Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T01:20:46.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Public Debate on Clerical Marriage in the Late Eleventh Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2010

LEIDULF MELVE
LEIDULF MELVE
Affiliation:
CMS, Univ. of Bergen, PO Box 7800, N-5929 Bergen, Norway; e-mail: Leidulf.melve@cms.uib.no
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article offers an analysis of the public debate on priestly marriage, conducted in the last decades of the eleventh century. This was the first debate on the subject in six hundred years, erupting in the context of the reform movement. Although the theme of priestly marriage was mentioned in the Carolingian period as well as in the tenth and first half of the eleventh century, it was the anonymous defence of clerical marriage, the Epistola de continentia clericorum, that gave rise to a wide-ranging public debate. The article examines this debate in terms of the argumentative approaches used by the participants, the aim being to emphasise an important undercurrent in the understanding of priestly marriage contrary to the official – or Gratian – view on the issue.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 688 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

PL

Patrologia Latina

The Church's teaching on marriage has gradually become one of the central issues of church history.Footnote 1 In this respect, the reform movement of the eleventh century has on different occasions been seen as a watershed in relation to the matter of clerical continence and celibacy.Footnote 2 However, these issues did not emerge suddenly, but surfaced in the Carolingian periodFootnote 3 and had important tenth-century spokesmen in Abbo of Fleury,Footnote 4 Ademar of ChabannesFootnote 5 and Odo of Cluny.Footnote 6 Recent treatments of the pre-history of religious reform have also stressed the extent to which celibacy was a means of solidifying a religious identity and a concern with ritual purity as an important facet of this identity.Footnote 7 By the middle of the eleventh century, then, a fertile ground existed for including continence in the programme of the first reform pope, Leo ix.Footnote 8 While no surviving canons of the Council of Reims (1049) address priestly continence, the issue certainly became part of the papal policy under Leo.Footnote 9

Under Pope Nicholas ii, the Roman synod of 1059 ruled forcefully against incontinence and concubinage; of equal importance, by equating priests' wives with concubines, the validity of clerical marriage is for the first time implicitly denied.Footnote 10 The polemicists of the latter half of the eleventh century thus had to reflect on the relationship between clerical marriage and continence, resulting in new arguments pro marriage and contra continence. The first reaction to this new policy, however, occurred in Milan where the Patarini rebelled against the papal legates Peter Damian and Anselm of Lucca when they arrived to cleanse the Milanese church. Damian had already used the word nicolaitan to describe all incontinent clergy in his Liber Gomorrhianus,Footnote 11 and hence became an early proponent of clerical continence. His zeal is also reflected in the encounter with the parish priests of Tuscany,Footnote 12 and in his defences of continence, De celibatu sacerdotum and Contra intemperantes clericos.Footnote 13 Pope Alexander ii attempted to sustain the policy, but the practical changes were insignificant. Still, the policy was perhaps more successful than the practical measures would imply, since it contributed to the development of a collective awareness of the situation amongst the married clergy.Footnote 14

Pope Gregory vii's efforts display a new willingness to take practical measures in order to secure adherence to the prohibition. Thus, the pope repeated the ruling from 1059 at his first synods in 1074 and 1075.Footnote 15 Legates had an important task in proclaiming the decrees at regional councils, whereas noncompliant prelates were addressed by letters.Footnote 16 Gregory not only addressed ecclesiastics, but also asked for support from German dukes, the countess of Flanders and even King Henry iv.Footnote 17 The majority of Gregory's references to marriage and sex deal with clerical marriage and concubinage, focusing on purity and cleanliness in particular.Footnote 18 In the end, the practical effect is difficult to measure, but the reform probably had a ‘considerable effect’ in England.Footnote 19 Urban ii (1088–99) reinforced the policy through meetings with groups of clergy in regional synods, and it is only the papacy of Paschal ii (1099–1118) which demonstrated a more compromising tone.Footnote 20

This brief account gives an idea of the historical context of the Epistola de continentia clericorum – the first theoretical discussion of marriage in six hundred years according to Anne Barstow.Footnote 21 The text survives in sixteen manuscripts, nine of which are from the twelfth century, while six date from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century.Footnote 22 The question of the identity of the author as well as the date of composition is fraught with difficulties and no final conclusions have been reached. The editor of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, L. De Heinemann, ascribes the Epistola to Pseudo-Udalric,Footnote 23 and Carl Mirbt adds that it probably was composed in Germany.Footnote 24 Henry Lea, however, assumes that Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg (923–73) wrote the letter,Footnote 25 whereas Augustin Fliche identifies the author with the Italian Bishop Ulrich of Imola (1053–63) and views the treatise as a scholarly reply to Pope Nicholas ii's decree of 1059.Footnote 26 Bernhard Schmeidler offers yet another candidate: because the Epistola was transferred along with other texts from the royal environment, the letter may have been written in 1076 by the ‘Mainzer dictator’.Footnote 27

From these deliberations on the author, two suggestions with regard to the date of composition have been put forward. Mirbt concludes that it was written between 1074 and 1078,Footnote 28 and a late dating of the letter has more recently been proposed by Ian Robinson,Footnote 29 H. E. J. CowdreyFootnote 30 and Erwin Frauenknecht, amongst others. Frauenknecht also suggests Constance as the place of origin.Footnote 31 Anne BarstowFootnote 32 and Colin Morris,Footnote 33 however, follow Fliche and conclude that the treatise was written around 1060. From this overview, then, the termini ante and post quem are 1059 and 1079 respectively. As will be seen, there are several good reasons for preferring a late dating (1074 or 1075) of the text.

The following analysis will deal with three interrelated themes. First, the argumentative and rhetorical structure of the Epistola will be presented by relating features of the text to the remaining polemical literature of the Investiture Contest. Second, the ensuing discussion will be analysed, emphasising the form and function of public debate in the late eleventh century as well as the interpretive approaches applied by the participants. Third, the analysis will throw light on a somewhat neglected subject within church history, namely views that deviate from the ‘official’ – or Gratian – view of clerical continence – and marriage.Footnote 34

