Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Robert L. Henson
I I DUO SUNT . . .
these stylistic devices w ith m astery and brav u ra. Yet his key term s
were p ro bably som ething m ore th a n a sim ple rhetorical an tith esis, for
in his arg u m en t th e language is rem arkably congruent w ith th e th o u g h t.13
T h a t Gelasius also used o th e r term inology elsewhere proves only th a t
he did n ot a tte m p t to create, and did not believe th a t he had created,
a fixed co nstitutional language: G elasiuss form ulation had n o t y et
becom e a formula.
B u t an o th er G clasian argum ent throw s fu rth e r light on D uo s u n t .
In a trea tise on excom m unication, th e Tomus de anathematis vinculo,
G elasius addressed th e sam e question from a different perspective.
Indeed, th e te x ts supplem ent each o th er so indispensably th a t one should
consider only th e tw o to g e th er as constitu tin g G elasiuss doctrine on
th e relation betw een im perium and sacerdotium.
Before the coming of Christ, certain men, though still engaged in carnal
activities, werein a prefiguring way (figuraliter) kings and priests at the
same time. Sacred history reports that holy Melchizedek was such. Among
his own, the Devil imitated this, since he always strives in a spirit of tyranny
to claim for himself those things which belong to divine worship, so that
pagan emperors were called also supreme pontiffs (maximi pontifices). But
when He came who was the true king and pontiff, thereafter the emperor
did not assume the title of pontiff, nor did the pontiff claim the royal
dignity. . . . Mindful of human frailty, Christ regulated with marvelous direc
tion what would serve the salvation of his people. Thus He separated the
offices of the two powers ( officia potestatis utri usque discrevit) in accordance
with their own functions and separate dignities (actionibus propriis digni
tatibusque distinctis), wanting his people to be saved by a healing humility,
and not snatched away again by human pride, so that Christian emperors
would need pontiffs for eternal life, and pontiffs would use imperial regulations
for the conduct of temporal affairs. Thus spiritual activity would he set apart
from carnal encroachments, and on that account he who serves God would
not be involved in secular m atters. And on the other hand, he who was
involved in secular m atters would not seem to preside over divine things,
so th at the humility of both orders (utriusque ordinis: emperors and pontiffs)
would be preserved, with no one being exalted in both ways, and so that the
profession of both orders woidd he especially fitted to the character of their
functions.14
II ! T H E TW O P O W E R S IN T H E E C C L E S I A
I l l I G R E G O R Y VII
IV I P O L E M I C A L L I T E R A T U R E A N D C A N O N L A W 72
Kings are ordained in the church of God, and at the holy altar are conse
crated with sacred unction and benediction, so that they may have the power
to rule the Christian people, . . . which is the holy Church of God. . . . For
this purpose, also the episcopal order is instituted, and consecrated with
holy unction ami benediction, so that it too may rule the holy Church.137
I n sharing th e rule o f th e Church, both th e consecrated king an d th e
bishop are th e vicars o f C hrist and b ear C hrists im age .138 The
A nonym ous described th e royal accessionth a t is, th e em powering of
th e kingas an in v estitu re b y G od.139 C onsequently, it is scarcely
surprising th a t th e A nonym ous defended th e kings rig h t to invest
bishops, b u t regarded th e object of investitu re as solely th e possession
o f tem poral prop erties an d th e pow er to rule G ods people .140 In
th e act of handing over th e pasto ral stafr to th e fu tu re bishop, th e king,
to whom th e bishops were e n tru ste d by God, so th a t he m ay rule over
them . . ., conveys a p a rt o f this investitu re to th e bishops .141 Diffe
ren tly sta te d , th e A nonym ous conceived th e king's in v estitu re o f bishops
as a p artial tran sfe rone m ight even say: a subdelegation o f th e
governing prerogative delegated to him by Christ: from C hrist th e K ing to
th e ea rth ly king, from th e e a rth ly king to th e bishop. Because everyone
who rides can rightly be called a king, in th e bishops in v estitu re a
king is installed by a king, th e lesser by th e greater .142 T he episcopate
should therefore be considered a royal priesthood (regale sacerdotium),
w hich is derived from th e king , since th e bishop th u s has th e kings
power and office .143 W hen th e A nonym ous, a t this p o in t, again quoted
Duo s u n t , in th e co n tex t o f th e larger argum en t one sees th e full
m eaning w hich th e A nonym ous assigned to th e form ula: T ogether, th e
king (who is also a priest) and th e bishop (whose potestas m akes him also
a king) ride th e ecclesia, b u t th e king rules th e bishop. Insofar as th e
bishop governs, he has received his potestas from th e king in th e inves
titu re . B oth for king and for bishop, th ereb y , th e A nonym ous repudiated
th e G elasian principle firm ly separating th e tw o form s o f power. And
w hereas Gelasius h ad envisioned a horizontal and essentially nonhicrar-
chical relation betw een m onarch and bishops, th e A nonym ous conceived
a v ertical and stric tly hierarchical relation, w ith th e g reater g ranting
potestas to th e lesser.
