effect to admit a reasonable doubt that the Albigenses were Manichæans.
I may return to them hereafter, and therefore will not discuss the
point here. As regards the earlier heretics, however, I may mention the
following contemporary authorities:—
With respect to those of Toulouse and Orleans, the “Fragmentum Historiæ
Aquitaniæ” (Pithœi Hist. Franc. Script. p. 82) says: “Eo tempore decem
ex canonicis sanctæ crucis Aurelianis probati sunt esse Manichæi, quos
rex Robertus quum nollent ad Catholicam converti fidem, igne cremari
jussit. Simili modo apud Tholosam inventi sunt Manichæi, et ipsi igne
cremati sunt: et per diversas Occidentis partes Manichæi exorti per
latibula sese occultare cœperunt”—and their errors are thus specified
in the “Fragmentum Hist. Franc.” (Op. cit. p. 84) “Ii dicebant non
posse aliquem in baptismate spiritum sanctum suscipere, et post
criminale peccatum veniam non promereri; impositionem manuum nihil
posse conferre; nuptias spernebant; episcopum affirmabant non posse
ordinare, &c.”
In the Artesian synod, held in 1025 to condemn those of Cambrai, the
tenth canon is directed against their hostility to marriage (Labbei et
Coleti XI. 1177-8).—See also the prefatory letter of Gerard, Bishop of
Cambrai—“Conjugatos nequaquam ad regnum pertinere”—(Hartzheim Concil.
German. III. 68).
Concerning those executed at Goslar in 1052—“Ibique quosdam hæreticos,
inter alia pravi erroris dogmata Manichæa secta omnis esum animalis
exsecrantes, consensu cunctorum, ne hæretica scabies latius serpens
plures inficeret, in patibulis suspendi jussit.”—Herman. Contract. ann.
1052.
About 1100 Radolphus Ardens describes the Manichæans who infested the
territory of Agen, and recapitulates their doctrines as embracing
dualism, abhorrence of animal food and of marriage, rejection of
the Old Testament and part of the New, disbelief in the Eucharist,
in baptism and resurrection, &c.—“Dicunt enim tantum flagitium esse
accedere ad uxorem, quantum ad matrem vel ad filiam”—Radulf. Ardent. T.
I. P. ii. Homil. 19.
The council of Toulouse, held by Calixtus II. in 1119, adopted a
canon condemning those who objected to the Eucharist, priesthood, and
legitimate marriage, showing that Manichæism was unextinguished in
Languedoc.—Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 303.
In 1146 a synod at Cologne tried certain heretics, but before the
examination was concluded the unfortunates were seized by the rabble
and burned “et quod magis mirabile est, ipsi tormentum ignis non solum
cum patientia, sed et cum lætitia introierunt et sustinuerunt.” Their
Manichæism is manifested by their tenets concerning marriage—“De
baptismo nostro non curant: Nuptias damnant.... In cibis suis vetant
omne genus lactis, et quod inde conficitur, et quidquid ex coitu
procreatur”—Narratio Everwini Præpositi (Hartzheim. III. 353-4). Cf.
Bernardi Serm. 65, 66, in Cantica.
The accusations so freely disseminated against them for the purpose of
stirring up popular indignation—such as that in their conventicles,
after religious exercises, the lights were extinguished, and the
congregation abandoned themselves to indiscriminate excesses—are, of
course, without foundation. It is instructive to observe that precisely
the same scandals were asserted of the early Christians (Tertull.
Apologet. c. vii.)—so little does human nature change with the lapse of
centuries.
[502] It is scarcely worth while to more than refer to the assertion
of mediæval Milanese chroniclers that Eriberto married a noble lady
named Useria. Puricelli (Muratori Script. Rer. Ital. V. 122-3) has
sufficiently demonstrated its improbability. He does not, however,
allude to the argument derivable from the fact that Eriberto’s name
is signed to the proceedings of the council of Pavia in 1022, where
priestly marriage was so severely condemned.
[503] Gualvaneo Flamma, Chron. Mag. c. 763.—Landulph. Senior. Mediolan.
Hist. Lib. III. c. 2.
[504] Landulf. Senior. L. II. c. 35.
The writer was a partisan of the married clergy; but his description
is confirmed by the testimony which Damiani bears (ante, p. 203) to
the good character of the married clergy of Savoy. Still, there may
be some truth in the counter statement of an opponent, S. Andrea
of Vallombrosa, a disciple of S. Arialdo—“Nam alii cum canibus et
accipitribus huc illucque pervagantes, suum venationi lubricæ famulatum
tradebant; alii vero tabernarii et nequam villici, alii impii usurarii
existebant; cuncti fere aut cum publicis uxoribus sive scortis, suam
ignominiose ducebant vitam.... Universi sic sub simoniaca hæresi
tenebantur impliciti.”—Vit. S. Arialdi c. I. No. 7.