Justifying the public debate

The Epistola is a fairly short text, amounting to only six pages in the MGH edition. It includes all the ingredients of the so-called Bolognese format.Footnote 35 Like almost every polemic composed between 1030 and 1070, Pseudo-Udalric's effort contains a so-called ‘justification clause’. Briefly, such a ‘clause’ was a way of justifying public criticism. Regardless of whether the polemical writer remained anonymous like the author of the De ordinando pontifice, or revealed his identity like Guido of Arezzo, Humbert of Silva-Candida or Peter Damian, all contemporary polemicists offered such clauses. Consequently, neither modesty nor fear of sanctions fully explains the anonymity of several of these writers, including Pseudo-Udalric. In the Epistola, the justification clause follows immediately after the salutatio, and starts by referring to a synodal decree: ‘O father and master, when I found your decrees on clerical continence, recently sent to me, to be contrary to good judgement (discretione), fear and sadness shook me. Fear, I say, because it is said that “the verdict of a pastor is to be feared, be it just or unjust”.’Footnote 36 The pope, the ‘head’, is then addressed directly: ‘For what is more serious, what is more worthy of the compassion of the whole Church, than that you, the bishop of its highest see, to whom the whole multitude of the Church looks, deviate even a little from holy discretion (discretione)?’Footnote 37 According to the author, ‘Indeed, you have deviated more than a little from this, as you would force clerics with a certain imperious violence (violentia cogere) towards abstinence, while you ought to have advised (monere) them towards this.’Footnote 38 In conclusion, this lack of discretion is then specified: ‘Is not the common judgement of all sensible people undermined when one is compelled to enforce the private decrees (privata decreta) of an individual against the evangelical customs and the dictate of the Holy Spirit?’Footnote 39

Compared to other early polemics the clause in the Epistola is different in at least two respects. First, while the clauses of these early texts are all conditioned by contemporary incidents – simony (Guido of Arezzo, Humbert of Silva-Candida), contested papal election (De ordinando pontifice) and rulings at a church council (Peter Damian) – the immediate cause for the author of the Epistola is a text, namely a synodal decree. Second, the justification clause is less elaborate, particularly when compared to those by Guido of Arezzo and the author of De ordinando pontifice. The first difference can probably be explained if it is assumed that the Epistola was composed in the mid-1070s, in a transition period between the early polemical endeavours and the writings from the 1080s and 1090s. This is mainly because the tendency to refer to contemporary texts appears forcefully only in the polemics of the 1080s. The second divergence, the less elaborate justification clause, can also be explained by the transitory situation of the Epistola: in the later writings these clauses largely disappear and are replaced by introductions that are more concerned with outlining meta-rules for the written public encounter.Footnote 40

In terms of argumentative structure, these passages not only contain the justification clause, but also prepare for the later argumentative encounter by putting forward a notion of discretion (discretione) – a notion which is strikingly similar to John Cassian's idea of discretion as a regulative ideal derived from tradition.Footnote 41 Already in the first passage, Pseudo-Udalric establishes a contrast between the synodal decree – a reference to the ruling on continence at the Roman synods of 1059, 1063, 1074 or 1075 – and a more pragmatic approach guided by discretion. Even so, our author was not the only polemicist to address Pope Gregory i's command to follow pastoral sentences.Footnote 42 What he can be credited with, however, is being the first to apply Gregory's command to deal with the relationship between authority and discretion.Footnote 43

The moral theological argument

After the justification clause, Pseudo-Udalric presents the moral-theological argument which specifies the lack of discretion in the decree: ‘Since, therefore, there are many examples from the Old and the New Testament, teaching, as you know, holy wisdom, I entreat of your discretion that it will not be heavy for your paternity if a few of the many are inserted here.’Footnote 44 After noting the practice of instituted marriage in the Old Testament, the author goes on to underline that ‘the same is found in the Gospel’: ‘There are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let those accept it who can [Matthew xix. 11–12].’Footnote 45 Next, the quotation from Matthew is used as an interpretive point of departure for introducing the issue of virginity:Footnote 46 ‘And because of this, the Apostle also said “On the question of virginity, I have no instructions from the Lord, but I give my judgement [1 Corinthians vii. 25]”’. ‘Because there is so much immorality’, he said, ‘let each man have his own wife [1 Cor. vii. 2].’Footnote 47

These two arguments are not only deductively related, but also connected to the introductory elaboration. Because ‘unjust pastoral sentences must be respected’, the author is concerned with presenting the scriptural affirmation of marriage in general and with putting forward hypothetical scenarios dealing with the practical consequences of these ‘unjust sentences’. Thus, whereas a papal decree is in principle valid irrespective of its content, Pseudo-Udalric needs to find a way to criticise the decree, but without negating the papal power to issue rulings at the same time. In essence, the author attacks the validity of the ruling by distinguishing this private decree from other decrees by its lack of discretion. Hence, by invoking a transpersonal notion of the papal office as separate from the person holding the office, the pope's private decrees can be criticised without questioning the mandate of the papal office.

Consequently, the argument hinges on the interpretation of the scriptural passage ‘let each man have his own wife’. The passage is problematic because it only offers a general statement. More specifically, the link between marriage as an institution and virginity is metaphorical, clearly attested by the fact that the first part of the scriptural quote – ‘because there is so much immorality’ – refers to the Augustinian saeculum rather than the spiritual life. The following passages demonstrate an attempt to solve this interpretive challenge. After having noted that ‘those hypocrites lie when they say that this pertains particularly to laity’ and that ‘they have not rightly understood scripture’, the correct view is put forward: ‘For this apostolic statement, “let each man have his own wife”, excludes no one, except him who professed to true continence, or him who has promised to the lord a continuance of virginity.’Footnote 48 Next, Pseudo-Udalric provides testimony in order to refute that this ‘pertains particularly to the laity’, emphasising by way of biblical quotes that this relates to bishops, deacons and clerics.Footnote 49

How is this interpretive effort to be evaluated? The quotations do not support the interpretive rendering of the passage ‘let each man have his own wife’ because there is no mention of the individual profession of continence. Instead, the author approaches the question dialectically, providing scriptural and canon law evidence for priestly marriage in general. This detour has several advantages over an argument that only provides evidence of the need for individual professions. First, by arguing for clerical marriage as an institution, Pseudo-Udalric provides the link to the initial scriptural approach to marriage as an institution. Moreover, the apparent lack of evidence for continence also conforms to the fact that the Apostle had ‘no instructions from the Lord’ on this question. On the negative side, the author diverges from his original point of departure; because the criticism of the papal decree amounted to an insistence on discretion in the form of admonishment, the present argument for clerical marriage as an institution introduces a tension which depends on the antithetical relationship between continence and marriage. Moreover, by invoking a hypothetical scenario that was far removed from the historical facts,Footnote 50 Pseudo-Udalric undermines the interpretive approach to Scripture that achieves its coherence precisely by shedding theoretical elaborations and focusing instead on what the Bible says about the practical side of clerical behaviour. Indeed, the reliance on ad hominem rhetoric does not relieve the tension; in contrast to later polemicists, the author stops short of explaining why the opponents have failed to grasp the correct interpretive meaning of the passage. The conflicting view propagated by ‘those hypocrites’ – a view in which the identity of sacerdotal hierarchy was grounded in a notion of ritual purity – is either not recognised or is of no interest to the author. As such, more emphasis is placed on a demonstrative presentation of his case than on an explication of the interpretive differences between contrasting views on clerical continence.

