In the early days of his pontificate, Gregory VII (1073–1085) issued two bulls of protection to religious communities in dioceses where the ideas of papal reform had not yet taken firm root. Although the documents did not confer exemption from episcopal authority nor place the monasteries under direct papal proprietorship (the Romana libertas), they caused considerable excitement in the entourages of the local bishops. In both cases, the contents of the charters were met with incredulity and outright hostility. The heads of the religious communities were accused of having deliberately tried to evade the authority of their respective bishops. It took the leaders of these religious communities great effort and several hearings to convince the diocesan clergy of their unrelenting obedience to their bishops. The preservation of detailed narrative accounts enables us to catch a rare glimpse of how papal bulls were received at the grassroots level.
In this paper, I will argue that the request for papal protection was cleverly seized on by Gregory VII in order to spread papal reform in two provinces located north of the Alps. The pope's charters were intended to proclaim reform ideology in the diocese of Liège, a stronghold of the imperial Church, and to buttress early reform initiatives that had been met with strong opposition in the diocese of Thérouanne. The bulls of protection are proof of the privileged relationship that Gregory created between the church of Rome and distant religious houses. At the same time, the documents permitted him to promulgate reform rhetoric and attempt to steer the course of reform in distant churches. As is made clear from their tumultuous reception, the charters prompted vehement discussions regarding ecclesiastical hierarchy, papal primacy, and episcopal authority. By challenging episcopal power, the bulls disrupted local ecclesiastical tradition. The bulls produced an upheaval that testified to their impact on provincial politics and to their function as instruments of dissemination of the papal reform program.
I hope to demonstrate that protection bulls played an integral, though often overlooked, role in the implementation of papal reform in specific dioceses. Scholarship on the eleventh-century reform popes, and on Gregory VII in particular, has extensively focused on the manifold ways reform ideas were formulated, put into practice, and disseminated in Latin Christendom. Examination of papal legates, conciliar activity, canon law, papal correspondence, and friendship networks have been privileged subjects for historical research on church reform, but diplomatic sources have not been, with the exception of those privileges which made monasteries directly subject to Saint Peter and those which conferred spiritual exemption.Footnote 1 Likewise, recent studies on the implementation of papal reform politics in local churches often remain silent on the impact of papal bulls in local contexts.Footnote 2 This omission is not surprising considering that the bulls are often the only documents that are preserved. In the absence of other near-contemporary sources, it is almost impossible to discover anything about the way in which the bulls were received or how they influenced local churches.
The narrative sources discussing the bulls of Gregory VII issued to the Benedictine abbey of Saint Hubert in the diocese of Liège (1074) and to the newly founded priory of regular canons in Watten in the bishopric of Thérouanne (1077) are therefore unique. While these accounts are heavily biased, they each recount, in full detail, how a local church responded to a solemn document from the new leader of the church. Moreover, it is intriguing to observe the similar manner in which the episcopal entourages dealt with the protection bulls. The similarity of their responses leads us to suppose that both papal bulls may have been designed to instigate discussion in the recipient dioceses, forcing the bishops and their clergy to take a position in the debates provoked by the papal reform program. Intentionally disruptive or not, the protection bulls eloquently communicated Gregory's vision of church administration in the early years of his pontificate and, in so doing, played an important role in the spread of papal reform ideas in two particular dioceses.
I. The Benedictine Abbey of Saint Hubert in the Ardennes and the Priory of Regular Canons in Watten on the Flemish Coastal Plain
Within a span of three years, a Benedictine abbot and the prior of a community of regular canons appealed to Gregory for bulls of protection. Abbot Theodoric of Saint Peter and Saint Hubert in Andage headed a Benedictine monastery founded in Merovingian times.Footnote 3 Since the installation of the relics of Hubert in 825 by Bishop Waltcaud of Liège, the abbey had developed into an important religious center in the vast Ardennes forest. As a proprietary church of the see of Liège, the abbey functioned as an episcopal powerbase in the extreme south of the extensive diocese. The monastery saw an impressive expansion of its landed property under Theodoric I (1055–d. 1086).Footnote 4 Intellectual life thrived with a productive scriptorium, two schools, an extensive library, and an atelier which produced precious liturgical objects. Monastic buildings were expanded to accommodate the growing religious community of more than fifty monks. The priory of Saint Nicholas and Saint Richarius of Watten, on the other hand, was of quite recent date.Footnote 5 At the time of its foundation, it was the first community of regular canons in the county of Flanders. Around 1070, a wandering priest called Odfrid settled with a tiny group of followers next to a church situated to the north of Saint-Omer in the coastal marshes. Inspired by the vita apostolica, Odfrid embarked on a common life of poverty and chastity. Watten's early days were very difficult due to poor living conditions, but, from the start, the community could count on the unrelenting support of the Dowager-Countess Adela of Flanders, whose son, Count Robert I of Flanders, took the priory under his protection in 1072.Footnote 6
Both religious houses possess an approximately contemporary chronicle and a hagiographic account that discuss the episodes of the papal bulls. An anonymous Life of Abbot Theodoric was written shortly after his death in 1086.Footnote 7 Although opinions vary with regard to the authorship, a strong case can be made for an origin in the abbey of Lobbes, another proprietary abbey of the bishop of Liège.Footnote 8 The work was dedicated to Prior Lambert the Older of Saint Hubert, a close friend and collaborator of Theodoric I, who had commissioned the writing of the vita. The text was clearly intended to glorify Theodoric's abbacy, but the author also emphasized the long-standing bond between the abbey and its proprietor, the bishop of Liège. Around the turn of the century, a monk from Saint Hubert started writing a lengthy abbey chronicle, often designated the Cantatorium.Footnote 9 The author has been convincingly identified as Lambert the Younger.Footnote 10 Lambert followed Abbot Theodoric II, the successor of Theodoric I, into voluntary exile in the north of France in 1091 when the latter was forced to resign by the newly appointed bishop of Liège, Otbert.Footnote 11 The chronicle gives a vivid account of the tribulations the monks suffered during the last decade of the eleventh century, but it also revisits the abbacy of Theodoric I and underlines its importance in the abbey's history. The Cantatorium is heavily biased in its defense of the rights of the exiled abbot against Bishop Otbert of Liège, who owed his appointment to the excommunicated King Henry IV.
