¹ The edition used here is that of Caspar, E., MGH, Epp. sel. 2 (Berlin 1920), referred to hereafter as ‘Reg.’Google Scholar

² The historiography is summarized in Peitz, W., Das Originalregister Gregors VII (Sb. Wien 165.5 [1911]) 5–12. A list of extant medieval papal registers is published in R. van Caenegem and Ganshof, F. L., Kurze Quellenkunde des westeuropäischen Mittelalters (Göttingen 1964) 210ff.Google Scholar

³ Op. cit. Google Scholar

⁴ Peitz, , op. cit. 122–4, 205.Google Scholar

⁵ For a summary in English of the literature up to 1915, Poole, R. L., Lectures on the History of the Papal Chancery (Cambridge 1915) 123ff. Poole's explanation of the Register's irregularities is that the chancery clerk became slack in compiling it after the completion of the second book (p. 30). This in the main agrees with Caspar (n. 6 below). I cannot find in either any mention of the possibility that after Book II there were fewer letters to register.Google Scholar

⁶ Caspar, E., ‘Studien zum Register Gregors VII,’ Neues Archiv 38 (1913) 145–226, especially 214 ff.Google Scholar

⁷ Santifaller, Leo, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Beschreibstoffe im Mittelalter. Part I: Untersuchungen (Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband 16.1; Vienna 1953) 94–113, especially 101ff. Dr. Santifaller's views are endorsed by reviewers in Deutsches Archiv 10 (1953–4) 542 (by ‘H.Ρ.’); and in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 49 (1954) 548 (by Gorissen, P. ). The meaning of terms applied to materials is discussed by Dr. Santifaller on pp. 40ff. With reference to his assertion at the bottom of p. 43, we may point out some examples of an apparently indefinite use of carta and its derivatives: Die Briefe Heinrichs IV, ed. Erdmann, C. (MGH, Deutsches Mittelalter 1; Leipzig 1937) No. 13 (p. 19 line 25); Gregory VII, Reg. III/6; Erdmann, C. (†) and Fickermann, N. Briefsammlungen der Zeit Heinrichs IV (MGH, Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit 5; Weimar 1950) p. 28 line 14; Bruno, De bello saxonico c. 65, ed. Lohmann, H. E. (Brunos Buch vom Sachsenkrieg: MGH, Deutsches Mittelalter 2; Leipzig 1937) p. 57 line 11. The theory, closely related to that of Dr. Santifaller, that the Register was a selection made for political purposes has recently been stated in uncompromising form by Morghen, R., ‘Ricerche sulla formazione del registro di Gregorio VII,’ Annali di storia del diritto 3–4 (1959–60) 35–75. Dr. Morghen's argument starts from premisses about the Register (stated on pp. 37f.) which it is the aim of the present article to challenge.Google Scholar

⁸ See pages 175 ff. Google Scholar

⁹ Ph. Jaffé, ‘Epistolae collectae,’ in Monumenta Gregoriana (Bibl. rer. Germ. 2; Berlin 1865) 520–76. (Hereafter cited as Epist. coll.) Google Scholar

¹⁰ Bock, F., ‘Annotationes zum Register Gregors VII,’ Studi Gregoriani 1 (1947) 238, especially n. 5.Google Scholar

¹¹ Kehr, P. F., Italia Pontificia. 8 volumes (Berlin 1906–35) and vol. 9, ed. Holtzmann, W. (1962). In the same connection: Brackmann, A., Germania Pontificia, 3 volumes (Berlin, 1911–35).Google Scholar

¹² S. Löwenfeld, ‘Die Canonsammlung des Cardinals Deusdedit,’ Neues Archiv 10 (1885) 311–29, especially 323.Google Scholar

