¹ A total of four letters from the archbishop are known; three of them date from the final three years of his episcopacy (1077–1080).

² Gregory issued a sentence of deposition against Manasses on 17 April 1080, which, in late December 1080, he declared irrevocable. See Gregory VII, Reg. 7.20 (17 April 1080) and 8.17–20 (all from December 1080), ed. Erich Caspar, in Das Register Gregors VII., MGH, Epistolae Selectae 2/1–2, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1955), 2.2:495–96 and 538–43. The letters are translated in H. E. J. Cowdrey, The Register of Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085: An English Translation (Oxford, 2002), 350–51 and 382–86. Manasses traveled to Rome with Henry IV’s siege army from March to May 1081, acting, according to Benzo of Alba (Sieben Bücher an Kaiser Heinrich IV., ed. Hans Seyffert, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum 65 [Hanover, 1996], 506), as a legate on behalf of Philip I, who had offered the archbishop his support. A charter of 26 September 1081 (Trésor des chartes du comté de Rethel, Tome 1, 1081–1328, ed. Gustave Saige and Henri Lacaille [Monaco, 1902], 1–2 [no. 1]) records the archbishop as a witness to the restoration of the collegial church of Braux-sur-Meuse and its canons by Manasses III, count of Rethel, an event attended by the archdeacon Gui of Reims and a Hermann sapiens, which may be a reference to Herimann, the long-time master of the cathedral school. The 1081 date of the Braux charter, which survives only in a fifteenth-century vidimus, is problematic given the presence, nearly a year after his deposition, of Manasses. John R. Williams, “Archbishop Manasses I of Rheims and Pope Gregory VII,” The American Historical Review 54 (1949): 804–24, at 820 nn. 85–86, has thus suggested the charter should be dated 1080, which also conforms to the indiction (the third) given in the dating clause; a date of 1080 is also favored by Patrick Demouy, “Actes des archevêques de Reims d’Arnoul à Renaud II (997–1139),” 3 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Université de Nancy II, 1982), 2.1:201 (no. 61). Still less reliable is a charter of Thibaud I, the count of Champagne, for the priory of Coincy, which is edited and dated by Nicolas Huyghebaert (“Saint Arnould de Soissons et la consecration de l’église du prieuré de Coincy (1082),” Analecta Bollandiana 85 [1967]: 317–29) to between 19 October and 4 November 1082, and to which Manasses is listed as a witness along with the papal legates Hugh of Die (!) and Amatus of Oloron. Purely fantastical is the identification in the Montecassino Hystoria de via et recuperatione Antiochiae atque Ierusolymarum 16.12 and 16.45, ed. Edoardo D’Angelo (Florence, 2009), 105 and 108, of a “bishop of Reims,” whom the chronicle indicates had been captured by the “sultan of Babylon” during the First Crusade, with Archbishop Manasses I. Nor was it Archbishop Manasses II of Reims (r. 1096–1106).

³ John S. Ott, “Erasing Bad Memories: Fashioning the Reputation of Manasses I, Archbishop of Reims (c. 1069–1080),” in L’évêque contesté: Les résistances à l’autorité épiscopale, des Pays-Bas méridionaux à l’Italie du Nord, ed. Hérold Pettiau and Anne Wagner (Paris, 2023), 21–50, at 35–43.

⁴ Although it did not find inclusion among the Streitschriften edited in the three volumes of Libelli de lite published under the auspices of Ernst Dümmler (1830–1902): MGH, Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI. et XII. conscripti, ed. Ernst Dümmler, 3 vols. (Hanover, 1891–1897).

⁵ Max Wiedemann, Gregor VII. und Erzbischof Manasses I. von Reims: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der französischen Kirchenpolitik des Papstes Gregor VII. (Leipzig, 1884); Wilhelm Lühe, Hugo von Die und Lyon, Legat von Gallien (Breslau, 1898), 72–76 and 146–50; Willi Schwarz, “Der Investiturstreit in Frankreich,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 42 (1923): 255–328, at 310–11; Theodor Schieffer, Die päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich, vom Vertrage von Meersen (870) bis zum Schisma von 1130 (Berlin, 1935), 117–19; and especially for the legal dimensions of the letter Otto Meyer, “Reims und Rom unter Gregor VII. Ein Vortrag (Analecta Centuriatoria I.),” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 28 (1939): 418–52. Heinrich Gaul embarked upon, but did not finish, a two-part study of Manasses’s life and rule that would have encompassed his late letters to Hugh and Gregory had it been completed. See Manasses I. Erzbischof von Reims: Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit der gregorianischen Reformbestrebungen in Frankreich, 1. Teil: Der unbekannte Manasses der ersten Jahre (1069 bis Frühjahr 1077) (Essen, 1940). Narratives of eleventh-century reform cannot help but note Manasses’s conflict with Hugh and Gregory, such were its implications for the success of the pope’s reform initiatives in France. See, for example, Alfons Becker, Studien zum Investiturproblem in Frankreich. Papsttum, Königtum und Episkopat im Zeitalter der gregorianischen Kirchenreform (1049–1119) (Saarbrücken, 1955), 71–79; Gerd Tellenbach, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century, trans. Timothy Reuter (Cambridge, 1993), 174–75 and 210–11; Uta-Renate Blumenthal, Gregor VII: Papst zwischen Canossa und Kirchenreform (Darmstadt, 2001), 214–18; and from French scholars, Augustin Fliche, La réforme grégorienne, Tome 2: Grégoire VII (Louvain, 1926), 222–23, 225, and 251–53, and Patrick Demouy, Genèse d’une cathédrale: Les archêveques de Reims et leur Église aux XI^e et XII^e siècles (Langres, 2005), 375–91 and 611–14. See most recently Caterina Ciccopiedi, “Gregorio VII e i vescovi: Il caso di Manasse di Reims: Tra immunità vescovile e nuovi modelli,” in Gregorio VII, vescovo di Roma e pontefice universale: Atti del LX Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 8–10 ottobre 2023 (Spoleto, 2024), 269–84.

⁶ More recently, Manasses’s clash with Hugh has been treated by Kriston R. Rennie, Law and Practice in the Age of Reform: The Legatine Work of Hugh of Die (1073–1106) (Turnhout, 2010), 134–43; and H. E. J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998), 359–60 and 375–88. Other works are indicated in the notes below.

⁷ Museum Italicum, seu Collectio veterum scriptorum ex bibliothecis Italicis, Tomus 1: Pars altera, ed. Jean Mabillon and Michel Germain (Paris, 1687), 119–27. Extracts from the letter were also later published posthumously in Mabillon’s Annales ordinis Sancti Benedicti, occidentalium monachorum patriarchae, ed. René Massuet, 6 vols. (Lucca, 1739–1745), 5:109.

⁸ Duchesne was a correspondent of both Pétau and Sirmond. A letter from Pétau to Duchesne dated 6 February 1613 is registered in volume 10 of the latter’s collection at the BnF, and one from Duchesne to Sirmond dated 1 November 1620 is in volume 48. See René Poupardin, Catalogue des manuscrits des collections Duchesne et Bréquigny (Paris, 1905), 12 and 54.