In Watten, an anonymous regular canon, who entered the community at the end of the 1080s, wrote a foundation story, the Exordium Guatinensis ecclesiae, and a hagiographical account of the miraculous cure of a fellow brother, the Miraculum Sancti Donatiani.Footnote 12 For our purpose, the Exordium, written in the last years of the eleventh century, is of the most interest. The regular canon based his account on oral tradition and on the community's charters since he did not witness the establishment of his priory with his own eyes. The Exordium is a passionate apology of Watten's founder, Odfrid, who abdicated in 1079 under heavy pressure from Bishop Hubert of Thérouanne. However, in contrast to the Cantatorium, the much shorter Exordium was written in less troubled circumstances. The late 1090s saw the material consolidation of the priory due to renewed comital benefactions.Footnote 13
II. The Motives for Applying for Papal Protection and the Contents of the Bulls
The Cantatorium and the Life of Abbot Theodoric of Saint Hubert and the Exordium of Watten offer detailed information concerning the successive stages in the application process for the bulls. According to both Hubertine sources, Theodoric I wanted to secure the best possible defense of his abbey's property, which had expanded considerably through his efforts.Footnote 14 The Cantatorium adds that the installation of a priory in the church of Saint Peter near the castle of Bouillon was the subject of constant concern. Duke Godfrey the Bearded of Lower Lotharingia donated Saint Peter's to the abbey of Saint Hubert, but his son and heir, Godfrey the Hunchback, had shown no inclination to implement the plans once his father was dead.Footnote 15 The abbot hoped that papal protection of Saint Hubert's possessions might lead to a satisfying solution.
The problems the small band of regular canons of Watten faced were of a different order.Footnote 16 Faithful to the precepts of the 1074 and 1075 Lenten synods, they had shunned all contact with simoniacal and married clerics. Prior Odfrid held preaching tours in the neighborhood, during which he tried to dissuade the faithful from attending masses by priests who lived with women. According to the Exordium, his preaching did not go over well with some inhabitants and especially with some local clerics. They repeatedly pursued Odfrid with insults and even threatened to destroy the priory.
In both cases, the heads of the religious houses could rely on support from their aristocratic patronesses who acted as priceless intermediaries, enabling access to the Roman pontiff. According to the Exordium, the Dowager-Countess Adela had come up with the idea to appeal to the pontiff, and it was in her company that Odfrid went to see Pope Gregory VII.Footnote 17 The chronicle is silent about their meeting with the pope, but it took place in the abbey of Nonantola where the Watten bull was issued on April 28, 1077, and where the pope spent Easter (April 16) after the debacle in Canossa.Footnote 18 The presence of the aged countess—who was the daughter of the French King Robert the Pious, aunt to King Philip of France, and mother-in-law to King William of England—undoubtedly buttressed Odfrid's plea for apostolic protection.Footnote 19 The abbot of Saint Hubert had even more formidable ladies facilitating his access to the pope three years earlier. The wives of his monastery's advocates, Godfrey the Bearded and his son, Godfrey the Hunchback, were none other than Countesses Beatrice and Matilda of Tuscany.Footnote 20 The Cantatorium reports how the abbot received a letter of introduction from Matilda when staying at her court in Pisa for the Easter celebrations of 1074. He had to promise that he would call on her upon his return and report his meeting with Gregory. Mathilda's recommendation almost certainly paved the way for a swift treatment of the abbot's case in the papal court and facilitated his access to the Holy Father.