¹³ ‘ Während der Regierung Gregors VII sind aber, von den noch zu besprechenden Privilegien zunächst ganz abgesehen, sicher sehr viel mehr Schriftstücke, insbesondere Briefe, ausgegangen, als im R.V.2 verzeichnet sind. Schon Jaffé hat 51 ausserhalb des R.V.2 überlieferte Briefe ediert, und Bock hat 14 im Register erwähnte, aber nicht registrierte Briefe festgestellt; sodann hat die Kehrsche Papsturkundensammlung die Zahl der nicht im R.V.2 enthaltenen Briefe noch weiter erhöht. Und mit Recht hat Löwenfeld darauf hingewiesen, dass z.B. für die ereignisreichen Jahre 1076–77, in denen gewiss nicht nur Hunderte, sondern Tausende von Schriftstücken, insbesondere von Briefen, in der päpstlichen Kanzlei ausgefertigt wurden, das R.V.2 insgesamt nur 49 Stücke enthält.’ Op. cit. (n. 7 above) 101–2.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ramackers, J., ‘Analekten zur Geschichte des Reformpapsttums und der Cluniacenser,’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 23 (1931–2) 22–52.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Viz. Epist. coll. Nos. 24 and 36. Erdmann, C., ‘Gregor VII und Berengar von Tours,’ Quellen und Forschungen 28 (1937–8) 48–74, exposes the stylistic incompatibility of these two letters with their attribution to Gregory's authorship. Southern, Professor R. W.'s demur, ‘Lanfranc of Bec and Berengar of Tours,’ Studies in Mediaeval History, presented to Sir Maurice Powicke (Oxford 1948) 31 n. 2, is merely concerned to clear Berengar of the charge of forgery. The letters may be seen as draughts, by Berengar, of what he would have liked Gregory to write. Such draughts were not uncommon practice: but most of them would be either redraughted as papal letters, or thrown away.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Appendix A, No. 50. Google Scholar

¹⁷ S. Löwenfeld, ‘Papsturkunden in Paris,’ Neues Archiv 7 (1882) 161–4, Nos. 5–8. See also JL 5087, 5188, 5265, 5289. The penitential is No. 8 in Löwenfeld, the letter of protection, No. 7.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The letter from the Viennese MS is to the Bishop of Passau (or Pavia, according to Kehr, Ital. Pont. 7.1 p. 158 No. 5; but see Appendix A below, No. 37). It is edited by Krause, V., in Neues Archiv 17 (1892) 296. A letter to King Sancho of Aragon is published by Kehr, Papsturkunden in Spanien 2 (Abh. Ges. der Wiss. Göttingen, N.S. 22.1; 1928) 271. Krause dates the Viennese letter ‘1073–80.’ The Spanish letter could have been written at any time during the pontificate.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Papsturkunden in Frankreich 5 (Abh. Akad. Göttingen, 3rd ser. 35; 1956) 70–81, Nos. 8–19. Compare with note 14 above.Google Scholar

²⁰ Appendix A, No. 43; compare Nos. 2, 3, 16. Google Scholar

²¹ Appendix A, No. 30. Google Scholar

²² Appendix A, Index (c). — Since Drs. Bock and Santifaller made their estimates, Fr. Borino, G. B. (‘Note Gregoriane,’ No. 14, Studi Gregoriani 6 [1961] 369–84) has listed, in the course of a longer list of Gregory's references to his own letters, 49 supposed litterae deperditae. 20 of these are discussed in our Appendix A below (see index(d)). Since Fr. Borino and I see equivocal evidence from opposite points of view, it would be tedious to itemize our differences over the other 29 cases. 15 of them (Nos. 11, 21, 38 (i), 40, 43 (i), 44, 48, 52, 53, 65, 70, 71, 76, 84 and 88) contain no evidence that the communications to which they refer were written. 8 more pass over with no argument (or minimal argument, in the case of No. 34) perfectly eligible candidates among letters already known about, either from Caspar's notes (Nos. 28, 34, 61 and 89) or because the letter referred to is a twin (Nos. 67, 79 and 91) or even identical (No. 14) to the letter containing the reference. No. 87 ignores (as does Caspar) Epist. coll. 38. This leaves 4 (not 5, since No. 59 (iii) is a repeat of No. 58 (ii)). In No. 58 (ii) there seems to me no need to infer a separate letter: there are a number of extant letters concerned with the case to which the words might apply. The same goes for No. 43 (see the literature in Appendix A, No. 44, p. 194 below). Some reference to JL 4849 and Reg. VI/38 might be expected in the two remaining cases, Nos. 53 (ii) and 75, which nevertheless may be ‘loose ends.’ (For No. 53 (ii), compare also our Appendix A, No. 35, below.) Their admission to the argument set out below would make very little difference, and in fact if the whole of Fr. Borino's list of 92 references were treated as accurate, and as a fair sample, in the context of the argument set out on p. 158 below, his conclusions would support ours.Google Scholar