⁹ Collection Duchesne, vol. 22, fols. 194r–198r. Duchesne notes the letter’s provenance (‘Ex Cod. Ms. [P.] Petavii’) on fol. 194r. Duchesne’s copy of the letter then passed, along with other materials, to Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–1683). See Poupardin, Catalogue des manuscrits des collections Duchesne et Bréquigny, xvii–xviii, 23, and 198.

¹⁰ Sirmond was in Rome from 1590–1608, at which point he returned to Paris, six years before Paul Pétau’s death. See New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2^nd ed., 15 vols. (Detroit, 2002), 13:168, s.v. “Sirmond, Jacques.” Volume 11 of Baronio’s Annales was published in Antwerp in 1605. A new edition was posthumously published in Cologne in 1609 by Johann Gymnich (Johannes Gymnicus) and Anton Hierat (Antonius Hieratus).

¹¹ On p. 580 of the 1609 Cologne edition.

¹² See Élisabeth Pellegrin, “Possesseurs français et italiens de manuscrits latins du fonds de la Reine à la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” Revue d’histoire des textes 3 (1973): 271–97, at 282–83. The presence of the Saint-Maur texts does not, regrettably, provide evidence for the provenance of the twelfth-century copy of the Apologia. The manuscripts formerly belonging to Pétau father and son were frequently taken apart and rebound after their sale to Christina, a practice that continued after their purchase by Cardinal Ottoboni (Pope Alexander VIII). Duchesne notes the break in the medieval exemplar in Coll. Duchesne 22, fol. 198r. See also J. Bignami-Odier, “Le fonds de la Reine à la Bibliothèque Vaticane,” in Collectanea Vaticana in honorem Anselmi M. Card. Albareda a Bibliotheca Apostolica edita, 2 vols. (Vatican City, 1962), 1:159–89, at 180.

¹³ The history of Christina’s collection is surveyed by Bignami-Odier, “Le fonds de la Reine à la Bibliothèque Vaticane.”

¹⁴ Mabillon and Germain, Museum Italicum, 118, where the authors note that Sirmond had seen the letter, by then partitioned, and shared lines from it with Marlot.

¹⁵ Metropolis Remensis historia, sive supplementum Frodoardi, ab anno CMLXX, ad nostram aetatem fideliter et accurate productum, 2 vols. (Reims, 1666–1679), 2:175–76, esp. 175, where Sirmond’s conveyance of the letter to Marlot is noted in the margin.

¹⁶ Gaston Godard, Giuseppi Guzzetta, and Giuliana Frati, “Manuscript on the Vesuvius Eruption of 1631 by the Carthusian Dom Severo Tarfaglione,” Analecta Cartusiana 291 (2017): 16–66.

¹⁷ Storia critico-cronologica diplomatica del patriarca S. Brunone e del suo ordine Cartusiano, ed. Benedetto Tromby, 10 vols. (Naples, 1773–1779), 1:174 and nn. 2–3; 175 and nn. 4–9; and 1:xviii–xxii (appendix). Tromby identifies the letter as ‘Manassis Rhemensis Archiepiscopi Apologia’ (xviii), where the footnote reads: “Ejus exemplar R.P. Jacobus Sirmondus Parisiensis inter MS. Petavii reperit, & ad Dominum Severum Tarfaglioni in Cartusiae S. Martini supra Neapolim Monasterium transmisit, ibique autographa asservatur in Grammatophylacio laudatae Cartusiae, ex quo eruit Mabillonius.”

¹⁸ Patrick Demouy, “Bruno et la réforme de l’Eglise de Reims,” in Saint Bruno et sa posterité spirituelle, ed. James Hogg, Alain Girard, and Daniel Le Blévec (Salzburg, 2003), 13–20; Constant J. Mews, “Bruno of Reims and the Evolution of Scholastic Culture in Northern France, 1050–1100,” in Bruno the Carthusian and His Mortuary Roll: Studies, Text, and Translations, ed. Hartmut Beyer, Gabriela Signori, and Sita Steckel (Turnhout, 2014), 49–81.

¹⁹ Mabillon was familiar with the manuscript in the collection of the Queen of Sweden, as his introduction to Manasses’s letter in the Museum Italicum makes clear. Where, then, did he come across an intact copy of the letter, which had by then been partitioned and was located in two different codices in the Vatican Reginensis archive? Mabillon acknowledges no debt to Tromby or San Martino in his edition, so he either knew of both Vatican fragments or made use of the complete copy penned by Sirmond and sent to Dom Tarfaglione without acknowledging his dependence on it (or both). The fact that Tromby made certain to indicate that Mabillon had made his edition from the copy of the letter Sirmond sent to Naples may indicate the latter. According to a modern biographer of Tarfaglione, the Carthusian erudite sent his manuscript collection to San Martino at the time of his retirement to the charterhouse of Port-Sainte-Marie in Auvergne a few years before his death. See Godard, Guzzetta, and Frati, “Manuscript on the Vesuvius Eruption of 1631,” 19 n. 8.

²⁰ Mabillon and Germain, Museum Italicum, 118.

²¹ See, respectively, Bernard de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum nova, 2 vols. (Paris, 1739), 1:18 (no. 197, where it is mistakenly identified as a letter of Archbishop Gervais of Reims to Hugh of Die) and 51 (no. 1622); Jean-Baptiste de la Curne de Sainte-Palaye, Notices de divers manuscrits de France et d’Italie (= BnF, Collection Moreau MS 1661, fol. 82r–v, notice 2880); and Congregation of Saint-Maur (Dom Antoine Rivet de la Grange), Histoire littéraire de la France, 46 vols. (Paris, 1733–2021), 8:656–57.

²² Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Michel-Jean-Joseph Brial et al., 24 vols. (Paris, 1738–1904), 14:781–86, esp. 781, where Brial, in the margin of his edition, indicated he had also found a copy among the miscellaneous materials of the Maurist Jean Durand (1646–1690). This copy has not, to my knowledge, come to light.

²³ Demouy, “Actes des archevêques de Reims,” 2.1:187–97 (no. 60).

²⁴ Martina Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik: Matthias Flacius Illyricus als Erforscher des Mittelalters (Stuttgart, 2001), 269 and 274–79. On Flacius and his helpers, see Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik, 13–18 and 73–74; and Philippe Büttgen, “Flacius Illyricus, Matthias (1520–1575),” trans. David Gascoigne, in The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, ed. Karla Pollmann and Willemien Otten, 3 vols. (Oxford, 2013), 2:998–1000, with references. The presence of the letter, but not its significance, was noted by A. Nürnberger, “Die Bonifatiuslitteratur der Magdeburger Centuriatoren,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 11 (1885): 9–41, at 25 n. 4. Nor is Manasses’s letter to Hugh mentioned in the catalog entry for the manuscript of Otto von Heinemann, Die Handschriften der herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel, Zweite Abtheilung: Die Augusteischen Handschriften, 5 vols. (Wolfenbüttel, 1890–1903), 5:284–85 (no. 2271).

²⁵ On the Siegburg archive, see Paul Lehmann, Franciscus Modius als Handschriftenforscher (Munich, 1908), 117–21; Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik, 73; and Meyer, “Reims und Rom,” 438–39.