Another important question raised by the passage concerns Pseudo-Udalric's opponents. Who were these ‘hypocrites’? Peter Damian had excluded priests from the ruling by juxtaposing 1 Cor. vii. 2 and 1 Cor. xi–xiii,Footnote 51 and he might well have been the author's target. Another possibility is Bernold of Constance, who interpreted the biblical passages in question in terms of the necessity of clerical purity and continence.Footnote 52 Bernold, moreover, also sensed the reaction to the ruling at the Roman synod of 1074, as expressed in the debate between him and a priest named Alboin.Footnote 53 Admittedly, these suggestions amount to speculation since the author does not offer the slightest clue as to the identity of his opponents. If there ever was a discussion over clerical continence in the 1060s, it has left no trace in the surviving sources. The issue reappears first in Lampert's Annales of 1074,Footnote 54 and then in a letter written by the clergy of Cambrai to the metropolitan church of Rheims,Footnote 55 possibly from 1078.Footnote 56 To this should also be added a letter from a group of priests in Noyon, which replies to the Cambrai letter.Footnote 57

This brief glimpse into the discussion until the mid-1070s is meant to show how the broaching of the issue – perhaps first by Pseudo-Udalric – resulted in a sizeable public debate. Admittedly, the only part of the discussion of which there is relatively certain knowledge is that conducted by written means. That having been said, it is more than likely that parts of the Epistola were orally promulgated to wider audiences, thus creating more discussion not recorded in the sources.Footnote 58 The subject was relevant to all churchmen and evidently provoked anger, such as that recorded in Cambrai. In addition, the use of oral and aural forms of communication seems to be particularly important in the reform papacy's efforts to enforce the rulings on clerical continence, as exemplified in Pope Gregory vii's letter to Archbishop Anno of Cologne of 1075: ‘I command … you to apply yourself with more energy to preach and enforce the purity of the clergy.’Footnote 59 Still, the best example of the form and function of the public debate is provided by Pseudo-Udalric's historical argument.

The historical argument: debating the example of Paphnutius

The historical argument of the Epistola is peculiar both regarding its argumentative function and in terms of its later reception. Of the two examples which make up the argument, neither contains new elements, but only serves to confirm earlier arguments. The first example is an outline of a discussion of clerical marriage at the Synod of Nicaea. The example, borrowed from Cassidorius' Historiae tripartitae, consists partly of paraphrases and partly of verbatim quotations.Footnote 60 According to Pseudo-Udalric, the synod was to confirm a decree ruling that bishops, presbyters and deacons should abstain from marriage, and anyone failing to comply would be deposed from office. In the midst of the proceedings, the martyr Paphnutius objected by addressing the potential danger of fornication resulting from such a ruling. In the end, the martyr persuaded the council not to pass the decree.Footnote 61

Pseudo-Udalric has often been credited with introducing the example of Paphnutius into the polemical debate,Footnote 62 and defenders of clerical marriage frequently embraced its authority.Footnote 63 The author of the Tractatus pro clericorum conubio,Footnote 64 for instance, sets out to strengthen the legitimacy of priestly marriage, while at the same time attempting to undermine the ‘authors of the new dogma’ who claim that clerical marriages were adulterous and illicit. In countering an interpretation of the third canon of the Synod of NicaeaFootnote 65 as tantamount to a ruling on clerical celibacy,Footnote 66 the author first points out that such a ruling would contradict later rulings at Chalcedon, Carthage and Toledo as well as the decrees of Popes Sirius, Leo i and Gregory i. To strengthen the argument, the example of Paphnutius is then quoted,Footnote 67 providing the anonymous author with a corroboration of his canon law argument. Another defender of clerical marriage, the anonymous author of Cameracensium et Noviomensium clericorum epistolae, written after 1078, uses the example of Paphnutius to refute the rulings at the Council of Poitiers of 1078: ‘This verdict, that first was directed towards the priests, has now also been decided for the entire order of clerics; our command is that a cleric is allowed to wield in marriage once … because Paphnutius also spoke of this same matter in the synod of Nicaea.’Footnote 68 Like Pseudo-Udalric, the anonymous stresses that the source is the history of Cassidorius. In addition, and also like Pseudo-Udalric, the example is used against a contemporary synodal ruling and thereby addresses both the moral-theological and the institutional side of the question of priestly marriage.Footnote 69

The continuous efforts of Bernold, canon of Constance, and subsequently monk of St Blasien to repudiate the example of Paphnutius is probably the best attestation to the public stir caused by Pseudo-Udalric's Epistola in general and the example of Paphnutius in particular. Bernold's polemic, De incontinentia sacerdotum, written in 1075–6, might be a scholarly response to the Epistola. One indicator of this is the effort made by Bernold to refute the authoritative value of the example of Paphnutius. From this first polemical encounter, it is evident that Bernold is unsure of how to forge his defence. The status of Paphnutius as a martyr was obviously invested with such symbolic authority that Bernold refrained from reinterpreting the authoritative example. Instead, Bernold distinguishes between the credibility of the ontological status of the martyr and the lack of credibility allotted to the textual epistemology through the history of Cassiodorius.Footnote 70 Thus, by differentiating between the ontological credibility invested in Paphnutius as the sole focus of referentiality and the written mediation of the example, the way is open for a selective interpretation of the story of Paphnutius, or for its outright condemnation.

Bernold restricts himself to questioning the validity of the textual transmission. The last step – condemning the Epistola – is only taken when the author can use additional authorities, such as an official condemnation of the polemic, to support his initial textual criticism of the example. According to Bernold's Chronicon, the Roman synod in March 1079 condemned the Epistola of Pseudo-Udalric along with the chapter on Paphnutius: ‘In this synod, the pope condemned … the writing of the so-called holy Ulrich to Pope Nicholas regarding the marriage of presbyters, and the chapter on Paphnutius on the same issue, indeed contrary to all the sacred canons.’Footnote 71 Whether the Epistola actually was condemned at the Roman synod is not known because the ruling is not included in the protocol. In any case, the synod – or, alternatively, the attempt to justify Bernold's own condemnation by attributing it to a synod – underscores the author's condemnation of the chapter treating Paphnutius in the treatise of Pseudo-Udalric rather than of the example in itself.