The Milanese defended their position not only by Scripture texts, but
also by a decision which they affirmed was rendered by St. Ambrose,
to whom the question of the permissibility of sacerdotal marriage
had been referred by the pope and bishops. Of course the story was
without foundation, but singularly enough, the Milanese clung to it
long after the subject had ceased to be open to discussion. Puricelli
has investigated the matter with his usual conscientious industry, and
shows the repetition of the legend not only by Datius and Landulfus
Senior in the eleventh century, but by Gualvaneo Flamma in the
thirteenth, by the author of the Flos Florum, by Pietro Agario and
by Bernardino Corio in the fifteenth, and by Tristano Calco in the
sixteenth century—the two latter falling in consequence under the
revision of the Index. (Script. Rer. Ital. V. 122-3.)
[505] Milan long retained its bad preeminence as a nest of heresy.
When Frederic II., in 1236, delayed his promised crusade to subdue
the rebellious Milanese, his excuse to the pope was that he ought not
to leave behind him unbelievers worse than those whom he would seek
across the seas. “Cum ... jam zizania segetes incipiant suffocare per
civitates Italicas, præcipue Mediolanensium, transire ad Saracenos
hostiliter expugnandos, et illos incorrectos pertransire, esset
vulnus infixo ferro fomentis superficialibus delinire, et cicatricem
deformam non medelam procurare,” and Matthew Paris calls Milan “omnium
hæreticorum, Paterinorum, Luciferanorum, Publicanorum, Albigensium,
Usurariorum refugium ac receptaculum.”—Hist. Angl. ann. 1236.
[506] Arnulf. Gest. Archiep. Mediolan. Lib. III. c. 9.—Landulf. Sen.
Lib. III. c. 10.
Benzo, the uncompromising imperialist, always alludes to the papal
party when he speaks of the Patarini—that term not having yet assumed
the significance which it subsequently obtained. He accuses Anselmo
di Badagio of being the author of the troubles—“primitus Patariam
invenit, arcanum domini sui archiepiscopi cui juraverat inimicis
aperuit. Abusus est etiam quædam monacha, cum Landulfino suo proprio
consobrino.”—Comment. de Reb. Henric. IV. Lib. VII. c. 2.—The latter
accusation can no doubt be set down as one of the baseless scandals so
freely cast from one party to the other in those turbulent times.
[507] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 10.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 9.
[508] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 11.
[509] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 13.
[510] “Quod Mediolanensis civitas tunc in seditionem versa, repentinum
utique nostrum minabatur interitum.”—The peril must have been serious,
for even Landolfo, whose nerves were seasoned by constant civic strife,
made a vow to become a monk if he should escape—his delay in fulfilling
which, after the danger was past, called forth the urgent remonstrances
of Damiani.—Damiani Opusc. XLII. cap. 1.
[511] Their defence was “non debere Ambrosianam ecclesiam Romanis
legibus subjacere, nullumque judicandi vel disponendi jus Romano
pontifici in illa sede competere”.—Damiani Opusc. V.
[512] Nicolaitarum quoque hæresim nihilominus condemnamus, et non modo
presbyteros sed et diaconos et subdiaconos ab uxorum et concubinarum
fædo consortio, nostris studiis, in quantum nobis possibilitas fuerit,
sub eodem quo supra testimonio arcendos esse promittimus.—Damiani
Opusc. V.
[513] Damiani op. cit.—Damiani’s account is addressed to the pope, who,
he seems to think, may be dissatisfied with the lenity which permitted
heretics to return to the church on such easy terms, and he is at some
pains to justify himself for his mildness.
[514] Alexand. II. Epist. 1.
[515] His followers claimed for him the honors of martyrdom. He was
reverenced accordingly, and Muratori gravely asserts that the evidence
in his favor is indubitable.
[516] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 13, 14.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 13, 14.
To this period may probably be attributed two epistles of Alexander
II. (Epistt. 93, 94) to the clergy and people of Milan, informing both
parties that a Roman synod had recently prohibited incontinent priests
from officiating, and had ordered the people not to attend at their
ministrations. He adds that those who abandon their functions to cleave
to their wives, must be forced also to give up their benefices.
[517] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 15.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 15.—Arnulfus
alludes to a dispute concerning the litany, which complicated the
quarrel. The troubles even invaded the monasteries, for Erlembaldo
procured the forcible ejection of sundry abbots appointed by Guido.
[518] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 18.—Landulf. Lib. III. c. 29. In 1090 the
remains of St. Arialdo were translated by Archbishop Anselmo IV. to
the church of St. Denis, and Muratori quotes from Alciati a curious
statement to the effect that in 1508 Louis XII. removed them to Paris
in mistake for the relics of St. Denis the Areopagite, the Parisians in
his time still venerating them as those of the latter saint.