NOTES
1. jk 632; E. S c h w a r tz cd., Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma,
Abh. Akad. Mnchen, 1934, No. 10, Munich, 1934 (hereafter: S c h w a r tz ) , 20. The
abbreviations used throughout are common to most medieval journals.
2. Percy Ernst Schram m , Kaiser, Knige und Papste, 4 vols, in 5 parts, Stuttgart,
1968-71, 1.73: man kann nun die ganze weitere mittelalterliche Staatstheorie auf-
gliedern unhand dieses Satzes.
3. The only monograph on the Gelasian tradition is, unfortunately, quite unsatis
factory: Lotte K n a b e , Die gelasianische Zweigeicaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Jnves-
titurstreits, Historische Studien 292, Berlin, 1936.
4. On another occasion, I hope to reexamine some themes which could receive only
cursory treatment here.
5. jk 632; S c h w a r tz , 20.5-16.
6. This school of interpretation is especially indebted to Erich C a sp a r, Geschichte
ties Papsttums, 2 vols., Tubingen, 1930-33 (hereafter: CP), 2.63-73, 753-58. But Caspar
also saw in the text the Keim des Hierarchischen (2.68-70).
7. The view that Gelasius was a thoroughgoing hicrocrat has been most vigorously
argued by Walter U llm a n n , The Growth o f Papal Government in the Middle Ages,
3rd ed., London, 1970, 14-28, 462f, 478, maintaining the same interpretation as the
first edition (London, 1955). See Friedrich Ke.mpf, Die papstliche Gewalt in der mit-
telalterlichen Welt: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Walter Ullmann, Saggi storici intorno
al papato, Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 21, Rome, 1959, 117-69 at 166f; Giuseppe
M a r tin i, Alcune considerazioni sulla dottrina gelasiana, Bullettino delTIstituto storico
italiano, 75, 1963, 7-21. U llm a n n s recent study, Der Grundsatz der Arbeitsteiiung
bei Gelasius I., Hislorisches Jahrburh 97-98. 1978, 41-70, came to my attention too late
for consideration here.
8. But cf. U llm a n n , Growth 20f.
9. E. J. J o n k e h s . Pope Gelasius and Civil Law, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 20,
1952, 335-39; Janet L. N e ls o n , Gelasius I s Doctrine of Responsibility, Journal of
Theological Studies, n.s. 18, 1967, 154-62 at 158-60.
10. C a sp a r, GP 2.65f, 753; Francis D v o rn ik , Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anas-
tasius I, BZ 44, 1951 (-- Festschrift Franz Dlger), 111-16 at 113f.
11. C a sp a r, GP 2.66f, 753-58; Leo I, ep. 118, PL 54.1040, alsoep. 156.3, PL 54.1130.
12. Wilhelm E n s s lin , Auctoritas und Potestas: Zur Zwcigcwaltenlehrc des Papstes
Gelasius I., Hislorisches Jahrbuch 74, 1955, 661-68.
13. To evaluate Gelasius style and thought, cf. the letter of pope Symmachus,
clumsily paraphrasing Duo sunt ( j k 761; S c h w a r tz . 154.31-155.10).
14. jk 7 0 1 ; S c h w a r tz . 14.5-23. Scholars often cite the Tomus as Tractatus IV,
the name assigned to it in the older edition by Andreas T h ie l, Epistolae Romanorum
pontificum genuinae 1, Braunsberg, 1868, 557-70. In its surviving form the Tomus
is a set of fragments put together in false sequence, but Gclasiuss authorship cannot
be doubted; C a sp a r, GP 2.755L
15. Gen. 14:18; cf. also Ps. 109:4, and Heb. 5:10, 7:11.
16. W\ E n s s lin , Gottkaiser und Kaiser von Gottes Gnaden, SB Akad. Mnchen,
1943, No. 6, Munich 1943, 67-77, 93-108.
17. j k 622, jk 6 1 1 (S c h w a rtz . 16.8-11, 46.22); C a sp a r, GP 2.72L
18. jk 632 ( S c h w a rtz , 19.27).
19. W. E n s s lin , Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Theodosius d. Gr., SB Akad. Mn
chen, 1953, No. 2, Munich, 1953, 73.
20. JK 664 (recensio longior), Otto GnthF.R, ed.. Collectio Auellana, CSEL 35,
Vienna, 1895-98 (hereafter: G n th e r ) , 390.18-21, No. 95.
The Gelasian Doctrine 39
21. Rudolf S c h i e f f e r . Von Mailand nach Canossa: Kin Beitrag zur Geschichte
der christlichen Herrscherbusse von Theodosius d. Gr. bis zu Heinrich IV., DA 28.