A second encounter with the example of Paphnutius occurs in the Fragmentum Merseburgense de caelibatu cleri, written before 1079.Footnote 72 The fragmentary state of the manuscripts makes it difficult to discern the entire argument, but the polemic is presumably an attempt to repudiate the Epistola and, in particular, the example of Paphnutius. The anonymous authorFootnote 73 starts by quoting church rulings ordering clerics to abstain from women, and thereafter offers the example of Paphnutius from the history of Cassidorius. At this point the Epistola is introduced. According to the anonymous, the letter voiced concern over the lack of discretion in the papal ruling.Footnote 74 Next, two arguments pertaining to the veracity of the Epistola are introduced. First, the anonymous deals with the attribution of the Epistola to Ulrich of Augsburg: ‘But in the times of the holy Ulrich there was no pope by this name, and primarily because the letter [the Epistola] contains a lie it is condemned.’Footnote 75 The argumentative intention of the author is to deprive the letter of the authority it received from being attached to the ‘holy bishop’ Ulrich of Augsburg.Footnote 76 In so doing, the anonymous undermines the veracity of the entire text. The second argument levelled against the author of the Epistola before the fragment breaks off deals with Pseudo-Udalric's use of a historical example pertaining to Pope Gregory i: ‘the same letter [the Epistola] referred to doctor Gregory, but this issue is not found in his vita, not in his register, not in any of his writings or in anything dealing with him’.Footnote 77

These varied uses of Paphnutius indicate, first, the lack of an agreed interpretive model in dealing with the textual past.Footnote 78 Pseudo-Udalric's initial presentation of the example underlines the origin of the source and offers a literal interpretation of the story extended to serve as a general moral-theological example. The anonymous author of the Tractatus pro clericorum conubio, on the other hand, attests to a different application of Paphnutius. Rather than using the example as the main argument in relation to the Synod of Nicaea, the anonymous employs it as the final corroboration of an argument based on church rulings. In other words, the anonymous contextualises the use of the example in relation to his evidence. Bernold, however, considers the third canon of Nicaea to be a ruling on priestly celibacy. By situating the textual mediator in a hierarchy of authoritative sources in which rulings from the ecumenical councils are second to Scripture regarding authoritative value,Footnote 79 Bernold questions the epistemological veracity of Cassiodorius' description without actually undermining the example. Moreover, the author of the Fragmentum Merseburgense de caelibatu cleri applies a ‘source critical’ method to question the veracity of the entire Epistola, including the example of Paphnutius. By refuting the authorship of Ulrich of Augsburg as well as presenting the author's application of Pope Gregory i as false, the anonymous has put forward a forceful rhetorical praemunitio undermining the example of Paphnutius.

Second, the discussion of the example also attests to the form and function of the contemporary public debate. Although the controversy not only dealt with Paphnutius but also with other aspects of the text that may have transmitted the example, the example remained the bone of contention for the contemporary polemicists; the defenders of clerical marriage adapted it wholeheartedly (Cameracensium et Noviomensium clericorum epistolae) and in other cases adjusted its authoritative value in relation to a given argumentative strategy (Tractatus pro clericorum conubio). The attempts to refute the Epistola, however, started carefully by suggesting a possible erroneous attribution (De incontinentia sacerdotum), and only later did the argumentative encounter escalate to the point where individual polemicists condemned the Epistola, either supported by the official condemnation of 1079 (Chronicon), or by more sophisticated contextualising techniques for comparing texts (Fragmentum Merseburgense de caelibatu cleri).

Third, the introduction of the example of Paphnutius highlights the question of clerical marriage. In fact, it seems that the emphasis on the example alters the focus of the public debate; whereas the contributions from the 1070s (Peter Damian, Lampert of Hersfeld, the clergy of Cambrai, the priests of Noyon) refer to clerical continence, in the wake of the Epistola's introduction of Paphnutius the stress is more on marriage – or enforced celibacy. It is thus indicative that Bernard refers to the Epistola as a text ‘regarding the marriage of presbyters’. Most likely, the consecutive synodal rulings from 1059 until 1075 – hinting as they did at the invalidity of clerical marriage – resulted in a new awareness of the interrelationship between continence and marriage. The entire public debate centring on Paphnutius provides one indicator, whereas the Pseudo-Udalric's approach provides another; the scriptural references to clerical marriage as an institution in the first part of the Epistola – used as a point of departure for dealing with clerical continence – is now historically corroborated. At the same time, the link between clerical marriage and continence serves as an authoritative precedent for an approach guided by discretion. On another level, the example of Paphnutius is used as an analogy to Pseudo-Udalric's own fight against clerical continence: the institutional setting for both was a synodal decree, and both argue in terms of a pragmatic view of human nature. Furthermore, the example supplements the antithesis running throughout the polemic, contrasting the contended synodal decree with moral theology, church rulings and pragmatic considerations. The antithesis in this case, however, contrasts the substantial rulings with the two synods and also addresses the question of procedure: the proceedings at Nicaea resulted in a revocation of the decree and, consequently, accentuated discretion, which was in stark contrast to Pope Nicholas' synodal decree. Hence, the effort to undermine the legitimacy of the papal decree by regarding it as a private decree has, by being attached to the Paphnutius example, been supplemented with a historical precedent of the most renowned and authoritative church council.

Distinctly different from the example of Paphnutius, the historical example of Pope Gregory has fared less well. The author of the Fragmentum Merseburgense de caelibatu cleri had already exposed the example as a falsification. Not surprisingly, scholarship has frequently considered it the most negative side to the Epistola.Footnote 80 The author introduces the example by addressing his anonymous opponents – ‘For there are some who use the holy Gregory as proof of their heresy’ – before accusing them of ignorance because they have not understood that Gregory's decree was removed when the danger inherent in the ruling became evident to the pope.Footnote 81 This danger, according to the author, became apparent when the pope, after having decreed that priests should separate from their wives, found the heads of 6,000 babies in his fishpond.Footnote 82 Pseudo-Udalric then states that the pope condemned his own decree, confirming the Apostle Paul's advice that ‘it is better to marry than to burn [1 Cor. vii–ix]’, while Gregory himself added that ‘It is better to marry than to offer an occasion for death.’Footnote 83

This fable, perhaps derived from the Vita S. Gregorii,Footnote 84 has, notwithstanding its spurious character, several argumentative functions. First, as the author remarks, it provides a reminder of what might occur if the present decree is not revoked. The quotation from Gregory in particular addresses what is called ‘secondary ethical solutions’, and as such provides Pseudo-Udalric's defence with an additional ethical dimension. Second, the example gives an authoritative precedent for the possibility of revoking a papal decree due to lack of discretion, and as such confirms the overriding importance of discretion throughout the Epistola. Third, the example and its concluding biblical quote regarding authority subordinates the power of the pope in issuing decrees to a moral-theological evaluation of the ‘justness’ of the given decree.