²³ Appendix A, Analysis. Google Scholar

²⁴ Appendix B, Section II. Google Scholar

²⁵ Appendix B, Section I, especially Analysis. Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. Google Scholar

²⁷ Fastidious critics might prefer The difference is slight. Google Scholar

²⁸ Appendix B, Section I a (ii). Google Scholar

²⁹ Appendix B, Section I c. Google Scholar

³⁰ See pages 171–74 below. Google Scholar

³¹ On page 150 above, and in works referred to there. Google Scholar

³² See notes, 9, 17, 19 above. Google Scholar

³³ In Appendix B, Section II, and Caspar's edition of the Register. Google Scholar

³⁴ Epist. coll. Nos. 1, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22. Ramackers, Papsturkunden in Frankreich 5, No. 10. The dating in Book I of the Register reveals that the pope left Rome before 8 July 1073, and did not return before 7 December. This disposes of No. 1 of Epist. coll. No. 15 is dated from Tivoli. The remainder of this collection belong to the journey before and after Canossa. For the dates of this see Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich IV und Heinrich V (Leipzig 1894–1900) II 739 and III 78–83, notes 117, 123 and 126. The letter in Papsturkunden can only be dated to the summer of 1078. Book VI of the Register shows Gregory to have left Rome before 1 July 1078, and stayed away for several months.Google Scholar

³⁵ See pages 171–74 below. Google Scholar

³⁶ Epist. coll. Nos. 2, 12, 13, 14, 19, 23; Ramackers, No. 11. Those of the pope's journeys not sketched in note 34 above may easily be deduced from the Register.Google Scholar

³⁷ Epist. coll. Nos. 7 (compare Reg. I/76), 11 (compare Reg. II/37), 16 (compare Reg. IV/4 & 5); Löwenfeld (as in note 17 above), No. 5 (= JL 5087) (compare Reg. VI/7 & 8).Google Scholar

³⁸ See, for example, those in Appendix B, Section Ia (ii). For an inferred ‘missing twin’ see Appendix A, No. 9. Google Scholar

³⁹ Viz. Nos. 8 and 9. Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The cases explicable in this way among the inferred letters in Appendix A would be No. 8 (for certain), Nos. 5 and 14 (possibly), and No. 4 (just possibly: it is written to the Countess Matilda in January 1074). Google Scholar

⁴¹ Compare Reg. II/52a, III/10a, V/14a, VI/ 5b, VII/14a, and VIII/20a. These cover synods in 1075 (Lent), 1076 (Lent), 1078 (Lent), 1078 (Lent and Autumn), 1080 (Lent), and 1081 (Lent). Gregory was on tour for most of 1077. Google Scholar

⁴² See Appendix A, No. 35. Google Scholar

⁴³ See note 12 above. Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Reg, E.g. I/51–69, where 19 letters are issued in 10 days; or Reg. I/73–80, where 8 are issued in a week.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ ‘Si posset fieri, optarem te pleniter scire, quanta tribulatio me angustat quantusque labor cotidie innovatus fatigat et accrescens valde perturbat’: 22 January 1075, Reg. II/49 (p. 189). Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The figures from which the graph is derived are tabulated and discussed in Appendix B, Section III. — A similar study of known documents from the English royal court suggests a parallel development there. The approximate average annual output of the Anglo-Norman kings (reckoned on the same bases as the above figures for the papal curia) is as follows: William I, 11 1/2; William II, 15; Henry I, 41; Stephen, 38. (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, Oxford, 1913–56. The figure for Stephen's reign was very kindly supplied to me by Mr. Davis, R. H. C.).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ On pages 155 ff. and in Appendix A. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ These are registered as Reg. II/52a, III/10a, V/14a, VI/5b, VI/17a, VII/14a, VIII/20a, which cover the years 1075–81; 1077 has no report in the Register, 1078 has two. See argument on page 163 above, and note 41. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ In 1076; the cases concerning the Bishop of Agde, the Archbishop of Vienne, and the two counts. In 1078, those of Roland of Treviso, Count Ugiccio, and the Abbot of Farfa. It is argued in Appendix A, No. 17, that a first warning of excommunication may well have been oral. For the more general argument see pages 175 ff below. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Reg. IV/22 and V/17, pp. 333 and 378–80. In the first, the case of the deposition of the Bishop of Clermont is not mentioned elsewhere. The exception in the second concerns the Archbishop of Besançon (p. 379). It is quite clear from the text and notes in both cases that both affairs were primarily handled by Hugh of Die, and would not entail a letter from Gregory. Another ‘list’ may be seen in Bonizo, Liber ad Amicum 9 (MGH Lib. de Lite 1.615). — Three of the very few ‘loose ends’ in the Register may be found in Reg. II/44 (the death of the Empress), III/4 (the Bishop of Strasbourg), and VII/15 (the legates and the pallium question). Google Scholar