Before analyzing the objections voiced against the papal bulls, let us turn to the papal privileges. The original bulls have been lost in both cases. In Watten a copy has been preserved in the fifteenth-century cartulary.Footnote 21 In Saint Hubert the text was inserted into the Cantatorium, of which several copies are extant.Footnote 22 Both bulls are considered genuine by their editor, Leo Santifaller, and their authenticity has not been doubted since. The bull for Saint Hubert was issued in the Lateran palace on April 29, 1074. Essentially, the dispositio consists of an ordinary grant of temporal protection guarding a religious house against any disturbance, be it secular or ecclesiastical, and threatening all future opponents with excommunication. On the request of Abbot Theodoric, the text records that Pope Gregory took the monastery of Saint Hubert in tutelam apostolice sedis (under the protection of the apostolic see) and conferred his protection and that of his successors on the house.Footnote 23 The dispositio is followed by a confirmation of the possession of two dependent priories (Prix and Evergnicourt) and of all other belongings, movable and immovable, in a very general phrase which does not enumerate the abbey's wealth. A long sanctio concludes the document, threatening with excommunication “all kings, priests, clerics, judges and lay men” who would infringe the document.Footnote 24
Compared to the seemingly dull dispositions of the privilege for Saint Hubert, the papal charter for Watten did, in fact, confer extraordinary rights. At the heart of the bull stood the placement of the priory under apostolic protection and the confirmation of the way of life of the regular canons. Contrary to the bull for Saint Hubert, the Watten bull granted free election of the community's head and referenced the bishop, whose advice the brethren were required to seek when they were unable to find a suitable candidate for prior within their own ranks. At the end of the papal confirmation of the priory's property the salva-clause includes recognition of the rights of the episcopal church.Footnote 25 While the rights of the ordinary were carefully safeguarded in several respects, the document bestowed some unusual prerogatives onto the community, its head, and his successors. Immediately succeeding the sentence in which Watten, upon the request of Prior Odfrid, is taken under apostolic protection, Gregory declares that Watten has been established as “a last refuge and a place of consolation and support for any believer whomsoever.” In order to maintain its stability, Gregory prohibits secular or ecclesiastical powers from destroying the place or hinder its growth.Footnote 26 Gregory only granted the abbey of Saint-Victor in Marseille (1081) and the Tuscan monastery of San Salvatore in Fuccechio (1085) a similar status.Footnote 27 Both religious communities played an important role as heralds of papal reform. What is more, the last disposition granted Prior Odfrid and his successors the power of binding and loosing as well as the authority to preach the Word of God everywhere.Footnote 28 We know from other sources—albeit exclusively saints’ lives and chronicles—that Gregory and his successors bestowed those rights to other heads of religious houses and to wandering preachers.Footnote 29 But what makes the case of Watten unique is the fact that these powers are conferred through a papal bull. None of the other bulls of Gregory contain a similar bestowal.
III. Debating the Papal Bulls in Church Assemblies in LiÈge and ThÉrouanne
Watten's and Saint Hubert's narrative accounts describe in rich detail the surprisingly similar reception of the bulls. Upon arrival back home, both heads of the religious houses presented their respective bulls at solemn gatherings of the diocesan clergy presided over by the local ordinaries. In the case of Watten, rumors about the extraordinary nature of the rights the pope had bestowed circulated as soon as Prior Odfrid returned to the region, creating discontent and unrest among the priory's opponents.Footnote 30 According to the chronicler, the adversaries fomented opposition among the heads of the clergy, reaching the bishop himself. Bishop Drogo asked for the bull to be presented to him at a meeting of the clergy where it was read aloud and quickly determined to be a forgery (adulterinum). The bull was “violently and wrongfully, against the law and without any judgment” snatched from Odfrid and locked away in the cupboard of the bishop.Footnote 31 Then, upon the instigation of Watten's unnamed opponents, Bishop Drogo sent the prior away without giving him the occasion to defend himself.
Events had unfolded in a similar way in the diocese of Liège three years earlier, but, in contrast to Odfrid, Abbot Theodoric spontaneously called on his ordinary. According to the Cantatorium, Archdeacon Boso, to whom the aged bishop had entrusted the administration of the diocese, inspected the papal privilege during an ecclesiastical gathering. Since he was unable to decipher the text, he promptly suggested that some kind of fraud was lurking behind the “barbaric characters.” It was advised that “what looked unsure because it was hard to read, should be studied with even greater attention,” and “the wiser clerics” (clericos . . . perspicatiores) carefully examined the document.Footnote 32 They explained that the abbey of Saint Hubert had been taken under apostolic protection and that an anathema would be placed on all those who caused loss to the abbey's properties, current and future. However, Archdeacon Boso, who bore a grudge against the abbot, felt that the moment had come for revenge. Shaking his head and sighing loudly, he accused the abbot of handing his abbey over to the apostolic see. The Cantatorium depicts a combative abbot who understood that Boso was using his own personal hatred of Theodoric to manipulate the bystanders. Theodoric declared that he was prepared to return to Rome to prove the justness of his cause and to have those who falsely accused him condemned by papal justice. Boso, who, according to the chronicler, now understood that he would lose if the case was brought before the papal court, replied that “he was not accustomed to Roman jurisdiction, only to that of Liège.” Moreover, he added that “nobody was allowed to appeal immediately to the Pope, unless one had already lost his case before the episcopal and metropolitan court.”Footnote 33 In the end, the bishop called for another meeting with the abbots and the archdeacons to settle the case. He dismissed Theodoric and kept the bull to himself. According to the Cantatorium, Boso made use of the interval to spread rumors among the clergy and the people, claiming that Theodoric had stolen the abbacy from the patron saints of the church of Liège and had handed it to the pope.