Elaborating on the ethical argument: the idea of discretion

The ethical argument – centring on the idea of discretion – has been introduced earlier, but it is only in the third narratio that it is elaborated, basically by reintroducing the ‘impose/admonish’ dichotomy. It starts with three quotations from Augustine's letter to Donatus concerning the dangers of imposing rulings. After reminding his audience that Augustine ‘drank from the cup of discretion’ which has its source in the apostolic predictions, the author puts forward four scriptural quotation on the utility of marriage.Footnote 85 Next, the author applies Jerome's exposition of Jeremiah to underline that to impose, rather than to admonish, clerical continence not only can have grave consequences in the form of fornication, but may also lead to wicked intentions: ‘what use is a chaste body in a debauched mind, if he lacks the other virtues that the sermon of the prophet described?’Footnote 86

This argument hardly renders the author a humanist; nor does it foreshadow the opposition between ‘tradition’ and ‘Scripture’ that emerges in the wake of the Reformation – as Fauser claims.Footnote 87 What it does, however, is hint at certain traits which foreshadow the humanism of the twelfth century.Footnote 88 Pseudo-Udalric's take on Jerome exemplifies several features of his humanism. Whereas Augustine considered sex to be good but debased by passion and human frailties, Jerome believed that it was inherently evil because it was carnal and not spiritual.Footnote 89 The author, by reinterpreting the church Father is then able to counter Jerome, while at the same time applying his authority in support of his own view ultimately derived from Scripture. Jerome's ‘carnal’ argument is undermined because it shows that the inevitable result of clerical continence either amounts to fornication, which is a grave sin, or to unclean thoughts based on carnal needs that distract from spiritual concerns. This reinterpretation, in turn, is only possible because the author has contextualised the theme of clerical continence by linking it to marriage as a holy institution on the one hand, and by emphasising the ethical consequences of a divergence from discretion in terms of real or intended ‘fornication’ on the other.

Hence, only the use of authorities to justify the argument attests to the restrictions of the author's ‘humanistic thought’. The point of departure is still the sinful human being who is in need of correction; the author uses a pragmatic negative view of human nature to argue for an arrangement more suited to the sinful human being. As such, and in contrast to strains of twelfth-century humanism that generally had a more positive view of the human being and focused on the human potential, Pseudo-Udalric's humanism is relatively embryonic.

Long ago Ernst Dümmler characterised the polemic as the sharpest and most decisive defence of priestly marriage.Footnote 90 Almost a century later James Brundage considered the protest against mandatory clerical celibacy to be ‘eloquent’, based on the author's denouncement of the policy as improvident, uncanonical and unjust.Footnote 91 From yet another perspective, Augustin Fliche contended that the author only plays with texts and hardly comes up with any new ideas.Footnote 92 Countering Fliche, Anne Barstow claims that the author never intended to be original, and concludes that despite few canonical references, the author argues well from Scripture and the Fathers.Footnote 93

It is difficult to disagree with Dümmler and Brundage; the discussion of the Epistola – and the Paphnutius example in particular – accentuates the extent to which the author succeeded in stirring up a public debate in an environment where debate and criticism were condemned and in essence were considered as heretical activity. Undeniably, the author plays with texts and there are – with the exception of the humanistic tenor of the discretion argument – few argumentative innovations. On the other hand, it was precisely this playing with texts and the resulting connection between arguments based on moral theology, history and ethics that brought the issue of clerical continence and, consequently, priestly marriage onto the public agenda again for the first time in six hundred years.

Other texts were also part of the public debate; one example is a treatise of Norman origin, ‘Eine Streitschrift für Priesterehe’.Footnote 94 It was probably composed around 1075 and the author seems to have been influenced by the Epistola.Footnote 95 Another cluster of texts, which show no clear relationship to the Epistola, was written after the condemnation of the text at the Roman synod of 1079; in the early 1080s, the royal polemicists Wenrich of TrierFootnote 96 and Sigebert of GemblouxFootnote 97 both argued in favour of clerical marriage, thus continuing the public debate started by Pseudo-Udalric. A bit later, the Norman anonymous continued the fight for clerical marriage in the form of two treatises probably composed in the late 1090s.Footnote 98 It is significant that these contributions primarily discuss clerical marriage, thus signalling a move further away from the emphasis on continence which dominated in the early phase – including Pseudo-Udalric's Epistola. With this in mind, the papacy's push towards enforced celibacy by invalidating clerical marriage at the Second Lateran Council of 1139 was perhaps not only a result of the failure of the policy of continence, but also an effort to curtail a more hostile and vocative public opinion. Arguably the best indicator of the force of the Epistola, however, is not found in the eleventh century, but emerges five hundred years later; in 1520 Martin Luther rediscovered Pseudo-Udalric's text and used it to instigate the polemical discussion on clerical continence and marriage.Footnote 99

References

1 For a historiographical survey with references see Edward Peters, ‘History, historians, and clerical celibacy’, in Michael Frassetto (ed.), Medieval purity and piety: essays on medieval clerical celibacy and religious reform, New York 1998, 3–23.

2 ‘It was in the late eleventh and twelfth century that the law of clerical continence was transformed into the law of clerical celibacy. This period, like the fourth century, marked a turning point in western society as well as in the church; the passage from one historical era to the next’: Paul Baudette, ‘ “In the world but not of it”: clerical celibacy as a symbol of the medieval Church’, ibid. 34.

3 Mayke De Jong, ‘Imitatio morum: the cloister and clerical purity in the Carolingian world’, ibid. 49–81.

4 Elizabeth Dachowski, ‘Tertius est optimus: marriage, continence and virginity in the politics of late tenth- and early eleventh-century Francia’, ibid. 118.

5 Michael Frassetto, ‘Heresy, celibacy, and reform in the sermons of Ademar of Chabannes’, ibid. 137.

6 Phyllis G. Jestice, ‘Why celibacy? Odo of Cluny and the development of a new sexual morality’, ibid. 81–117.

7 Brundage, James A., ‘“Allas! That evere love was synne”: sex and medieval canon law’, Catholic Historical Review lxxii (1986), 9–10Google Scholar.

8 On the reform papacy's approach to the question of married priests see Anne L. Barstow, Married priests and the reforming papacy: the eleventh-century debates, New York 1982, 47–173.