⁵¹ Reg. II/51, VI/23, IX/1. Google Scholar

⁵² Reg. V/7. Google Scholar

⁵³ Reg. IV/5, 13. More generally, see Reg. I/41, II/13, V/18 (and compare p. 381 n. 2 in the Register), IX/1, 20. Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Reg. VI/3 (p. 395.30). Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Reg. VIII/2 (p. 517.23–4). Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See for example n. 67 below; and Caspar, Reg. p. 688. Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Caspar, , Studien (n. 6 above) 213ff. Poole, Also R. L., Lectures (n. 5 above) 130–31. There is nothing in Poole's treatment to contradict the present interpretation.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ pp. 170ff. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Reg. VI/34. Peitz, Originalregister (n. 2 above) 121. Caspar, Studien 213ff. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Reg. I/33 (p. 54.5–7). Google Scholar

⁶¹ Reg. IX/19 (p. 599.37ff). Google Scholar

⁶² Reg. VII/16 (p. 490.7–10): ‘Quod salutem et apostolicam benedictionem tibi non mandamus, ea maxime causa est, quod in registro nostro legitur te … hereticum. convictum.’ Compare Reg. IV/10. Google Scholar

⁶³ Reg. IX/32 (p. 618.29–30): ‘Quod a nobis factum nequaquam recolimus nec in registro nostro huius causae litteras repperire potuimus.’ This letter is not dated. Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Reg. VI/24 (p. 436.29–32): ‘Nam et litteras olim a nobis super hac re abbati sancti Severi transmissas invenimus et abbatem secundum tenorem earum inoboedientem fuisse cognovimus.’ Compare Reg. I/51. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Reg. VII/12 (p. 476.2–3): ‘… unde ut etiam nunc apparet in litterarum nostrarum exemplaribus, dignissime reprehensus es.’ Compare Reg. VI/2. Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Reg. IV/9 (p. 308.4–5): ‘exemplar litterarum, quas olim sibi misimus religioni tuae ostendere curavimus’: compare Reg. III/17. Reg. V/7 (p. 357.10–12): ‘easdem vobis de nostris exemplaribus rescriptas mittere curavimus’: compare Reg. IV/23. The two references next to the letter transcribed are in Reg. VI/3 (p. 395.31–2): ‘cui qualiter rescripsimus, vobis etiam per exemplar indicamus’ (compare Reg. VI/2); and in the ‘twins,’ Reg. II/7 and 8 (pp. 136 and 137, line 22 on both): ‘[in transmisso tibi] exemplo litterarum, quas [ei] direximus, plene cognoscere potes’: compare Reg. II/6. Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Reg. IX/3 (p. 576.28–577.3): ‘… de Buggone … nedum tantam potestatem, videlicet absolvendi, sibi tam temere commisisse, nec etiam recordamur nos aliquando eum vel sermone vel visu notum habuisse.’ Reg. IX/1 (p. 568.19–20): ‘… neminem vestrum nos vidisse recordamur.’ Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Reg. IV/3 (p. 300.1–3): ‘De excommunicatis autem iam me vobis dedisse licentiam, … ut absolvatis, recordor …’ Compare Reg. IV/1 (p. 291.13–19). Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Reg. VI/4 (p. 396.31–397.3): ‘Solliciti etenim fuimus, ne litterae ille fraude alicuius aut falsitate immutarentur, et ideo exemplar earum ad cognoscendam voluntatem nostram tibi ostendendum esse putavimus…’ Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Reg. IV/16 (p. 321.1–2); and Reg. II/59 (p. 213.2–4 and line 11). Google Scholar