The hagiographer of Theodoric also mentioned the rejection of the bull by unnamed opponents.Footnote 34 Upon their instigation, Bishop Dietwin commanded the abbot to disappear from his sight. The bishop then called for a gathering of the abbots and clerics, during which Theodoric had to reply to several questions, including why he had transferred his church, a proprietary church of the bishop of Liège, to the apostolic see and why he had taken her away from the see of Liège. Theodoric reassured them that his only intention was the confirmation of his abbey's recently extended possessions and certainly not the subjection of his abbey to the apostolic see. He declared that if he had made some error in searching for the best possible safeguard of his abbey's possessions—which, moreover, also belonged to the diocese of Liège—then he was prepared to face the judgment of the abbots, the learned clerics, and even wise laymen. Theodoric's answers were interrupted by shouts from opponents who wanted to prevent the bishop from lending a benevolent ear to the abbot. Dietwin, goaded by Theodoric's opponents, angrily got up and sent the abbot home after adjourning the meeting.
The first impediment to a proper understanding of the bull seems to have been its script, which, in all probability, was the contemporary Roman curialis.Footnote 35 The last bulls directed to religious communities in the bishopric of Liège dated back to the pontificate of Leo IX (1049–1054). Thus, the clerics would not have been very familiar with Roman characters.Footnote 36 As we shall see, a specialist familiar with the papal chancery was called to decode and interpret the bull for Watten. But even when deciphered, the charters posed serious problems: the Watten bull was considered a forgery, and the bull for Saint Hubert was wrongly interpreted as confirmation that the church of Rome was now the rightful owner of the abbey. All sources agree that the tumultuous reception of the bulls and the shameful treatment of the heads of the religious houses had been caused by opponents who provoked the attending clerics. Mention is also made of the spread of rumors among the clergy and even among the people as a means to incriminate the abbot and the prior. In Watten's case, the rumors were the reason the bull had to be presented to the bishop in the first place. According to the chronicle of Saint Hubert, rumors were spread by the archdeacon to propagate the erroneous interpretation of the bull after the first gathering of the diocesan clergy. Finally, in both cases the local ordinary decided to keep the bull, sent away the heads of the religious houses, and adjourned the meeting. Surprising similarities can also be detected in the conclusion of both episodes.
After some time a new gathering took place, during which the contents of the Saint Hubert bull were expertly clarified. However, in the intervening period, proponents of the bull sought to prove its validity. According to the Cantatorium, Abbot Theodoric brought a copy of the bull, written in normal script, that he had made to demonstrate that “there was nothing monstrous hidden in the unfamiliar characters, as his false accusers had imagined.”Footnote 37 The document was read aloud twice, and, after a word-by-word comparison between the original and the copy, the wisest members of the clergy reached the conclusion that the bull contained nothing detrimental to the church of Liège and that the abbot had done nothing to harm her. Moreover, they pointed out that the matter should be handled by those present and should not be influenced by the personal hatred of Archdeacon Boso. These clerics declared “that it belonged to the Church of Rome exclusively to pass judgment on all matters and that no one was allowed to revoke Roman judgments,” an assertion reminiscent of statement 18 of the Dictatus papae.Footnote 38 Boso, indignant about the course of events, snatched the bull and tried to leave, but the bishop and all present loudly demanded an explanation as to why he kept wronging the abbot. Willingly or otherwise, Boso returned the bull to the abbot. Theodoric's hagiographer is less loquacious and only mentions that, after several new hearings, a final gathering took place in the castle of Huy, during which the abbot succeeded in pleading his case.Footnote 39
Although the community of Watten had not only lost their bull but also their leader, who may have been stripped of his office, the brethren endured the renewed attacks on their house with remarkable perseverance. According to their chronicler, the brethren never strayed from “the royal path which is the vita canonica.”Footnote 40 Convinced of the impossibility that a Roman decree could be overridden, they gathered their courage and turned to their bishop. The Exordium reproduced their lament to some extent. The canons of Watten first complained that their church had unjustly become an object of derision. For the brethren, it was incomprehensible that their ordinary, through the cunning of their adversaries, was now destroying the very thing he helped establish. Moreover, why did he take for granted that they obtained the papal privilege by deceit? Having been accused through pretense and not by proof, they desired a restoration of what the Roman pontiff had given to them. In short, the bishop needed to emend the injustice that he had inflicted upon them and return what was taken away from them. The author of the Exordium then embarked on a digression on the importance of maintaining one's faith in the face of adversity, so it is doubtful whether the audience with the bishop was successful. In the end, Ingelran, a secular canon of the collegiate church of Our Lady in Saint-Omer, came to the Watten canons’ rescue. According to the Exordium, Ingelran often stayed at the papal court and was familiar with the Romuleos apices (Roman letters or characters).Footnote 41 It is possible that difficulties with the Roman curialis script of the bull also played a role in this case. At a new gathering, Ingelran easily unraveled the meaning of the contents and conclusively demonstrated that the document had to be given back to the church of Watten, thus silencing the opponents. Having been restored in their rights, the canons returned home.