9 Ibid. 55.

10 James A. Brundage, Law, sex, and Christian society in medieval Europe, Chicago 1987, 218. Uta-Renate Blumenthal has questioned the tendency to attribute the novelties to the decree of 1059 because the decree refers to the lost constitutio de castitate clericorum of Pope Leo ix: ‘Pope Gregory vii and the prohibition of Nicolaitism’, in Frassetto, Medieval purity and piety, 243–4. Later, in a letter to Bishop Turin from 1064, Damian refers to a ruling on clerical chastity that might be the lost ruling of Leo ix.

11 Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. Kurt Reindel, Munich 1983, no. 31 at pp. 283–330.

12 While parish priests insisted that their marriages were canonical, Damian retorted that the Council of Nicaea had ruled that only lectors or cantors could be married, and that the papal legate at the Second Council of Carthage had convinced the council to issue a similar ruling: PL cxliv. 359–61.

13 Damian's main argument is that since Christ was born of a virgin, he wished to be served by virgin hands.

14 ‘In fact, the aggressive policy of the papacy had made the married clergy defiant, somewhat more conscious of themselves as a group within the church’: Barstow, Married priests, 66.

15 Very little is known of the activity at these two first councils. For a discussion see Somerville, Robert, ‘The councils of Gregory vii’, Studi Gregoriani xiii (1989), 43Google Scholar: ‘It is overwhelmingly probable that Gregory's synods of both 1074 and 1075 treated the issues of simony and clerical incontinence.’

16 Seventeen letters are of this type: Barstow, Married priests, 218 n. 43.

17 Brundage, Law, sex, and Christian society, 219. According to Blumenthal ‘The measures promulgated in February 1075 were sometimes circulated in Germany on the basis of Gregory's letters as part of small propagandist collections as well as in the local councils the pontiff instructed the bishop to hold’: ‘Pope Gregory vii’, 249.

18 Brundage, James A., ‘Sexuality, marriage, and the reform of Christian society in the thought of Gregory vii’, Studi Gregoriani xiv (1991), 71Google Scholar.

19 ‘I imagine, then, that if married clergy were common in eleventh-century England, the Gregorian reform had, over two centuries, a considerable effect’: Brooke, C. N. L., ‘Gregorian reform in action: clerical marriage in England, 1050–1200’, Cambridge Historical Journal xii (1956), 7Google Scholar.

20 Brundage, Law, sex, and Christian society, 220.

21 ‘We have no knowledge of a literary defense of priestly marriage between the fifth and the eleventh centuries’: Barstow, Married priests, 105.

22 See Erwin Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, Hanover 1997, 173–93.

23 L. De Heinemann, Pseudo-Udalrici epistola de continentia clericorum ed. L. De Heinemann, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1891, 254.

24 Carl Mirbt, Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII. (1894), Leipzig 1965, 12.

25 Henry C. Lea, History of sacerdotal celibacy in the Christian Church, i, London 1907, 119.

26 Augustin Fliche, La Reforme gregorienne, Louvain 1937, 1–12.

27 Bernhard Schmeidler, Kaiser Heinrich IV. und seine Helfer im Investiturstreit. Stilkritische und Sachkritische Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1927, 193, 195.

28 Mirbt, Die Publizistik, 12.

29 Ian S. Robinson, Authority and resistance in the Investiture Contest: the polemical literature of the late eleventh century, Manchester 1978, 167.

30 H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085, Oxford 1998, 288.

31 Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung, 40, 70.

32 According to Barstow (Married priests, 116), the false ascription of the treatise to the tenth-century Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg (923–73) was probably an attempt by the Gregorian papacy to create a distance in time and space to the scholarly defence of clerical marriage.

33 Colin Morris, The papal monarchy: the western Church from 1050 to 1250, Oxford 1989, 104.

34 On Gratian's embracement of the reform movement's views on celibacy see Brundage, Law, sex, and Christian society, 251.

35 The so-called Bolognese ‘approved format’ for a letter consists of salutatio, captatio benevolentiae, narratio and petitio: James J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: a history of rhetorical theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance, Berkeley 1981, 225.

36 ‘Cum tua, o pater et domine, decreta super clericorum continentia nuper mihi transmissa a discretione invenirem aliena, timor me turbavit cum tristicia. Timor quidem propter hoc, quod dicitur: Pastoris sententia sive iusta sive iniusta timenda est’: Der Pseudo-Udalrich-Brief, ed. E. Frauenknecht, Hanover 1997, 203–4. The quotation is from Gregory i, Homilia in Evangelia xxxvi. 6, PL lxxvi: ‘Sed utrum iuste an iniuste obliget pastor, pastoris tamen sententia gregi timenda est, ne is qui subest, et cum iniuste forsitan ligatur, ipsam obligationis suae sententiam ex alia culpa mereatur.’

37 ‘Quid enim gravius, quid tocius aecclesiae compassione dignius, quam te summae sedis pontificem, ad quem tocius aecclesiae spectat examen, a sancta discretione vel minimum exorbitare?’: Der Pseudo-Udalrich-Brief, 204.

38 ‘Non parum quippe ad hac deviasti, cum clericos, quos ad abstinentiam coniugii monere debueras, ad hanc imperiosa quadam violentia cogere volebas’: ibid.

39 ‘Nunquidnam merito communi omnium sapientium iudicio haec non est violentia, cum contra evangelicam institutionem ac sancti Spiritus dictationem ad privata aliquis decreta cogitur exequenda?’, ibid.

40 For a more detailed analysis see Leidulf Melve, Inventing the public sphere: the polemical literature of the Investiture Contest, c. 1030–1122, Leiden 2007, 45–119.

41 Cassian's notion of discretion is outlined in the Second Conference of Abbot Moses, PL xlix. 523–58a. Casiday, See also Augustine, ‘Tradition as a governing theme in the writings of John Cassian’, Early Medieval Europe xvi (2008), 191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Gebhard of Salzburg is the only writer to uses the quotation in the same abridged form: Epistola ad Herimannum Mettensem episcopum data, ed. K. Francke, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1891, i. 267. In addition to Gebhard, it was also used by other polemicists, including Manegold of Lautenbach, Liber ad Gebehardum, ed. K. Francke, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1891, i. 392; Liber canonum contra Heinricum quartum, ed. F. Thaner, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1891, i. 484; De unitate ecclesiae conservanda, ed. W. Schwenkenbecher, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1892, ii. 245–6; Deusdedit, Libellus contra invasores et symoniacos, ed. E. Sackur, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1892, ii. 361; and Hugh of Fleury, Tractatus de regia potestate et sacerdotali dignitate, ed. E. Sackur, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1892, ii. 478.