²⁶ Reg. 6.2, ed. Caspar, 391–94. Hartmann provided an edition (the first) of Hugh’s letter of summons to Manasses: Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik, 293–94.

²⁷ Meyer, “Reims und Rom,” 433–51. Indeed, Meyer seems to have relied for the letter on Brial’s edition in volume 14 of the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, perhaps because the longer version of the letter contained additional legal sources and details not found in the Wolfenbüttel copy.

²⁸ Studien zu Briefliteratur Deutschlands im elften Jahrhundert, MGH, Schriften des Reichsinstitut für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 1 (Stuttgart, 1938), 109 n. 4. I will explain the reason for all the confusion below. See also the following note.

²⁹ Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik, 278 n. 100 (“eine zu propagandistischer Verbreitung verkürzte Fassung”). Regrettably, Hartmann’s catalog of the letters that appear in the Wolfenbüttel codex does not clarify matters. It identifies Manasses’s letter not by the explicit found in MS 27. 9. Aug. fol. 473v, but by the explicit of the copy in Vat. Reg. lat. 863 published by Mabillon, Tromby, and Brial, thus giving the misleading impression that the Vatican copy is the one from which the Wolfenbüttel recension was derived.

³⁰ Meyer, “Reims und Rom,” 437; and Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik, 275. Both refer to the important article of Carl Erdmann, “Die Anfänge der staatlichen Propaganda im Investiturstreit,” Historische Zeitschrift 154 (1936): 491–512, reprinted in Ideologie und Herrschaft im Mittelalter, ed. Max Kerner (Darmstadt, 1982), 101–23, on propagandistic writing in the Investiturstreit. Erdmann compared Henry IV’s two 1076 letters to Gregory VII demanding that he step down from the papal throne. One version (the shorter) was sent to Rome, while the other, longer version went to the German bishops. It is certainly true that we often find shortened versions of texts reworked from longer originals, but the practice hardly rises to the level of a rule. Another contemporary example is the widely-diffused Epistola Guidonis or Widonis, recently reassessed and re-dated by Charles West, “The Simony Crisis of the Eleventh Century and the ‘Letter of Guido’,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 73 (2022): 229–53, at 234.

³¹ Although we do not know why the Troyes council was canceled and relocated to Lyon, an allusion in Gregory’s letter to Hugh from roughly that time (composed after 20 April 1079) concerning strife in the legate’s home diocese of Die may indicate the cause that prevented him from attending. See The Epistolae Vagantes of Pope Gregory VII [hereafter EV], ed. and trans. H. E. J. Cowdrey (Oxford, 1972), 76–77 (no. 30). The timing of the pope’s letter, initially dated by Cowdrey to April or May 1079, was later revised by him (Pope Gregory VII, 385 n. 248), to late summer/autumn, though I believe that it may have been sent even later, because in his post-Christmas letter to Hugh protesting the summonses, Manasses referred to the council at Troyes as having been proposed only a short time before (nuper). Hugh’s first summons was found along with Manasses’s letter among the Siegburg collection and edited by Hartmann, as noted at n. 26, above. There is broad consensus that this was the first of the summonses: Meyer, “Reims und Rom,” 441–43; Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik, 278–79; Williams, “Archbishop Manasses I of Rheims and Pope Gregory VII,” 816–18; and Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 384–86.

³² On the point that Gregory was responding to a now lost letter of Manasses, I am in agreement with Williams, “Archbishop Manasses of Rheims and Pope Gregory VII,” 819; and Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 386. Gregory’s response is recorded at Reg. 7.12, ed. Caspar, 2:475–77; trans. Cowdrey, 337–38.

³³ EV 30, ed. and trans. Cowdrey, 78–79; and Hugh of Flavigny, Chronicon, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH, Scriptores 8 (Hanover, 1848), 421–22.

³⁴ Reims is roughly 470 km, or 290 miles, from Vienne on foot. Assuming an average rate of travel of twenty miles per day—perhaps high for the winter months—it would have taken the archbishop’s messengers roughly fifteen days to reach the legate. Leaving at the earliest possible date, namely December 25/26, Manasses’s letter would have arrived in Vienne around January 10. It is also possible, however, that the gift-bearing nuncios were dispatched earlier, at the same time that Manasses wrote to Pope Gregory, and thus in early December, and, once rebuffed (as Hugh of Flavigny claims they were), Manasses then composed his letter to Hugh. The letters from Gregory to Manasses and from Manasses to Hugh could conceivably have passed each other on the road.

³⁵ As to the timing of the council, a date in late January is most plausible. In his letter of 3 January to Manasses, Gregory anticipates that Cardinal-bishop Peter of Albano, the former abbot of San Salvatore of Fucecchio, would be in attendance at Lyon, along with Hugh, the abbot of Cluny. See Gregory VII, Reg. 7.12, ed. Caspar, 2:476. Now, we know from other sources that Peter had traveled to Cluny on Gregory’s orders to resolve a dispute between its monks and the bishops of Mâcon and Lyon. He spent December 1079 in Burgundy, confirming Cluny’s privileges at the abbey on 2 February, and convened a council for 6 February 1080 at Anse, about 25 km north of Lyon. Had he assisted Hugh of Die at Lyon as Gregory planned—the pope acknowledged that Hugh benefited at Lyon from the “counsel of religious men,” though Peter is not named directly—this likely would have occurred before these two dates, as in February Hugh of Die traveled to Avignon (perhaps taking the road south with Peter) to convene another council (Hugh of Flavigny, Chronicon, ed. Pertz, 422). From there Hugh returned to Rome with the bishops whose elections he oversaw at the Avignonese council, arriving before Gregory’s Lenten council on 7 March, at which the pope confirmed Hugh’s sentence of deposition against Manasses. See Gregory VII, Reg. 7.20 (17 April 1080), ed. Caspar, 2:495–96. For more on Peter’s mission, see H. E. J. Cowdrey, “Cardinal Peter of Albano’s Legatine Journey to Cluny (1080),” Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973): 481–91.

³⁶ See Meyer, “Reims und Rom,” 434–36; Williams, “Archbishop Manasses of Rheims and Pope Gregory VII,” 817–19; Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 385; Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik, 277–78; and Rennie, Law and Practice, 135–37.

³⁷ Many of the excuses Manasses raises in his letter stemmed from his interpretation of his 1078 meeting with Gregory in Rome, at which time the pope had seemingly agreed to the condition that Hugh of Cluny would assist the bishop of Die at any future hearing involving him (Gregory VII, Reg. 6.2, ed. Caspar, 2:393; trans. Cowdrey, 277).

³⁸ Mabillon and Germain, Museum Italicum, 126.

³⁹ See the edition in the Appendix.

⁴⁰ Compiègne, Soissons, and Senlis all housed royal residences and/or religious institutions. See William Mendel Newman, Le domaine royal sous les premiers capétiens (987–1180) (Paris, 1937), 67 and 97.

⁴¹ Maurice Prou, “Notice et extraits du manuscrit 863 du fonds de la reine Christine au Vatican,” Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 8 (1888): 19–45, at 43.