IV. The Sources’ Depictions of Opposition and Defense: Rhetoric or Reality?
The sources relating the tumultuous reception of the papal bulls were composed in very specific contexts a quarter of a century after the incidents and should be treated with circumspection. We need to ask to what degree the accounts correspond with the actual events and to what extent these crucial episodes in the history of their communities have been remodeled. A straightforward answer is impossible to give, but there are some clues. In the Hubertine case, the author of the Cantatorium, the monk Lambert the Younger, was an eyewitness to the affair. He accompanied Abbot Theodoric on his Italian journey and had also been present at the final gathering, at least when the bull was discussed.Footnote 42 The identity of the author of Theoderic's vita is unknown, but the work was commissioned by Prior Lambert the Older of Saint Hubert, a close friend and collaborator of Abbot Theodoric. We know from the Cantatorium that Prior Lambert was, like his younger namesake, one of the traveling companions of Theodoric and a witness to the concluding debate.Footnote 43 The hagiographer's account must therefore constitute a reasonably faithful testimony because it was certainly intended to be perused by Prior Lambert, to whom the work was dedicated. Although there are slight discrepancies between the vita and the chronicle with regard to Theodoric's reaction to the charges and to the number of hearings, both accounts agree on the nature of the allegations: Theodoric was accused of giving his abbey, a proprietary church of the bishop of Liège, to the apostolic see and, in so doing, harming the see of Liège and the authority of his ordinary. This charge is confirmed by a letter from Gregory to the bishop of Liège, written on March 23, 1075. It had come to the pope's attention that Dietwin “with the counsel of certain persons” had “heaped indignities upon the abbot of Saint-Hubert.” Gregory exempted the abbot from blame “because he has done nothing against the [welfare] and honor of your church” and strongly advised the bishop to leave him in peace.Footnote 44
In contrast to the author of the Cantatorium, the Watten chronicler had not witnessed the events he described. However, the canon made frequent use of oral tradition when composing his foundation chronicle, and it is likely that he was informed by brethren who had observed the tribulations. Indeed, he might have heard accounts from those who tried to intervene with their ordinary in favor of Prior Odfrid. One significant element in the canon's account can be corroborated by contemporary sources. Ingelran, on whom the canons relied to interpret their bull, is mentioned in three letters of Pope Gregory VII, who speaks affectionately of him.Footnote 45 The secular canon served as an important informant to the pope with regard to the state of the church in the north of France. So it should come as no surprise that Ingelran helped the canons of Watten. Although nothing else can be gleaned from other contemporary sources concerning the opposition to the papal document, there is no doubt that the community obtained a bull from Gregory. The 1077 bull served as a Vorurkunde (model) of the protection bull Urban II granted to the community on May 17, 1099, and the latter makes explicit reference to the contents of Gregory's privilege.Footnote 46
These elements, however, do not explain the sometimes striking similarities between the accounts. Some analogies are, of course, highly plausible: the ecclesiastical assemblies presided over by each bishop serving as a place of discussion and as a tribunal attended by the bishop's collaborators, diocesan clerics, and abbots; the postponement of difficult cases to enable a more thorough investigation; and the role played by experts well-versed in the interpretation of papal privileges and the difficulties posed by a non-familiar script in milieus where papal bulls were infrequent. Still, we should also consider the possibility of contact between the monk Lambert the Younger of Saint Hubert and the anonymous Watten canon. It is unlikely that one consulted the other's work because both were writing at approximately the same time. But they may have met in the mid-1080s in Reims when Lambert was temporarily staying there as head of the renowned abbey school of Saint-Remi, where he later served as prior.Footnote 47 Before the anonymous canon entered the community of Watten in the late 1080s (certainly before the end of 1088), he also spent time in Reims following a career as an ambulant cleric in the service of the count of Flanders.Footnote 48 A considerable level of learning can be deduced from the canon's works. Likewise, the cathedral school of Reims was a prestigious center of learning during the second half of the eleventh century, so he might have gone to Reims to study. The canon eventually befriended Archbishop Renaud I of Reims (1083–1096) and helped him restore order in the archiepiscopal see, which had suffered severely after the tribulations of its former incumbent, the deposed Manasses I, and the subsequent two year vacancy.Footnote 49
No source enlightens us about an encounter between the monk and the cleric in the mid-1080s in Reims, but the possibility cannot conclusively be rejected. The chances are high that they belonged to the same intellectual and religious milieu in the metropolitan see. Did Lambert discuss the conferral of a bull by Pope Gregory on his abbey and the resistance the document had encountered a decade earlier? The cleric could not have known at the time that the fresh community of Watten had also been favored by the same pope because he had not yet left Reims for the Flemish coastal plain. Once he arrived in the Flemish priory he undoubtedly learned about Watten's remarkable bull and the upheaval that it caused. It remains an open question, however, whether he remembered the similar reception of the bull for Saint Hubert when he recorded the episode a decade after his entrance or let himself be inspired by the vivid details of Lambert's account.
