht und Bonn, p. 111;Google ScholarMansi, , Sacrorum Conciliorum, 23: 484.Google Scholar

66. MRUb 3, 278, 278a.

67. Many of Dietrich's documents have an admonishing curse at the end, for example: MRUb 3, nos. 214, 222, 324 about the assignment of a parish church; no. 468 concerning the renunciation of a noble; no. 312 regulating vineyard rights, nos. 734, 324 about mortgages; nos. 102, 119, 128, 672, 718 about land purchases or gifts; no, 468 concerning patronage over a parish church; nos. 735, 736, 297 over building rights on land; no. 353 on tithes and incomes; no. 328 about the altar in the collegiate church ofSt. Paulin.

68. On Arnold, see Holbach, Rudolf, “Die Regierungszeit des Trierer Erzbischofs Arnold (II.) von Isenburg: Em Beitrag zur Geschichte von Reich, Territorium und Kirche um der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts,” Rheiniche Vierteljahrasblätter 47 (1983): 1–66.Google Scholar In several documents, for example, MRUb 3, nos. 160, 1040, 1228, excommunication is used as a warning to a party to keep an agreement, namely to pay rents or recognize the transfer of lands. In a curious instance of religious excommunication, Arnold freed a Schuitheiß, or civil official of his, from excommunication done by the cathedral chapter. Since the Schuitheiß had not properly changed his behavior (molesting the chapter's goods), the chapter complained to the pope about their own injured prerogatives, and the pope sent a representative to examine the affair. Potthast, Regesta Pontificum, no. 17206a–26555, MRUb 3, no. 1439, MRR 3, no. 1468. Schoop, , “Verfassungsgeschichte,” pp. 134–135.Google Scholar

69. MRUb 3, no. 920. MRUb 3, no. 919 records the testimony of the other witnesses who did appear, most declaring that the lands belonged to Himmerod. The Struphavers' claim was based on a claim of their father's. Ibid. no. 936.

70. For example, Eichmann, , Acht und Bann, p. 145–146.Google Scholar Eichmann also says that both outlawry and excommunication became less feared because of the decline of the imperial power and the weakening of the conception of the unity of the church and state. These latter, I feel, are more likely causes.

71. Mansi, , Sacrorum Conciliorum, 25: 250.Google Scholar