⁴² Gregory VII, Reg. 7.20, ed. Caspar, 2:495–96; trans. Cowdrey, 386–87.

⁴³ Bernard de Montfaucon likewise recorded them in his Bibliotheca bibliothecarum, 1:51.

⁴⁴ Mabillon and Germain, Museum Italicum, 118–19 and 128–30, where the letter of Noyon appears. Mabillon makes no mention of this!

⁴⁵ Annales ordinis Sancti Benedicti, ed. Mabillon and Mussuet, 5:600–601. He further made reference to both letters of Cambrai and Noyon in the same volume, at 102. In the margin to the edition of the Cambrai letter in the AOSB, Mabillon indicated that it had come from the collection of Pétau, and thus had to have been the copy in Vat. Reg. lat. 863, though he identifies it as residing among the Vatican Ottoboni latini manuscripts. The Ottoboni library was not acquired by the Vatican until 1748, after the publication of volume 5 of the AOSB in 1740, and Mabillon identifies the Apologia and letter of the canons of Noyon as residing among the manuscripts of Christina of Sweden. The identification with the Ottoboni latini collection is thus confusing, as Böhmer also noted (at 574) in the prefatory comments to his edition of the letter.

⁴⁶ RHGF, ed. Brial, 14:778–81 (letters of Cambrai and Noyon) and 781–86 (Apologia). They also appear together in the 1877 reprint.

⁴⁷ Among the earliest were Johann Anton Theiner and Augustin Theiner, Die Einführung der erzwungenen Ehelosigkeit bei den christlichen Geistlichen und ihre Folgen, vol. 2/1 (Altenburg, 1828), 220–22. Others, like Alfred Cauchie, La querelle des investitures dans les diocèses de Liège et de Cambrai, part 1, Les réformes grégoriennes et les agitations réactionnaires (1073–1092) (Louvain, 1890), 9–12, continued to rely on Mabillon. In Cauchie’s case, the separate publication of the two letters in the Museum Italicum and AOSB led him to believe mistakenly that the canons of Cambrai were replying to the letter of the canons of Noyon, rather than the reverse.

⁴⁸ Erwin Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, MGH, Studien und Texte 16 (Hanover, 1997), 241.

⁴⁹ Cameracensium et Noviomensium clericorum epistolae, ed. Heinrich Böhmer, MGH,Libelli de lite 3 (Hanover, 1897), 574–75 and 578. Such grievances by local clergy against Gregory’s legates were not uncommon. Indeed, security at the 1078 council of Poitiers had to be assured by the duke of Aquitaine. See Peter Scott Brown, “The Miracle of the Bloody Foreskin at the Council of Charroux in 1082: Legatine Authority, Religious Spectacle, and Charismatic Strategies of Canonical Reform in the Era of Gregory VII,” Religions 14 (2023): 1–22, at 9–10. An English translation of the letters may be found in John S. Ott and Anna Trumbore Jones, The Medieval Clergy, 800–1250: A Sourcebook (Toronto, 2024), 181–87.

⁵⁰ Hugh’s letter of late 1077 to Gregory is found in Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. Joannes Dominicus Mansi, 35 vols. (Florence and Venice, 1759–1798), 20:488–90. Gregory’s reply is at Reg. 5.17 (9 March 1078), ed. Caspar, 2:378–80; trans. Cowdrey, 266–67.

⁵¹ E. Van Mingroot, “Gérard II de Lessines, évêque de Cambrai (†1092),” in DHGE, 20:751–55. Manasses had refused to consecrate Gerard II on the grounds that he had gone to Henry IV for his investiture (in late 1076), at a time when the German king was already laboring under a sentence of excommunication imposed by the pope.

⁵² For the canons of the council, see Kriston R. Rennie, “The Council of Poitiers (1078) and Some Legal Considerations,” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, n.s. 27 (2007): 1–16; and Uta-Renate Blumenthal, “Hugh of Die and Lyons, Primate and Papal Legate,” in Scripturus Vitam: Lateinische Biographie von der Antike bis in die Gegenwart: Festgabe für Walter Berschin zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Dorothea Walz (Heidelberg, 2002), 487–95.

⁵³ Briefsammlungen der Zeit Heinrichs IV., ed. Carl Erdmann and Norbert Fickermann (Weimar, 1950), 178–82 (no. 107). They further echo the complaints of Manasses about the activities of Warmond, the archbishop of Vienne (1078–1081), in the province of Reims during the archbishop’s absence in Rome prior to May 1078 (Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. Mansi, 20:486), so much so that Nicolas Huyghebaert saw in the letters “a perfectly synchronized campaign” between Manasses and the canons of Cambrai. See Nicolas Huyghebaert, “Un légat de Grégoire VII en France: Warmond de Vienne,” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 40 (1944–45): 187–200, at 191 n. 2.

⁵⁴ Cameracensium et Noviomensium clericorum epistolae, ed. Böhmer, 576. Indeed, the canons’ criticisms of Hugh of Die and Hugh of Langres following Autun are strikingly in line with Manasses’s in his 1077 letter to Gregory. Had they seen it?

⁵⁵ John S. Ott, “‘Reims and Rome are Equals’: Archbishop Manasses I (c. 1069–80), Pope Gregory VII, and the Fortunes of Historical Exceptionalism,” in Envisioning the Bishop: Images and the Episcopacy in the Middle Ages, ed. Sigrid Danielson and Evan A. Gatti (Turnhout, 2014), 275–302, at 294; and Meyer, “Reims und Rom,” 451. Reims’s prelates had long claimed the privilege to be judged by Rome alone, a privilege Manasses and his successors upheld well into the twelfth century. See Ludwig Falkenstein, “Les deux lettres pontificales du Ms. 15 et la tradition manuscrite des lettres pontificales du chapitre de Reims (fin XI^ème – début XIII^ème siècle),” in Un homme, un livre au XI^ème siècle: Le prévôt Odalric et le manuscrit 15 de la Bibliothèque municipal de Reims, ed. Patrick Corbet and Patrick Demouy (Reims, 2015), 179–224, at 179–89.

⁵⁶ Cameracensium et Noviomensium clericorum epistolae, ed. Böhmer, 574: “Romanorum, ut audistis, importunitas.”

⁵⁷ On the struggle over competing conceptions of ecclesiastical hierarchy and the legal extent of legatine authority in this period, see Robert L. Benson, “Plenitudo Potestatis: Evolution of a Formula from Gregory IV to Gratian,” Studia Gratiana 14 (1967), 193–217, esp. 206–208; Kriston R. Rennie, The Foundations of Medieval Papal Legation (New York, 2013), 20–34 and 102–19; and Ian Stuart Robinson, “‘Periculosus Homo’: Pope Gregory VII and Episcopal Authority,” Viator 9 (1978): 103–32, at 125–27.

⁵⁸ Prou, “Notice et extraits du manuscrit 863,” 19 and 43–44 for a full description of the letters.

⁵⁹ Ott, “Erasing Bad Memories,” 38–44.

⁶⁰ Prof. Christof Rolker first drew this to my attention in an e-mail on 12 September 2018, for which I would like to extend to him my sincere thanks.