1973, 333-70 at 344f, 363.
22. F o r som ew hat different in terp retatio n s, cf. E n s s lin , Ilistorisches Jahrbuch 74,
1955, 663: S c h i e f f e r , DA 28, 1973, 344f.
23. Cf. N e ls o n , Journal o f Theological Studies, n.s. 18, 1967, 155 esp. n. 2.
24. jk 6 6 4 ; G l n t i i e r , 389.18-390.7. The Churchs aspiration to the privilegium
fori began in the fourth century; C a sp a r, GP 1.136 n. 3, 206f.
25. j k 665; S chwartz , 28.35-29.1.
26. jk 6 1 1 ( S c h w a rtz , 35.30-36.4); though issued under Felixs nam e, it circulated
in manuscripts as a Gelasian letter.
27. For an example, see U llm ann , Grotcth 20, 22f.
28. Ep. 21 c. 36, PL 16.1061.
29. U llm a n n , Growth 18, 22f, citing earlier litera tu re.
30. Cf. N e ls o n , Journal of Theological Studies, n .s. 18, 1967, 160: JK 611 a ttrib u te s
to th e pope . . . th e rig h ts an d obligations of a paterfamilias .
31. JK 381 (Celestine I, ep. 21, PL 50.529): C a sp a r, GP 1.386.
32. JK 601 ( S c h w a rtz , 82.20). written for Felix III (484).
33. Neumanns Ilandlexikon zu den Quellen des rmischen Rechts. 9th ed. rev.
E. S e c k e l, Jena, 1907, 197f; Adolf B e r g e r , Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law.
Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 43.2, Philadelphia, 1953, 465.
34. JK 622; S chw artz , 18.36-19.4.
35. The claim to the privilegium fori ( j k 664: G u n t h e r , 389.18-390.7) may consti
tute an exception to this statement.
36. D v o rn ik , BZ 44, 1951, 113-15; E n s s lin . liistorisches Jahrbuch 74, 1955. 663.
37. D v o r n ik , BZ 44, 1951, 115.
38. jk 761; S chwartz , 154.31-155.10.
39. j k 744 ( T h ie l, ed.. Epistolae 1.620); C a sp a r, GP, 2.82f.
40. D v o r n ik . B Z \ \. 1951, USf.
41. ENSSLIN, Historisches Jahrbuch 74, 1955, 665.
42. C a sp a r, GP, 2.66-73.
43. j e 2483; MGH Epistolae 5.51.29-33.
44. The few Carolingian texts discussed here were selected to represent the key
features of the ninth-century tradition. There is no satisfactory account of Gelasiuss
influence on Carolingian political thought and ecclesiology. But one can gain a notion
of its extent from the many references in Hans Hubert A n to n , Fiirstenspiegel und
Ilerrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit, Bonner historische Forschungen 32, Bonn, 1968.
45. Concilium Parisicnse 1.3, MGH Concilia 2.6l0f, No. 50D. On Jonas and the
synod of Paris, see A n to n , Fiirstenspiegel, 204-18.
46. F u l g e n t i u s , De veritate praedestinationis et gratiae Dei 2.38, PL 65.647.
47. Tilman STRUVE, Die Entwicklung der organologischen Staalsauffassung im
Mitlelalter, Stuttgart, 1978, 93-95.
48. De institutione regia c. 1, ed. J . R e v ir o n , Les ides politico-religieuses d'un
vque du IX e sicle : Jonas d'Orlans et son De institutione regia , Paris, 1930, 134f.
49. j e 2796; MGH Epistolae 6.475.34, No. 88.
50. Gerhart B. L a d n e r. The Concepts of Ecclesia and Christianitas and their Rela
tion to the Idea of Papal Plenitudo potestatis from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII,
Sacerdozio e regno da Gregorio V il a Bonifacio V III, Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 18,
Rome, 1954, 49-77 at 50f; also, the older study by Heinrich L i l i e n f e i n , Die
Anschauungen von Staat und Kirc.he im Reich der Karolinger, Heidelberg, 1902, 22-45.
51. Synod of Thionville (Diedenhofen) and Yutz c.2, MGH Capitularia 2.114,
No. 227.
40 La notion d'autorit au Moyen Agi
Aachen. With its innovative treatment of the important and problematic two swords
motif, his statement deserves a more extended analysis than this study permits.
108. For a different view of the letters ecclesiology, cf. U llm ann , Growth, 345-48.
109. Text: MGH LdL 2.184-284. For a selective list of the pertinent scholarly litera
ture: Werner A PFBLD T, Konigserhebung Pippins und Unlosbarkeit des Eides im I.iber
de unitate ecclesiae conservanda, DA 25, 1969, 313-46 at 313f, n. 3. The Liber de
unitate may have influenced Sigebert of Gembloux; Jutta Bei'MANN, Sigebert von
Gembloux und der Traktat de investitura episcoporum, Vortrage und Forschungen.