V. The Dioceses of LiÈge and ThÉrouanne and Their Bishops in the Light of Local Ecclesiastical Traditions
By the time Bishops Dietwin of Liège and Drogo of Thérouanne had to deal with the papal bulls, they had successfully been governing their dioceses for several decades. Bishop Dietwin was one in a series of powerful tenth- and eleventh-century imperial bishops who strove to expand the wealth and political influence of their episcopal churches while collaborating closely with the German kings and sharing their interest in religious reform. When Dietwin came to power in 1048, Liège was the leading city in Lotharingia and the foremost intellectual center of the German empire.Footnote 50 Its schools flourished and attracted students from all four corners, many of whom would become bishops or be elevated to other influential positions. Cultural life also bloomed in the many abbeys of the bishopric, of which Lobbes was the most famous. Dietwin's predecessor, Wazo, had been one of the most learned prelates of his day, and his short but memorable episcopacy is well known to us thanks to the Deeds of the Bishops of Liège, written by the cathedral canon Anselm.Footnote 51 Wazo's ideas included, among others, the struggle against simony and the superiority of episcopal over royal consecration. He also pleaded for non-interference by the king in ecclesiastical matters and stated that the bishops had to obey the king in temporal matters but the pope in spiritual ones. The sources are less eloquent for Dietwin's episcopate, but they reveal a bishop who undertook a pilgrimage to Rome and who defended the idea that only the pope, and not the metropolitan, could excommunicate a bishop.Footnote 52 He was a man with a keen interest in relics who rebuilt and lavishly endowed the collegiate church of Huy, which he selected for his burial site. He meticulously arranged his own liturgical commemoration in the cathedral, all seven collegiate churches, and the two monasteries of Liège.Footnote 53 But Dietwin was also a vigilant administrator of the church of Liège who succeeded in several clever enterprises, including expanding its territory, increasing its political influence, and enriching its already considerable finances.
Bishop Drogo of Thérouanne had held an even longer episcopal tenure when he was confronted with the turmoil surrounding the Watten bull. Since 1030, Drogo had presided over the vast diocese of Thérouanne, which bordered the North Sea and lay, for the most part, on Flemish soil.Footnote 54 From the 1030s onward, he took an active part in significant ecclesiastical developments. Following the example of Bishops Gerard I of Cambrai-Arras and Fulco II of Amiens, Drogo proclaimed a peace in close cooperation with Count Baldwin V of Flanders, probably in 1042–1043, which restricted private warfare and acts of violence.Footnote 55 He was one of the few bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Reims to attend the council in Reims in October 1049, at which Leo IX unfolded his plans for the reform of the Church, and he belonged to those prelates who declared that they did not obtain their office through simony.Footnote 56 The bishop was a frequent guest at major political and ecclesiastical occasions and was often found in the entourage of Count Baldwin V and Adela, whose trust he enjoyed his whole life.Footnote 57 He confirmed the foundation of at least four houses of secular canons and possibly two more.Footnote 58 His cooperation in the establishment of the priory of regular canons in Watten demonstrated his sympathy for new forms of religious life.Footnote 59 In his charters to these new communities, he stipulated that their leaders must be appointed by the inmates without any simony, and he often added a personal gift to the initial endowments of new religious houses.Footnote 60 The nunnery of Messines, a foundation patronized by Countess Adela, received a far-reaching libertas that seriously limited episcopal influence. Long established religious communities, such as the abbey of Saint Bertin in Saint-Omer or the cathedral chapter in Thérouanne, where he arranged for the celebration of his liturgical commemoration, could also boast of his unswerving support.Footnote 61
Measured against standards of good episcopal behavior prevalent in the tenth and the first half of the eleventh century, both Dietwin and Drogo cut an excellent figure, and both prelates were favorably remembered by contemporary chroniclers.Footnote 62 Their long episcopates—almost twenty-eight and forty-eight years, respectively—must have left a firm imprint on religious life in their bishoprics. Due to their advanced ages, both prelates entrusted the administration of their dioceses to their archdeacons in their final years. But even so, there was clearly a tradition, in both instances, of stimulating religious life in its many forms and of acting in the interests of their churches. However, in letters Gregory sent in 1075 and 1076, the bishops were presented in a different light, and this depiction has, to a great extent, determined their appreciation in historical scholarship. In the beginning of his reign, Gregory rebuked both Dietwin and Drogo for not dealing more vigorously with the problems of simony and nicolaitism. In the papal letter from 1075 mentioned previously, Dietwin was urged to follow the example of his predecessor, the memorable Bishop Wazo, more closely. He was also instructed to tackle simony and to impose a celibate life on his clergy.Footnote 63 From papal letters to Count Robert I of Flanders and his mother Adela in November 1076, we can deduce that clerical marriages and concubinage were tolerated in Drogo's diocese.Footnote 64 In March of the same year, in a bull issued to Count Robert of Flanders and the comital collegiate church of Our Lady in Saint-Omer, the pope forbade the bishop of Thérouanne from asking for a small amount of money for the distribution of the holy oil and chrism to the canons on Maundy Thursday. The pope considered the demand a “most abominable crime,” making heretics of the participants.Footnote 65 It is the first accusation of simony against Drogo since he had succeeded to the episcopal throne in 1030.Footnote 66 At the council of Poitiers in January 1078, Drogo was suspended from office by the papal legate Hugh of Die.Footnote 67 It is not clear whether he had regained his office by the time he died some months later the same year.Footnote 68 In a letter to the pope, Archbishop Manasses of Rheims had pleaded for his old suffragan bishop who was “at death's door.”Footnote 69 Nor did Dietwin survive long after receiving the accusatory letter from Gregory, passing away two months later in June 1075.