⁶¹ See Laurent Waelkens and Dirk Van den Auweele, “La collection de Thérouanne en IX livres à l’abbaye de Saint-Pierre-au-Mont-Saint-Blandin: Le codex Gandavensis 235,” Sacris erudiri 24 (1980): 115–53; and Linda Fowler-Magerl, Clavis Canonum: Selected Canon Law Collections before 1140, MGH, Hilfsmittel 21 (Hanover, 2005), 206–209.

⁶² Some sixty-seven percent of the canons in Atrebatensis are found in Sangermanensis (359/533), though this number is at best an estimate given that the manuscript containing Atrebatensis is incomplete. See Waelkens and Van den Auweele, “La collection de Thérouanne,” 150.

⁶³ In addition to the canon of Pseudo-Eutician noted above, the first and second recensions of the Apologia also adduce a canon of Pope Evaristus: Ut mala audita nullam moueant, nec passim dicta absque certa probatione quisque unquam credat.

⁶⁴ On the formation of Arras, Lotte Kéry, Die Errichtung des Bistums Arras, 1093/1094 (Sigmaringen, 1994), is essential. See also Fowler-Magerl, Clavis Canonum, 206.

⁶⁵ Le registre de Lambert, évêque d’Arras (1093–1115), ed. and trans. Claire Giordanengo (Paris, 2007), 174–233.

⁶⁶ Fowler-Magerl, Clavis Canonum, 209–10. The identity of the compiler of 10P can only be guessed at, though there is no question of John’s interest in canon law. Like Arras, Thérouanne was entering a period of institutional reform around 1100 under John. See also Le registre de Lambert, ed. Giordanengo, 194 n. 1.

⁶⁷ On the close relationship between Lambert and John, see John S. Ott, Bishops, Authority and Community in Northwestern Europe, c.1050–1150 (Cambridge, 2015), 142–52.

⁶⁸ He was given administrative authority over the diocese in mid-1096 by Archbishop Manasses II of Reims (Le registre de Lambert, ed. Giordanengo, 355–57). See also Gestes des évêques de Cambrai de 1092 à 1138, ed. Charles de Smedt (Paris, 1880), 32–35. The latter text is deeply hostile toward Lambert.

⁶⁹ Schafer Williams, Codices Pseudo-Isidoriani: A Paleographical-Historical Study (New York, 1971), 52 (no. 55); Wacław Uruszczak, “Albéric et l’enseignement du droit romain à Reims au XII siècle,” in Confluence de droits savants et des pratiques juridiques: Actes du Colloque de Montpellier (Milan, 1979), 37–68. In addition to the canons described above, Manasses’s letter to Hugh alludes to a Pseudo-Isidorian decretal of Calixtus (Omnes infames cunctosque suspectos vel inimicos … episcoporum funditus summovemus) found in a late ninth-century manuscript copied in Reims and now in Milan: Pseudo-Isidore, Epistola secunda Calixti papae 17, in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana A. 46 inf., fol. 68r. A search of the Clavis Canonum database suggests that it was not a commonly cited authority, appearing only in this one instance in the catalogue. See Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, ed. Paul Hinschius (Leipzig, 1863), 141, noted by Meyer, “Reims und Rome,” 447 and n. 4; and Ciccopiedi, “Gregorio VII e i vescovi,” 277. On the Milan manuscript, see Fowler-Magerl, Clavis Canonum, 66.

⁷⁰ Gregory VII, Reg. 4.22 (12 May 1077), ed. Caspar, 1:430–34; trans. Cowdrey, 233–35. See also Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 361.

⁷¹ Regrettably, only the legislation produced at Poitiers, which was widely transmitted, has survived.

⁷² Foundational, though now revised in a number of its particulars, is Augustin Fliche, La réforme grégorienne, Tome 3: L’opposition antigrégorienne (Louvain, 1937).

⁷³ I. S. Robinson, “The Friendship Network of Gregory VII,” History 63 (1978): 1–22; idem, “The Friendship Circle of Bernold of Constance and the Dissemination of Gregorian Ideas in Late Eleventh-Century Germany,” in Friendship in Medieval Europe, ed. Julian P. Haseldine (Stroud, 1999), 185–98; and Kriston R. Rennie, “Extending Gregory VII’s ‘Friendship Network’: Social Contacts in Late Eleventh-Century France,” History 93 (2008): 475–96.

⁷⁴ I. S. Robinson, “The Dissemination of the Letters of Pope Gregory VII during the Investiture Contest,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 (1983): 175–93.

⁷⁵ Uta-Renate Blumenthal, “The Collection of St Victor (= V), Paris: Liturgy, Canon Law, and Polemical Literature,” in Ritual, Text and Law. Studies in Medieval Canon Law and Liturgy Presented to Roger E. Reynolds, ed. Kathleen G. Cushing and Richard F. Gyug (Aldershot, 2004), 293–307.

⁷⁶ Blumenthal, “The Collection of St Victor,” 302 and 305.

⁷⁷ See, for example, Bruce C. Brasington, “Collections of Bishops’ Letters as Legal Florilegia,” in Law before Gratian: Law in Western Europe c. 500–1100. Proceedings of the Third Carlsberg Academy Conference on Medieval Legal History 2006, ed. Per Andersen, Mia Münster-Swendsen, and Helle Vogt (Copenhagen, 2007), 73–122.

⁷⁸ The archbishop’s conflict with Rome was not centered on clerical marriage. Indeed, at the provincial synod that he called in April 1079, Manasses affirmed the “apostolic precepts” against married clerics, presumably with the legislation of Poitiers in mind. See Léopold Delisle, Littérature latine et histoire du Moyen Âge (Paris, 1890), 24 (no. 10).

⁷⁹ Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, ed. Frauenknecht, 254: “Quisquis catholice ecclesie fidem tenens, ab ypocrisis iniquitate alienus, autenticas sanctorum patrum scripturas diligenter investigaverit, inveniet legittime celebrata conubia clericorum casta esse et sincera, non, ut novi dogmatis ferunt auctores, adulterina vel fornicaria.” The Tractatus does not specifically name Hugh or complain, as do the canons of Noyon and Cambrai, about legates.

⁸⁰ Brigitte Meijns, “Opposition to Clerical Continence and the Gregorian Celibacy Legislation in the Diocese of Thérouanne: Tractatus Pro Clericorum Conubio (c. 1077–1078),” Sacris Erudiri 47 (2008): 223–90. Jennifer D. Thibodeaux, The Manly Priest: Clerical Celibacy, Masculinity, and Reform in England and Normandy, 1066–1300 (Philadelphia, 2015), 88–89 and 177 n. 15, has proposed Rouen, though agrees with the identity of the author (likely a secular canon or cleric) and the dating of the tract (1077–1078). Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 108–25, lays out the various arguments and likewise sees the canons of the council of Poitiers (January 1078), the legal impact of which was widespread, as having inspired the Tractatus.