Sonderband 20, Sigmaringen, 1976, 60-75. But apart from this, the work apparently
remained unknown to contemporaries.
110. Liber de unitate (hereafter: Ldu), 1.1, MGH LdL 2.185.16. Though the author
mentions scripta , he evidently used only the letter of 1081.
111. Ldu 1.3, ibid., 186.36L
112. Ldu 1.8, ibid., 194.28-195.26; S c u i e f f e r , DA 28, 1972, 365f.
113. Ldu 1.8-9, 2.15, MGH LdL 2.195.42-199.11, 228.34-39.
114. Af f e l d t , DA 25, 1969, 313-46.
115. On Gelasiuss influence: Zelina Z a f a r a n a , Ricerche sui Liber de unitate
ecclesiae conservanda , Studi medievali, ser. 3o, 7, 1966, 617-700 at 691-97.
116. The editor, W. S c iiw e n k f.n b e c iie r, had understandable difficulties in distin
guishing between the authors close paraphrases and his often rather free quotations.
For some additions to and a correction of the editors identifications, see Z a f a r a n a ,
Studi medievali, ser. 3o, 7, 1966, 691. n. 1: two excerpts attributed to Gclasius in the
Ldu are of uncertain origin. The authors other principal authorities were Augustine
(quoted slightly more often than Gelasius), Cyprian, and Gregory I (both cited less
frequently). Though direct use of the Tomus was rare, the Ldu was not the oidy
publicistic treatise that cited it; but cf. Z a f a r a n a , 693, n. 13. As surmised by Z a f a r a n a ,
664, it is likely that the author found the text in the Collectio Quesnelliana.
117. The passage in the Tomus is relatively short ( S c h w a rtz , 14.5-23): Ldu 1.3,
MGH LdL 2.186.39-187.1: Ldu 2.15. ibid. 225.45-226.8, 230.11-13, 230.21-25, 230.25-34;
Ldu 2.26, ibid. 248.26-29. In addition, the author quoted five times from other parts
of the Tomus.
118. For the quotation of Duo sunt : Ldu 2.15, ibid. 225.44f; the subsequent
quotation from the Tomus follows without a break. For echoes of Duo sunt : Ldu 1.3,
ibid. 186.36f, 187.2f; Ldu 2.15, ibid. 228.40f, 231.6-8. One could easily cite as many
examples of the Tomus*s influence.
119. Ldu 2.20, ibid. 237.3f.
120. Ldu 1.12, 12, ibid. 200f. 204.
121. Ldu 2.15, 2.26, ibid. 231.6-8, 248.23L
122. Ldu 2.15, ibid. 230.35-37.
123. Tractatus de regia potestate et sacerdotali dignitate, MGH LdL 2.466-94. Hughs
use of the duality regia potestas and sacerdotalis dignitas (prol., ibid. 466.21) is itself
an adaptation from the Gelasian tradition; see Urban l l s diction in JL 5367.
124. De regia potestate 1.1, MGH LdL 2.467.25-28.
125. Idem 2.1, ibid. 483.9f, 485.7L
126. Idem prol., 1.13, 2.1, ibid. 466.20f, 482.1-6, 483.9-20, 485.10L
127. Idem 1.2, ibid. 468.22-24. Though there are no grounds for assuming that
Hugh had read the Tomus, he was evidently familiar either with Nicholas 1*6 text
borrowed from the Tomus, or more probably, with Peter Damianis reworking of the
same idea (which he almost certainly took from Nicholas) in his Disceptatio synodalis
(MGH LdL 1.93).
128. De regia potestate prol., MGH LdL 2.466.34-38.
129. Idem 1.2, ibid. 468.18-22; prol.. ibid. 466.27L
44 La notion d'autorit au Moyen Agi
SUMMARY
The concepts of auctoritas and potestas and the doctrine of the separation
of powers appear in the writings of Pope Gelasius I (492-496), then in the
Gelasian tradition of thought and language from the eighth to the twelfth
centuries. Though the original meaning of Gclasiuss doctrine was not for
gotten, during the next two decades thinkers also used Gclasiuss writings
to justify papal theocracy and royal theocracy.
RSUM
Les concepts d'auctoritas et de potestas ainsi que la doctrine de la sparation
des pouvoirs apparaissent dans les crits du pape Glase I er (492-496). On les
retrouve ensuite dans la tradition de pense et le langage glasiens du
v m e jusqu'au XIIe sicle. Bien que le sens originel de la doctrine glasienne
n ait pas alors t oubli, les penseurs des deux dcennies suivantes utilis
rent les crits de Glase pour justifier la fois une thocratie papale et une
thocratie royale.