VI. Bulls as Instruments of Papal Reform in the Dioceses of LiÈge and ThÉrouanne
In the eyes of the new pope, Bishops Drogo and Dietwin were, despite their long and vigorous episcopacies, representatives of the church's Ancien Régime.Footnote 70 Hence, when Gregory was called upon by the heads of religious communities situated in the dioceses of Liège and Thérouanne, he seized the opportunity to promote his vision of church administration. The bulls of protection not only demonstrated the special allegiance of particular religious houses to the Roman pontiff, but each charter served as an instrument of papal policy. To most clerics in the episcopal entourages, the bulls were perceived as an interference by the pope in internal business and even as a blatant infringement on episcopal authority. This becomes clear when looking closely at the charges formulated against the bulls and their recipients, which are nearly identical in both cases.
In the case of Saint Hubert, the abbot was accused of deliberately removing his monastery from the authority of the local bishop by offering it to the apostolic see.Footnote 71 In the Cantatorium, Archdeacon Boso says that, in doing so, the abbot had caused “intolerable damage” to the church of Liège and that nothing would remain of the honor that the church had always possessed should the bishop and his fideles not be more watchful in the future. Still, at first sight, it is highly surprising that the bull gave offence to the episcopal entourage in Liège. In all probability, it was supposed that Saint Hubert had become exempt from the bishop's spiritual authority—although no exemption was conferred, as we have seen—or worse still, that the abbey had been surrendered to the church of Rome. Clearly, the document was misunderstood, and the grant of apostolic protection was wrongly interpreted as the bestowal of a Romana libertas, which would have been a violation of the bishop's rights as the temporal owner of Saint Hubert.Footnote 72
The misunderstanding of the bull has already been noted by Ludwig Falkenstein, whose opinion I share. However, additional elements, both internal and external, might also have played a part.Footnote 73 The very fact that the abbot of Saint Hubert met with the pope and returned with a papal protection must have been considered an unwelcome oddity intended to bypass the diocesan bishop. Bestowing protection to churches was generally considered one of the duties of the temporal ruler, and many important abbeys of the bishopric of Liège, in addition to the episcopal church of Liège itself, had been favored by imperial grants of immunity and tuitio in the tenth and eleventh century.Footnote 74 The last time the episcopal church of Liège had its immunity reconfirmed along with its possessions and dependent monasteries, among which was Saint Hubert, was on June 25, 1070, by Henry IV.Footnote 75 Papal protection was provided to an institution at the instigation of the German king or queen, or at the explicit request of the bishop of Liège. In this case, the initiative indisputably came from the abbot of one of the bishop's own proprietary monasteries, which must have been unheard of at the time. I believe this element contributed to the stormy welcome of the bull. In the vita, Theodoric's opponents accused him of having gone to Rome without the approval of the bishop, and their accusation proves that the abbot's undertaking was considered aberrant.Footnote 76 Theodoric replied that he received the bishop's authorization to go to Rome for devotional prayer. But, if he had exposed his plans of applying for papal protection to his ordinary at the time he had received the latter's blessing to travel ad limina, his hagiographer omitted any mention of it.
Specific phrases may also explain the fierce reaction in Liège. The bull's lengthy preamble, which takes up almost half of the entire document, may have caused indignation. Like the sanctio, the majority of the preamble was inspired by the arenga of the bull Gregory had granted to the abbey of Camaldoli five weeks earlier on March 20, 1074.Footnote 77 The preamble opens with the resounding statement that no Christian would ever doubt the primacy of the apostolic see, which is described as “the universal mother and head of all churches.”Footnote 78 As such, she encloses all other churches in the unity of the Catholic religion, protecting them against external attacks. The text then stresses that many churches have gained a special relationship with the papacy and, because of this motherly embrace, they have always been more free and secure from assaults, better protected, and more likely to prosper.Footnote 79 This proclamation of papal primacy would not have gone unnoticed by the bishop of Liège and the attendants of the ecclesiastical gatherings. Traditionally, the bishopric of Liège was closely connected to imperial authority, and the German king or emperor was, for centuries, the most significant granter of protection to ecclesiastical institutions. Now, the voice of the far-off bishop of Rome resounded in the diocese, broadcasting not only his primacy but also the effects of his own protective qualities.