⁸¹ Gerard Achten, who gives a detailed description of the manuscript’s contents, locates it on internal textual grounds to Normandy or northwestern France around 1100, but its connection to Normandy depends on Augustin Fliche’s disputed thesis about the Norman origins of the Tractatus. For the manuscript, see Gerard Achten, Die theologischen lateinischen Handschriften in Quarto der Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin, part 2, Ms. theol. lat. qu. 267–378 (Wiesbaden, 1984), 97–100. On Fliche’s thesis concerning the Tractatus’s author, see La réforme grégorienne, Tome 3, 13–14; and Meijns, “Opposition to Clerical Continence,” 226–27 and 238–50. Henning Hoesch had proposed a date of the early twelfth century or late eleventh, and, in addition to a northern French provenance, suggested a possible Mediterranean (south Italian) provenance for at least some of the texts. See Henning Hoesch, “Ein Auszug aus Pseudoisidor im Ms Berlin Theol. Lat. 313,” Traditio 25 (1969): 499–507.

⁸² The sequence of Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, found on fols. 3r–33r, has been edited (incipits and explicits only) by Hoesch, “Ein Auszug aus Pseudoisidor im Ms Berlin Theol. Lat. 313.” The five canons, listed with incipits and explicits by Achten (Die theologischen lateinischen Handschriften in Quarto der Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin, 99–100) and appearing on the final folios of the manuscript (42v–43r), include four found in the first book of the Collectio Sinemuriensis, which originated in Reims (01.047, 01.134, 01.141, and 01.070, respectively, the latter being a variant). The canonical material on fols. 39v–40v is widely encountered across many collections, but all ten canons are found in the Polycarpus, primarily in title 4 of book 6, which treats matrimony—unsurprising for a dossier on clerical marriage (06.04.40, 06.04.27, 06.04.31, 06.04.01, 06.04.18, 06.04.20, 06.04.43, 06.09.02, 02.31.40, 04.32.39, respectively). See Christof Rolker and Robert Somerville, Canon Law in the Age of Reforms (ca. 1000 to ca. 1150) (Washington, DC, 2023), 267–81. Another twelfth-century manuscript analyzed by Frauenknecht (Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 137–49 and 177–80), Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, MS 427, a twelfth-century manuscript from Christ Church, Canterbury, contains, in its third part, a series of texts intriguing for its similarity in grouping to the ones above, namely, in addition to Pseudo-Udalric (fols. 115r–120r), the treatise Cum sub liberi arbitrii potestate creati simus (fols. 120v–134r), believed by Frauenknecht to be a northern French product (Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 138), although no more precisely localizable than that, and the satirical, anti-papal Tractatus Garsiae (fols. 134v–144v), which lampoons the greed at Urban II’s court and dates from around 1099. These are followed by an Ordo ad penitentiam dandam, a sermon on tithing, and a fragmentary copy of the legend of Pope Silvester. For more on the manuscript, see Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 137–49 and 177–80. On the satirical tract, see Tractatus Garsiae, or The Translation of the Relics of SS. Gold and Silver, ed. Rodney M. Thomson (Leiden, 1973). On the Polycarpus, see Fowler-Magerl, Clavis Canonum, 229–31.

⁸³ Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 108.

⁸⁴ Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 173–88 and 194–202, identified seventeen copies, to which Martina Hartmann, Humanismus und Kirchenkritik, 121 n. 35 and 222; and Martina Giese, “Pseudo-Udalrichs Brief über die Klerikerehe in der Handschrift Prag, Národní Knihovna, XI. E. 9,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 59 (2003): 153–63, added two more. On the influence of Pseudo-Udalric’s Epistola de continentia clericorum on subsequent debates concerning clerical marriage, see Leidulf Melve, “The Public Debate on Clerical Marriage in the Late Eleventh Century,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 61 (2010): 688–706.

⁸⁵ On the manuscript, see Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 184 and 193. Regrettably, descriptions of the manuscript have been variously deficient. The most detailed, by Jacqueline Rambaud-Buhot, “Un corpus inédit de droit canonique de la réforme Carolingienne à la réforme Grégorienne,” in Humanisme actif: Mélanges d’art et de littérature offerts à Julien Cain, 2 vols. (Paris, 1968), 2:271–81, omits mention of the Rescript altogether. Rambaud-Buhot also mischaracterizes the letter of Gregory VII, which is in fact the unregistered epistola vagans 21 (EV, ed. and trans. Cowdrey, 56–59) from mid-1077. The provenance of the part of the Palermo manuscript containing the Rescript (fols. 159v–162r) was assigned to Italy by Paul Fournier and Gabriel Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques en Occident depuis les Fausses Décrétales jusqu’au Décret de Gratien, Tome 2: De la réforme grégorienne au Décret de Gratien (Paris, 1932), 150–51, but Rambaud-Buhot (“Un corpus inédit de droit canonique,” 281) and Gerhard Schmitz, “Die Überlieferung de sog. ‘Abbreviatio Ansegisi et Benedicti Levitae.’ Mit einem Anhang: Die Abbreviatio- und Dacheriana-Rezeption in der 17-Bücher-Sammlung,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 40 (1984): 176–99, at 188 n. 54, have since re-assigned it to France, in doing so upholding the earlier estimation of Enrico Besta, “Di una collezione canonistica Palermitana,” Il circolo giuridico 40 (1909): 8–21, that the archetype for the material at the end of the collection where the Rescript is found originated in the region of Chartres. See also Lotte Kéry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400–1140) (Washington, DC, 1999), 277.

⁸⁶ While the presence of the letter from Paschal to the German bishops (PL 163, cols. 197–98) seemingly points to a southern German provenance for these folios, the text of Pseudo-Udalric appears in a new hand and was clearly added later. I have not been able to determine the source of the canons. See Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 185 and n. 44. The manuscript, consisting primarily of biblical commentaries, is described by Margarete Andersson-Schmitt and Monica Hedlund, Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala: Katalog über die C-Sammlung, Band 2: Handschriften C51–200 (Stockholm, 1989), 176–78.

⁸⁷ Noted in Erdmann and Fickermann, Briefsammlungen der Zeit Heinrichs IV., 251; and Frauenknecht, Die Verteidigung der Priesterehe in der Reformzeit, 185–86 and 188.

⁸⁸ Gestes des évêques de Cambrai, ed. de Smedt, 34–35 (strophes 191–92): “et cum promulgatum [that is, Galcherus’s complaints against Lambert of Arras] / quod contra jura canonum / Urbanus ipsum Lambertum / statuerat episcopum, / respondens papa duriter / clamavit: cessent canones / quia omnes suae leges / starent auctorizabiles.” Galcherus was a canon of Noyon-Tournai and Cambrai during Gerard II’s pontificacy, and a first-hand witness to the papacy’s interventions in Arras-Cambrai.