43 Frauenknecht interprets the introduction in relation to the ‘Aufruhrkanon für erhebliche mißstimmung’ of the German episcopate: Die Verteidigung, 84.

44 ‘Cum ergo plurima veteris ac novi testamenti suppetant exempla, sanctam, ut nosti, discretionem docentia, tuae, rogo, ne grave sit paternitati vel pauca ex pluribus huic paginae interseri’: Der Pseudo-Udalrich-Brief', 204.

45 ‘Quod illi postmodum interdixisse non legitur; sed idem in evangelio loquitur: Sunt eunuchi, qui se castraverunt propter regnum caelorum; sed non omnes capiunt hoc verbum. Qui potest capere, capiat’: ibid. 204–5.

46 Although the two scriptural passages were commonly connected in discussions on priestly marriage, Pseudo-Udalric is the first to juxtapose the passages in the present discussion: Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung, 86 n. 86.

47 ‘Quapropter apostolus quoque ait: De virginibus praeceptum Domini non habeo, consilium autem do […] Propter fornicationem, dixit, unusquisque habeat suam uxorem’: Der Pseudo-Udalrich-Brief, 205.

48 ‘Nam illud apostolicum: Unusquisque habeat suam uxorem nullum excipit vere nisi professorem continentiae vel eum, qui de continuanda virginitate votum in Domino praefixit’: ibid.

49 Ibid. 206.

50 Whereas incidents of fornication are reported from the ninth and the tenth centuries, there are few recorded instances of homosexual behaviour from the eleventh century.

51 ‘Quibus utique verbis liquido claret, quia non sacerdotes sed populum corripiebat apostolus, qui sectas faciebant scismatum, dum diversorum se discipulos assererent esse doctorum. Cum ergo diceret unusquisque suam uxorem habeat, ille quoque coniugium indulgebat ad quos eloquium dirigebat’: Die Briefe des Petrus Damiani, ed. Kurt Reindel, Munich 1989, no. 141 at p. 496.

52 ‘Nempe si apostolus hic etiam sacerdotibus carnalem copulam concederet, profecto contrarius sibi esset, qui ad Titum scribens percipit, ut sacerdotes sobrii iusti sint atque continentes’: Bernold of Constance, Apologeticus, ed. F. Thaner, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1892, ii. 73.

53 Bernold of Constance, De prohibenda sacerdotium incontinentia, ed. F. Thaner, ibid. 7–26. Barstow states that ‘The six letters they exchanged indicate how tenaciously the publicists fought over the interpretation of historical records, how each side bent the evidence of tradition to fit its cause’: Married priests, 125. The best treatment of the correspondence is that of Frauenknecht, who regards the first reception of the Paphnutius chapter as resulting from oral communication that then became the point of departure for the epistolary correspondence between 1074 and 1076: Die Verteidigung, 18–28.

54 ‘Lambert's account uses scripture (Matthew 19: 11–12 and I Corinthians 7:9) and some terminology similar to Pseudo-Udalric's: the papal decree, by its violenta exactione, forced (cogere) men to live like angels, and fornicationis … frena laxeret’: Barstow, Married priests, 236 n. 15. Frauenknecht, however, has questioned the link to Pseudo-Udalric: Die Verteidigung, 45.

55 The letters from both Cambrai and Noyon are found in MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1897, iii. 573–8.

56 Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 289. See also Robinson, Authority and resistance, 166.

57 Barstow, Married priests, 125.

58 Ernst Dümmler noted that the Epistola probably had an extensive diffusion: ‘Eine Streitschrift für die Priesterehe’, in Sitzungsberichte der Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1902, Berlin 1902, 421. Later, Carl Erdmann stressed the extent to which the discussion of priestly marriage was conducted by oral as well as written means: Studien zur Briefliteratur Deutschlands im elften Jahrhundert (1938), Stuttgart 1962, 246.

59 ‘adhortor … ut ad castitatem clericorum predicandam atque inculcandam … studiosius accingaris’: Das Register Gregors VII, ed. E. Caspar, MGH, Epistolae selectae, Berlin 1955, i. 223.

60 Cassidorius, Historia tripartita, ed. R. Hanslik and W. Jacob, CSEL lxxi (1952), i. 10, 1; ii. 14. According to Frauenknecht textual differences render it less likely that the source of the Paphnutius example is Pseudo-Udalric. Instead, the source is probably a version of the Cassidorius text: Die Verteidigung, 31–2.

61 Der Pseudo-Udalrich-Brief, 207–8.

62 Robinson, Authority and resistance, 166. By comparing the story of Paphnutius with the subscription list of the synod as well as contemporary literary sources, Friedhelm Winkelmann contends that the story most likely is fabricated: ‘Die Problematik der Entstehung der Paphnutioslegende’, in Joachim Herrmann, Helga Köpstein and Reimar Müller (eds), Griechenland – Byzanz – Europa: ein Studienband, Berlin 1985, 32–43. According to Peter L'Hullier the story of the intervention of Paphnutius is probably a legend fabricated in the east at the beginning of the fifth century in order to constitute a form of censure in the face of attempts by Rome to impose permanent celibacy on clerics in holy orders: The Church of the ancient councils: the disciplinary work of the first four ecumenical councils, New York 1996, 36.

63 Robinson, Authority and resistance, 166.

64 The dating of the treatise is contested. While Fliche, Barstow and McLaughlin find that it is composed ‘around 1065’, Robinson and Cowdrey accept the date given by the MGH editor E. Dümmler, namely between 1075 and 1080. See also Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung, 108–25.

65 ‘Concerning women who have been brought in to live with the clergy. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion’: Decrees of the ecumenical councils, i, ed. N. P. Tanner, London 1990, 7.

66 It is not credible that the Fathers of Nicaea wanted to impose celibacy: such an important decision would not only have been clearly formulated, but it would also have resonated in the sources: L'Hullier, The Church, 35–6.

67 Tractatus pro clericorum conubio, ed. E. Frauenknecht, Hanover 1997, 254–6.

68 ‘Adhuc eadem sententia, quae prius de coniugatis sacerdotibus fuerat ventilata, nunc etiam in omni ordine clericorum ab illis decernitur, cum regula nostra hoc habeat, ut unius matrimonii clericus federetur vinculo … cum etiam Paphnutius de hoc eodem ita intulerit in Nicena sinodo’: Cameracensium et Noviomensium clericorum epistolae, ed. H. Böhmer, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover, 1897, iii. 575.