⁷¹ Epist. coll. No. 15. Compare Reg. IV/1. The absence of the letter in which this reference appears from the Register may be connected with the theory stated on p. 173 below. Where the letter was written can be deduced from the dating of the registered letters sent about the same time. It should be noted in this connection that Reg. IV/2 is dated from Tivoli, not Rome, as in Caspar's mistaken rubric: compare p. 293.10 with 297.23.Google Scholar

⁷² Reg. IV/13 (p. 316.35–317.1). Compare Reg. IV/5. Google Scholar

⁷³ Reg. III/3 (p. 246.5, and n. 1). This letter is dated ‘Rome’ instead of ‘Laurento’; (compare Reg. III/l and 2). Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Reg. III/l (p. 242.10–11) and III/3 (p. 246 [not 229] n. 1). Google Scholar

⁷⁵ viz. Reg. II/7 and 8, which we treat here as one (see n. 66 above). Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Reg. VI/4 was written in October 1078. Gregory had been in the South at least since 1 July (Reg. VI/1). Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Peitz, , Originalregister 92 ff. His conclusions here were doubted by Caspar, Studien 186. See now also Santifaller, L., ‘Saggio di un'elenco dei funzionari … della Cancellarla pontificia …,’ Bull. dell’ Ist. storico ital. per il medio evo e Arch. Muratoriano 56 (1940) 418–33, 750, 795.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Peitz, , op. cit. 101 n. 7.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The privilege is given in Kehr, Italia Pontificia 3.148 No. 115, and dated 8 December 1079, in Rome. The dispute was heard in the autumn, after which the Chronicler of Monte Cassino writes of Gregory as ‘… mox privilegio firmum … hoc iudicans’ (MHG SS 7.734). Google Scholar

⁸⁰ For the following, see Peitz, , op. cit., especially pp. 57–9 and 94–5.Google Scholar

⁸¹ See Caspar, , Studien 214ff; also Poole, Lectures 124–30, especially 127 n. 2.Google Scholar

⁸² Reg. IX/32 (p. 618.30–32): ‘Noverit itaque prudentia tua, quia multa tanquam a nobis deferuntur et scripta et dicta nobis nescientibus. ‘See n. 63 above for the preceding passage. See also in this connection Reg. III/14 (p. 276.5–7): if reportate on line 7 is the slip of a careless scribe (who seems to have made one on line 12) for reportatum, then Gregory is exemplifying what he tells Hugh of Lyon in the passage quoted above. Google Scholar

⁸³ Appendix A, Nos. 3, 9, 39; 13, 20, 26, 30, 32, 34, 39–42. Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Reg. 1/56; Epist. coll. No. 20. Appendix A, Nos. 17, 24, 42, 48. Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ramackers, , Papsturkunden in Frankreich 5 (n. 19 above), No. 14: ‘Quod autem tibi litteras non misimus, non negligentiae nostrae, sed, ut videmur recordari, legatorum festinantiae potes ascribere.’Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Reg. III/1. See the opening sentence. Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Reg. VIII/22; also Reg. I/47, I/71, etc. Compare Reg. IV/28 (p. 344.10 and 11). Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Reg. VII/6. See also Reg. II/40, 48; IV/24, 28. In Reg. IX/28 we see Gregory sending a bishop who came to Rome for consecration all the way home to get a credential. Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Epist. coll. Nos. 20, 26. Reg. I/29; IV/25. See also Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher (n. 34 above) II 580, for a possible example.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Reg. I/50 (p. 77.15–18): ‘Vobis enim in talibus non aliquem vicarium in dictando acquiro, sed me ipsum labori, licet rusticano stilo, subpono, quia, si diligor ut diligo, nullum mortalium mihi preponi a vobis cognosco.’ Gregory also apologizes for the shortness of his letter, due to pressure of business. Compare Reg. VIII/22 (p. 564.11–13). Google Scholar