⁸⁹ in domino] om. V

⁹⁰ designare] significare V

⁹¹ Et hoc] Et enim V

⁹² et] etiam V

⁹³ et] ac V

⁹⁴ notum est] est notum V

⁹⁵ violenter res gesta est ac iniuste] violenter ac iniuste res gesta est V

⁹⁶ et] ac V

⁹⁷ domini] domni V

⁹⁸ xi] undecim V

⁹⁹ domini] domni V

¹⁰⁰ de vobis] om. V

¹⁰¹ quod] quicquid V

¹⁰² et] ac V

¹⁰³ domino] domno V

¹⁰⁴ audientibus cunctis] cunctis audientibus V

¹⁰⁵ nollem] uellem V

¹⁰⁶ subici non deberem iure] iure subici non deberem V

¹⁰⁷ domino] domno V

¹⁰⁸ in hoc protinus abbatem cluniacensem] in hoc abbatem cluniacensem protinus V

¹⁰⁹ et] etiam V

¹¹⁰ institit] instituit V

¹¹¹ dominus] domnus V

¹¹² quia] quod DM

¹¹³ omitterem] obmitterem V

¹¹⁴ impeditus] praepeditus V

¹¹⁵ monitum est a vobis] a uobis monitum est V

¹¹⁶ cluniacensis abbatis] abbatis cluniacensis V

¹¹⁷ beneficaris] beneficiatis DM

¹¹⁸ iam] om. V

¹¹⁹ debeat] debebat V

¹²⁰ contra mandatione] contramandatione V

¹²¹ contra mandantis] contramandandis V

¹²² a vestra] a nostra W

¹²³ ipsius partem] partem ipsius V

¹²⁴ quia] quarum V

¹²⁵ debeat accepi] debet accepi V

¹²⁶ accepi. Deinde] accepi; deinde D

¹²⁷ in eis galliarum partibus] in eis partibus galliarum V

¹²⁸ iudicium subire] subire iudicium V

¹²⁹ in consequentibus] in sequentibus V

¹³⁰ Tertio quia] Tercio quarum V

¹³¹ adiacens] adiacens est W

¹³² William I, the count of Auxerre (1040–1098/1100), and his son Robert, the bishop of Auxerre (1077–1092).

¹³³ liber transitus per eam] per eam liber transitus V

¹³⁴ dominum] domnum V

¹³⁵ francorum] franciae V

¹³⁶ procul dubio] proculdubio V

¹³⁷ captione] captioni V

¹³⁸ quoniam] quando V

¹³⁹ pertimescimus] metuimus V

¹⁴⁰ videremus] uidimus V uiderimus M

¹⁴¹ et] etiam V

¹⁴² horum] eorum V

¹⁴³ ponere] apponere V

¹⁴⁴ eligere debemus] debemus eligere V

¹⁴⁵ a quibus] quibus V

¹⁴⁶ temere] temerarie DM

¹⁴⁷ nobis] uobis V. Likely a scribal error, as Lyon was quite close to Hugh.

¹⁴⁸ xv dierum fere] quindecim fere dierum V fere quindecim dierum DM

¹⁴⁹ hebdomadas] epdomadas V

¹⁵⁰ duas] om. DM

¹⁵¹ sibi valde dissimiles] ualde sibi dissimiles V ualde sibi dissimiles monitiones DM

¹⁵² suis] om. V

¹⁵³ Cuniberti] Chuniberti V

¹⁵⁴ est, cuius] est. Cuius V

¹⁵⁵ in eum collatis a nobis] a nobis in eum collatis V

¹⁵⁶ ab eo] om. V

¹⁵⁷ vos etiam] etiam uos V

¹⁵⁸ nos multomagis] multomagis nos V

¹⁵⁹ redemptione] redeptione V

¹⁶⁰ vero] enim V

¹⁶¹ abundantia] habundantia V

¹⁶² episcopo] om. W

¹⁶³ et] om. V

¹⁶⁴ per] om. W

¹⁶⁵ A reference to the robbery of Henry, bishop of Liège (1075–1091), by Count Arnulf of Chiny on Christmas Eve 1079. Pope Gregory VII was seized while celebrating Christmas Eve mass in 1075 by one of his Roman enemies, the prefect Cencius Stephani. On Henry of Liège, see Gregory VII, Reg. 7.13 and 7.14 (30 January 1080), ed. Caspar, 2:477–79; and on Cencius’s actions, see Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 326–28.

¹⁶⁶ et nullam nobis esse sine periculo ad illum] nullam nobis esse ad illum sine periculo V

¹⁶⁷ Justiniane legis sententiam] legis iustinianae sententiam V

¹⁶⁸ olim in nos] in nos olim V

¹⁶⁹ temeritatem in ea provincia] in ea prouincia temeritatem V

¹⁷⁰ subsequente] subsequenter V consequenter DM

¹⁷¹ episcopis] episcopus W

¹⁷² accusatores] acusatores V

¹⁷³ cuiquam respondere] respondere cuiquam V

¹⁷⁴ non debemus. Si] non debemus; si DM

¹⁷⁵ vel audisse vel vidisse] uel uidisse uel audisse V

¹⁷⁶ autoritatibus] auctoritatibus V

¹⁷⁷ nobis] vobis W

¹⁷⁸ ratione] conditione V

¹⁷⁹ de ratione] derationare V

¹⁸⁰ valemus quamvis] ualemus. Quamuis DM

¹⁸¹ predictam] praecedentem V

¹⁸² nec respondere volo nec debeo] respondere nec uolo nec debeo V

¹⁸³ illis] eis V

¹⁸⁴ nos] om. W

¹⁸⁵ tempore] temporis V

¹⁸⁶ constringitis] constrinxistis V

¹⁸⁷ xx dies numerentur] viginti dies numerarentur V

¹⁸⁸ delatae] dilate V

¹⁸⁹ quo] quod V

¹⁹⁰ autoritatibus] auctoritatibus V

¹⁹¹ quo] quod V

¹⁹² aut] et V

¹⁹³ aut prospicere] om. D

¹⁹⁴ Vos autem] Vos autem hoc V

¹⁹⁵ et] om. V

¹⁹⁶ in xx dierum tantum spatio] in uiginti tantum dierum circulo V

¹⁹⁷ xl et l vel etiam lx] quadraginta et quinqaginta uel etiam sexaginta V

¹⁹⁸ ex sacra autoritate] a sacra auctoritate V

¹⁹⁹ xx] uiginti V

²⁰⁰ publicanorum] plublicanorum V

²⁰¹ unquam] inquam DM

²⁰² non ab aliquo maledico] non aliquando a quolibet maledico V

²⁰³ nota appetitus sit] nota sit appetitus V

²⁰⁴ colligere] collgere [sic] V

²⁰⁵ resurgere] exsurgere DM

²⁰⁶ monitio] mentio W

²⁰⁷ sex tantum] tantum sex V

²⁰⁸ omnino] omnimodo V

²⁰⁹ in tam brevi] in tam modico V

²¹⁰ conregari impossibile] congregare inpossibile V

²¹¹ iubentur] iubemur V

²¹² quia] quod V

²¹³ querantur] queramur V

²¹⁴ The following two sentences appear in the bottom margin of Vat. Reg. lat. 566, fol. 46v, indicated by a sigil in the body of the text.