69 The example and its similar argumentative use strengthens the case of literary borrowing from the Epistola.

70 ‘Quanto enim minus de earundem personarum sanctitate dubitamus, tanto magis nenias iisdem asscriptas, canonicis institutionibus contrarias, credimus esse falsas’: Bernold of Constance, De incontinentia sacerdotum, ed. F. Thaner, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1892, ii. 14.

71 ‘In hac synodo (1079) papa … scriptum quod dicitur sancti Oudalrici ad papam Nicolaum de nuptiis presbiterorum et capitulum Pafnutii de eadem re, immo omnia sacris canonibus adversa, damnavit’: idem, Chronicon, ed. I. S. Robinson, Darmstadt 2003, 422.

72 One argument for the dating of the Fragmentum has pointed to the fact that after the condemnation of the Epistola further polemical encounters were not necessary: Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung, 82. Peter Classen, however, notes that Gerhoch of Reichersberg referred to Pseudo-Udalric's text as late as 1131: Gerhoch von Reichersberg: eine Bibliographie mit einem Anhang über die Quellen, ihre handschriftliche Überlieferung und ihre Chronologie, Wiesbaden 1960, 52 n. 35.

73 Alois Fauser suggests Bernold of Constance as the author: Die Publizisten des Investiturstreites: Persönlichkeiten und Ideen, Würzburg 1935, 53. Frauenknecht, however, only situates the Fragmentum in the Constance environment: Die Verteidigung, 82.

74 ‘Pretendunt sue temeritati et adhuc epistolam, quam dicunt sanctum Ŏdalricum Augustensem Nicholao pape, continentiam clericis precipienti, legasse, et eum talia affectantem indiscrete humanitatis insimulasse et, ne hoc ordinatos strangularet laqueo rogasse’: Fragmentum Merseburgense de caelibatu cleri, ed. E. Dümmler, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1897, iii. 587.

75 ‘Sed cum temporibus sancti Ŏdalrici non fuerit papa huius nominis, epistolam hanc in prima fronte mendacii damnatam’: ibid.

76 Bishop Ulrich of Augsburg is regarded as the first saint to be solemnly canonised by a pope and was the object of widespread veneration. Thiemar of Merseburg calls him a ‘gem of the priesthood’ and Ulrich's biography, Vita sancti Oudalrici episcopi Augustani, was probably important in establishing the later cult.

77 ‘Preterea cum eadem epistola imponat doctori Gregorio, quod non in eius vita, non in eius regesto, non in scripto eius aliquo vel alicuius de eo invenitur’: Fragmentum Merseburgense, 587.

78 The period lacked an agreed interpretive model, and therefore infused an interpretive dynamic similar to the one evident within what Brian Stock calls ‘textual communities’: The implications of literacy: written language and models of interpretation in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Princeton 1983.

79 This approach accords with Bernold's general concern with contextualisation as well as with the clearly delineated hierarchy of authorities emerging from his approach to canon law.

80 ‘Es ist geradezu eine lächerliche Tollkühnheit oder traurige Unwissenheit, wenn man sich auf Gregor i beruft’: Mirbt, Die Publizistik, 297; ‘in deploring the popular assumption that Gregory the Great was the founder of celibacy, he tells an incredible tale in order to prove that, in fact, Gregory did not insist on celibacy’: Barstow, Married priests, 108; ‘Die macabre Erzählung ist längst als Fiktion abgetan’: Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung, 92.

81 ‘Sunt vero aliqui, qui sanctum Gregorium suae sectae sumunt adiutorium, quorum quidem temeritatem rideo, ignorantiam doleo. Ignorant etenim, quod periculosum huius heresies decretum a sancto Gregorio factum condigno penitentiae fructu postmodum ab eodem sit purgatum’: Der Pseudo-Udalrich-Brief, 208.

82 Ibid.

83 ‘suoque decreto prorsus dampnato, apostolicum illud laudavit consilium: Melius est nubere quam uri, addens ex sui parte: Melius nubere quam mortis occasionem praebere’: ibid.

84 For an overview of possible sources see Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung, 93–5.

85 Der Pseudo-Udalrich-Brief, 209–10.

86 ‘Quid enim prodest corporis pudicicia animo constuprato, si caeteras virtutes, quas propheticus sermo describit, non habuerit?’: ibid. 210.

87 Fauser, Die Publizisten, 90–2.

88 For discussions of eleventh- and twelfth-century individualism with references see Melve, Leidulf, ‘“The revolt of the medievalists”: directions in recent research on the twelfth-century Renaissance’, Journal of Medieval History xxxii (2006), 231–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 ‘The contrasting views of Jerome and Augustine have dominated Christian thinking about sexual issues since the fifth century’: Brundage, ‘ “Allas! That evere love was synne”’, 9. See also C. N. L. Brooke, The medieval idea of marriage, Oxford 1991, 54–6.

90 Dümmler, ‘Eine Streitschrift’, 421.

91 Brundage, Law, sex, and marriage, 221.

92 Fliche, La Reforme gregorienne, 11–12.

93 ‘Fliche's attitude reveals his own bias; he assumes that the tradition of the early church merely tolerated married clergy and therefore he judges all defenders of clerical marriage as going against tradition’: Barstow, Married priests, 109, 115.

94 Dümmler, ‘Eine Streitschrift’, 418–44.

95 Dümmler suggested that the author was a German married priest: ‘Eine Streitschrift’; Fliche, however, argued that it was composed by a married Norman priest and a student of Anselm: La Reforme gregorienne, 21–31.

96 Wenrich of Trier, Epistola, ed. K. Francke, MGH, Libelli de lite, Hanover 1891, i. 284–99.

97 Sigebert's polemic, the Epistola adversus laicorum in presbyteros coniugatos calumniam, has been edited anew: Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung, 217–39. For an analysis see Barstow, Married priests, 140–50.

98 The texts are De coniugio legitimo et non legitimo atque de sacerdotio and De sancta virginitate et de sacerdotum matrimonio: die Texte des Normannischen Anonymus, ed. K. Pellens, Wiesbaden 1966, 116–24, 204–8. For analyses of the texts see Karl Pellens, Die Kirchendenken des normannischen Anonymus, Wiesbaden 1973, 207–14; Barstow, Married priests, 157–73; and Megan McLaughlin, ‘The bishop as bridegroom: marital imagery and clerical celibacy in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries’, in Frassetto, Medieval purity and piety, 226–7.

99 See Stephen E. Buckwalter, Die Priesterehe in Flugschriften der frühen Reformation, Göttingen 1998, 72–6.