⁹¹ Epist. coll. Nos. 1 and 5, opening.Google Scholar

⁹² See, for instance, Erdmann-Fickermann (n. 7 above) pp. 89 (lines 3–5), 103 (lines 9–10), and 219 (line 31). In the first of these, a student complains that the winter and his own poverty have made writing impossible for all that year I Google Scholar

⁹³ See Reg. II/52a, II/55, III/2, V/18, IV/22, V/5b § viii; and VII/14a. See also Brooke, Z. N.: ‘Lay Investiture and its relation to the conflict of Empire and Papacy’ (Raleigh lecture on history, Proc. Brit. Acad. 25, London 1939) 217–47; and Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher II 611–2.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher II 580. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Reg. I/18 (p. 30.4–7): ‘Caetera igitur, quae presentium latori secretius referenda commisimus, indubitanter potestis credere et per eum, quicquid magestati vestrae placuerit, secure nobis significare.’ Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Eadmer, , Historia novorum in Anglia (Rolls Series, London 1884) 138 : ‘illi econtra trium potius episcoporum assertionibus quam vervecum pellibus atramento denigratis plumbique massula oneratis fore credendum … “Testimonium monachorum contra episcopos non recipimus, et ovinae pellis reciperemus?” “Vae, vae,” aiunt ad ista quilibet religiosi, “Nonne et evangelia pellibus ovinis inscribuntur?” ’ On p. 139 is described how Saint Anselm himself hesitates, and finally (on p. 140) suggests that the messengers be sent back. I owe this reference, as much else, to Southern, Professor R. W. Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher II 737–8. For Dr. Ullmann, W.'s view, see The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (2nd ed. London 1962) 348 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ E.g., Reg. VI/4 (see n. 69 above); IX/10 (p. 587.20): ‘… litteris ad te destinatis, si pervenerint …’ Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Reg. II/39 (p. 176.28–9). Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Erdmann-Fickermann, pp. 33–35, No. 15; compare No. 17; and Reg. VI/4 (p. 396. 22–5). It is noteworthy that in some of the cases in the Register where detailed communication appears to be passed wholly through letter (as opposed to being left to be explained by the carrier), it is a question of communicating with a legate of high rank. Consider Reg. V/7: there would be few papal servants worthy to carry a rebuke orally to Hugh of Die. Compare Reg. II/43; IV/22; Epist. coll. Nos. 31, 32. Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ ‘ Teuzo monachus ’ in Reg. IV/17, V/22, and VII/1. Ranks of legates may be reckoned from Caspar's index to the Register; from Massino, Gregor VII im Verhältnis zu seinen Legaten (Diss. Greifswald 1907); and (one more) from Ramackers, J., Papsturkunden in Frankreich 5 No. 10.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Index (i) of Caspar's Register will provide examples. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ The term legatus is used for envoys of lay and other powers in Reg. III/10 (p. 267.27); Reg. I/78 (p. 112.9, compare line 5); Reg. IV/8 (p. 307.8); and Reg. V/18 (p. 381.16). For a papal legate who himself has a ‘legate,’ see Papsturkunden in Frankreich 5.71, No. 9. For mixed references to papal envoys, see Reg. II/34 (p. 170.37); Reg. II/74 (p. 237.5, contrast line 9). For a ‘legate,’ in the fullest sense, merely referred to as acting vice nostra, Reg. V/2; VII/10 (p. 472.1). Ruess, Compare K., Die rechtliche Stellung der päpstlichen Legaten bis Bonifaz VIII (Sektion f. Rechts- und Sozialwissenschaft der Görresgesellschaft 13; Paderborn 1912) 116; also 40f, 104f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Reg. I/18; VII/11 (p. 475). In the first case, we may notice the contrast between the attitude of old and new governments to similar communications. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Reg. VI/17; I/30. Reg. I/30 explains, ‘cum id facilius vobis per plures ad limina apostolorum venientes quam nobis per unum hinc ad vos proficiscentem occasio conferatur.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Reg. IX/1, 20. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ ‘ Never’ is a slight exaggeration. An imposition of silence was conveyed to Berengar of Tours by two local bishops returning from Rome on their own business. But this communication, which was taken orally (and was redundant) is the only one of this sort revealed by a systematic search (Erdmann-Fickermann 155, line 3).Google Scholar