²¹⁵ inauditum est. Si sex episcopos mirabile dictu est. Si et] inauditum est; si sex episcopos mirabile dictu est; si et DM

²¹⁶ excusatoribus] accusatoribus V

²¹⁷ hoc] haec DM

²¹⁸ paratum esse debere] debere paratum esse V

²¹⁹ qui tam temere nos] qui nos temere V

²²⁰ voluerunt] uoluerant D

²²¹ vacuavimus infamia, et quidquid ab eis infamatum est [sic] fuerat] infamia uacuauimus, et quicquid ab eis diffamatum fuerat V

²²² vel dici veraciter potuisset] uel ueraciter dici posset V

²²³ et si] etiam si V

²²⁴ purgare] expurgare V

²²⁵ quod ego si] cur ego si etiam V

²²⁶ esset] essent W

²²⁷ diffiniri] finiri V

²²⁸ Evaristi] EVARISTI V

²²⁹ credat unquam] umquam credat V. The text is from Pseudo-Isidore, Epistola Evaristi secunda 11; see Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, ed. Hinschius, 92.

²³⁰ furem sciebat] furem esse sciebat V

²³¹ beatissimus Euticianus papa] beatus papa EUTISCIANUS V

²³² autoritatibus] actoritatibus V

²³³ Pseudo-Isidore, Epistola Euticiani secunda 9, ed. Hinschius, 212.

²³⁴ qua] quod DM

²³⁵ autem] tamen V

²³⁶ non debeatis] om. non W

²³⁷ meis] nostris V

²³⁸ in illa] mala W

²³⁹ tunc Romae gesta] tunc gesta Romae V

²⁴⁰ videtur] uideretur V

²⁴¹ eosdem nunc et socios hic] eosdem hic nunc socios et V

²⁴² quos tunc vobiscum illic] quos tunc illuc uobiscum V

²⁴³ contigit] contigerit V

²⁴⁴ plusquam] postquam V

²⁴⁵ satis de his] de his satis V

²⁴⁶ supra nos fecisse] nos fecisse supra V

²⁴⁷ vel nuncio] uel in initio W

²⁴⁸ perturbarem] perturbarunt W

²⁴⁹ esse] om. D

²⁵⁰ galliarum] galiarum V

²⁵¹ vel iuvare vel nocere posse] iuuare et nocere possemus V

²⁵² iuvare vel nocere posse creditis] iuuare posse creditis aut nocere V

²⁵³ dictum est ubi regnum Francorum] sine dubio dictum est ubi regnum francie V

²⁵⁴ promisimus] permisimus W

²⁵⁵ porro] paulo DM

²⁵⁶ hoc] haec DM

²⁵⁷ haberemus[,] iam hoc] haberemus. Hoc iam DM

²⁵⁸ Quando] Quoniam V

²⁵⁹ et] ac V

²⁶⁰ romana aequitas] aequitas romana V

²⁶¹ idoneus vel] om. V

²⁶² tempestates] tespestates V

²⁶³ adiri non potest WDM] adibi uel non est V

²⁶⁴ eosdem] eodem V

²⁶⁵ habere] paratos habere V

²⁶⁶ sanctis] sacris V

²⁶⁷ autoritatibus] auctoritatibus V

²⁶⁸ xx] uiginti V

²⁶⁹ tempore] spacio V

²⁷⁰ The order of the three preceding sentences differs in V, where they appear as follows: Quoniam infra uiginti … Quoniam eos tales … Quoniam eodem episcopos …, though they are otherwise substantially the same.

²⁷¹ concilium Lugdunense] Lugdunense concilium V

²⁷² predictae sponsionis] sponsionis praedictae V

²⁷³ canonicas excusationes] excusationes canonicas V

²⁷⁴ quia] quod DM

²⁷⁵ sophistice] sophystice V. The ‘y’ has been corrected to an ‘i’ in a blank space before the word in V.

²⁷⁶ aliqua ex his excusationibus W] aliquam ex his accusationibus VM

²⁷⁷ noveritis pro certo] noueritis pro certo quod DM

²⁷⁸ autoritatis] auctoritatis V

²⁷⁹ et] om. V

²⁸⁰ tenemus, quamvis apud vos] tenemus. Quamuis uero nos apud uos V

²⁸¹ vobis subiectionis] subiectionis uobis V

²⁸² canonicae] canonice W

²⁸³ debemus] deberemus V

²⁸⁴ etiam] enim V

²⁸⁵ nobis] uobis M

²⁸⁶ nuntius sedis apostolicae] nuncius apostolicae sedis V

²⁸⁷ nobis nolumus] om. nobis VDM. I have followed the reading of VDM here.

²⁸⁸ venire. Quod etiam] uenire, quod iam V

²⁸⁹ ratione, post] ratione. Post V

²⁹⁰ Romae placiti] Romae et solutam placiti V

²⁹¹ amplius si nollem] si nollem amplius V

²⁹² subiectus essem] subicerer [sic] VDM

²⁹³ abbati] om. W

²⁹⁴ quatenus] quatinus V

²⁹⁵ praepeditus essem excusatione] excusatione praepeditus essem V

²⁹⁶ ad concilium irem] iterum ad concilium irem V

²⁹⁷ vos non excipit] uos quasi non excepit, quod et fecit V

²⁹⁸ prelationem nostram a vestra subiectione DM] prelationem uestram a nostra subiectione V prelationem nostram a nostra subiectione W

²⁹⁹ The next two lines in V are copied into the bottom margin of the folio and marked with a sigil.

³⁰⁰ faciendam vos] om. V

³⁰¹ computari. Quod non procedit.] computari, quod non procedit. V

³⁰² laudavit iniuste] iuste laudauit iniuste V

³⁰³ Rodoaldus] Rodmalosus W

³⁰⁴ The last three letters of ‘iniuste’ are missing in W.

³⁰⁵ iudicaverint WDM] iudicauerit V

³⁰⁶ iudicio, et vocatio] iudicio. Et uocatio V

³⁰⁷ falso] om. W falsi DM

³⁰⁸ iudicio notari] notari iudicio V laudari judicio DM

³⁰⁹ obediam] oboediam V

³¹⁰ et si] etiam si V

³¹¹ est ostensa] est om. W

³¹² debet] deberet V

³¹³ pro honore eius] pro honore suo V

³¹⁴ facit] facit esse DM

³¹⁵ persecuti] prosecuti V

³¹⁶ simus] sumus DM

³¹⁷ vobis] nobis VDM

³¹⁸ observatae] observantiae D

³¹⁹ concedendum] concedendum est V

³²⁰ pro reverentia] propter reuerentiam V

³²¹ adhuc] om. DM

³²² concilia] mandata DM

³²³ non] nec DM

³²⁴ perturbamus] prohibemus DM

³²⁵ inquam] itaque D

³²⁶ per .xla.] pro Quadragesima DM

³²⁷ et] om. V

³²⁸ habundantia] abundantia DM

³²⁹ vos] om. D

³³⁰ iuvabimus] vos iuuabimus D

³³¹ adquiratis] acquiratis D

³³² hisdem] iisdem DM

³³³ inprimamur] imprimamur DM

³³⁴ Sepe] Saepe DM

³³⁵ Gregory the Great, Homiliae in evangelia 26 (Homily on John 20:19–29), PL 76, col. 1200.

³³⁶ Ezek. 13:19.

³³⁷ Augustine of Hippo, Liber de verbis Domini (Sermo 82), PL 38, col. 509.

³³⁸ et] atque DM

³³⁹ dicit] ait DM

³⁴⁰ Leo I, Sermo de anniversario suo, PL 54, col. 151.