The Exordium is very explicit about the upheaval provoked by the explosive contents of the Watten bull, and it voices the objections of the opponents most eloquently: “If such a privilege were to be used, it would completely undermine episcopal law. The bishop would only be bishop in name, those of Watten would lead. The lowest would be exchanged for the highest, everything would be turned upside down, the head would become the tail. Those of Watten would have gained everything except the episcopal ornaments.”Footnote 80 Clearly, the bull was considered a flagrant attack on the authority of the diocesan bishop. Preaching and the ministry of binding and loosing were originally episcopal rights that were handed down to priests as part of their pastoral care.Footnote 81 The potestas ligandi atque solvendi refers to the sacrament of penance but more specifically to the power to excommunicate and to restore to the community of salvation. The public preaching of Odfrid and his power to excommunicate and to reconcile penitents were understood by contemporary clerics as a usurpation of episcopal authority and as a form of unjustified competition with the diocesan clergy.Footnote 82 As I have demonstrated elsewhere, it is very clear that the priory of Watten functioned as an outpost of papal reform ideas in an area where these ideas had not yet taken firm root.Footnote 83 Endowed with these extraordinary powers and backed by papal support, Odfrid and his successors traveled around, disseminating the papal positions on simony and nicolaitism, reconciling penitents, and offering a safe haven to those who wanted to follow in their footsteps.
When the heads of the religious houses petitioned for his apostolic protection, Gregory chose a tailored approach. In the case of Saint Hubert in 1074, the very request for apostolic protection was highly unusual, considering the fact that this Benedictine abbey was situated in Lotharingia, a region strongly influenced by the ecclesiastical politics of the German emperor. The bull for Saint Hubert remained the only charter Gregory issued during his twelve-year pontificate to a religious community in the diocese of Liège or even in the entire ecclesiastical province of Cologne, to which the bishopric of Liège belonged.Footnote 84 The pope complied with Theodoric's wishes for protection and delivered a standard papal protection bull, but the arenga offered him a useful opportunity to voice the idea of papal primacy. On account of its preamble, the bull can be considered an eloquent overture of papal reform ideas in the diocese of Liège, a bulwark of the imperial church. In the case of Watten in 1077, on the contrary, initial work on the ground had taken place: the secular canon Ingelran of Saint-Omer kept the pope meticulously informed about the situation in the diocese of Thérouanne, letters had been sent to the comital family urging them to tackle simony and nicolaitism, and the directives were disseminated by the regular canons at Watten. A more drastic approach was called for, hence the bestowing of extraordinary privileges upon Watten's prior in the papal protection bull.
The stirring arenga for Saint Hubert and the extraordinary rights of Watten's prior were met with incomprehension, discontent, and opposition in the episcopal entourages of the respective bishoprics. The well-informed Gregory must have foreseen this fierce reaction and possibly even intended it. In any case, the bulls quickly became the object of rumors among the clergy, and their contents provoked intense discussions in ecclesiastical assemblies. The debates involved matters of procedure and raised questions of precedence: could a Lotharingian abbot of an episcopal proprietary church bypass his local ordinary and turn directly to Rome for protection? Or, could a prior of a tiny community be invested with powers which traditionally and exclusively belonged to the bishop? Could the bishop of Rome directly interfere with local churches and impose ideas or practices which the churches were hesitant to accept? No matter how the local bishop and his clergy responded to these issues—and the authors of our accounts were eager to underline that they had to comply with Rome in the end—at least one objective was accomplished: the broadcasting of the pope's ideas concerning proper church management and ecclesiastical hierarchy. The bulls gave the bishops and their clergy challenging food for thought and stimulated discussion within the dioceses without the direct intervention of official papal representatives, such as a legate. The documents forced everyone who took part in the debate to take a stance and made it impossible to ignore the papal directives. The bulls cleverly rooted the papal reform program in the midst of these far-off but politically important dioceses, something which may very well have been the pope's purpose all along.
VII. Conclusion
Gregory VII did not act motu proprio but upon the request of the heads of the religious houses who appealed to him and at the instigation of their influential patronesses. Nevertheless, the ad hoc bulls must have served his purposes remarkably well, and not only because they entailed an inherent acknowledgment of his authority by their beneficiaries. The new pope was offered a chance to herald the idea of Roman primacy in the imperial bishopric of Liège and to protect and encourage those who were already fighting against simony and nicolaitism in the diocese of Thérouanne. From the perspective of the local churches, the bulls were tokens of abrupt and even aggressive interference by Rome in local matters which had in the past been dealt with adequately by their diocesan bishops. But, at the same time, the documents obliged them to reflect on fundamental issues such as procedure, precedence, episcopal and papal obedience, and ecclesiastical hierarchy. They compelled them to face the ideas and challenges imposed by an invigorated papacy directly. In these two cases, narrative accounts allow us to measure the impact of a papal bull and catch a glimpse of what happened once a petitioner returned home with his coveted document. The unique files of Watten and Saint Hubert draw our attention to the fact that, just as papal legates, conciliar decrees, or papal letters, bulls functioned as vehicles of papal reform. An initially unassuming bull could carry a strong message in a particular local context. To grasp the often far-reaching impact of these documents fully, we must not only consider their contents but also their targeted audiences, that is, the recipient community as well as the diocese and local ecclesiastical traditions.