About the time of Arialdo’s martyrdom, Cremona must have been won
over to the cause of the reformers, for in 1066 we find Alexander II.
addressing the “religiosis clericis et fidelibus laicis” of that city,
thanking God that they had been moved to extirpate the simoniacal and
Nicolitan heresies, and commanding that in future all those in orders
who contaminated themselves with women should be degraded.—Alex. II.
Epist. 36.
[519] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 18, 19.
[520] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 20.
[521] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III.
c. 28.
[522] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 23; Lib. IV. c. 2, 3, 4.
[523] Arnulf. Lib. IV., Lib. V. c. 2, 5, 9.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c.
29, Lib. IV. c. 2.—Lambert. Schafnab. ann. 1077.
Erlembaldo was canonized by Urban II. towards the end of the century.
Muratori (Annal. ann. 1085) styles Tedaldo “capo e colonna maestra
degli Scismatici di Lombardia.”
[524] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
[525] Gregor. II. Regist. Lib. I. Epistt. 25, 26, 27.
[526] Maritos ab uxoribus separat; scorta pudicis conjugibus; stupra,
incestus, adulteria, casto præfert connubio; populares adversus
sacerdotes, vulgus adversum episcopos concitat.—Comit. Ticinens. ann.
1076 (Goldast. III. 314).
[527] To this period is no doubt referable a fragment of a decretal
addressed by Urban II. to Anselmo, Archbishop of Milan, giving him
instructions as to the ceremony of restoring to the church the
ecclesiastics who were to be reconciled (Ivon. Decret. P. VI. c.
407—Urbani II. Epist. 74)—showing that Milan had submitted, and that
her clergy were forced to seek absolution and obey the canons. It was
this revolution in Lombardy that drove the anti-pope Clement III. from
Rome.
[528] Item heresis Nicolaitarum, id est incontinentium subdiaconorum,
diaconorum et præcipue sacerdotum inretractabiliter damnata est, ut
deinceps de officio se non intromittant qui in illa heresi manere
non formidant; nec populus eorum officia ullo modo recipiat, si
ipsi Nicolaitæ contra hæc interdicta ministrare præsumant.—Bernald.
Constant. ann. 1095.
The very terms of this canon, however, show that “Nicolitism” was still
an existing fact.
[529] Tamburini, Storia generale dell’ Inquizione, Milano, 1862, T. I.
pp. 307-9.
[530] S. Leon. IX. Epist. 55.
[531] Vit. S. Anselmi Lucensis.—In his collection of canons, St.
Anselmo is careful to accumulate authorities justifying his course, and
condemning his antagonists.—S. Anselmi Collect. Canon. Lib. VIII. c. 2,
4, 5, 7, 8, 10.
[532] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1089.
[533] Cujus prudentia, non solum in Italia sed etiam in Theutonicis
partibus refrenata est sacerdotum incontinentia, scilicet quod
prædecessores ejus in Italia prohibuerunt, hoc ipse in aliis ecclesiæ
catholicæ partibus prohibere studiosus attemptavit.—Bertold. Constant,
ann. 1073.—Also Bernald. Constant, ann. 1073.
Gregorius ... connubia clericorum a subdiaconatu et supra, per totum
orbem Romanum edicto decretali, in æternum prohibuit.—Gotefrid. Viterb.
Chron. P. XVII.
Sed et datis decretis clericorum a subdiaconatu et supra connubia in
toto orbe Romano cohibuit.—Otton. Frisingen. Chron. Lib. VI. c. 34.
Eodem quoque tempore canones antiqui de continentia ministrorum sacri
altaris innovari novis accedentibus præceptis cœperunt, per hunc
Urbanum Papam et prædecessores suos Gregorium VII. et Nicholaum II.
atque Alexandrum II.—Chron. Reichersperg. ann. 1098.
Tempore illo cum Gregorius qui et Hiltebrant Romani pontificatus jura
disponeret, hoc decretum quidem antiquitus promulgatum, nunc autem
innovatum est, ut videlicet omnes in sacris ordinibus constituti,
presbyteri scilicet et diaconi, a cohabitationibus feminarum se, ut
decet, cohiberent, aut ab officio cessarent.—Gest. Trevir. Archiep.
cap. XXX. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. IV. 174).
Hoc tamen ab eo tempore fuit introductum ut nullus ordinaretur in
presbyterum conjugatus: et ordinandi omnes castitatem promittere
compellantur coram ordinante.—Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1074.
One chronicler, however, attributes the reform to Alexander II.
“Constituit etiam ut nullus presbyter sive diaconus vel subdiaconus,
uxorem habeat, sive concubinam in occidentali ecclesia, sed ut sint
casti.”—Chron. S. Ægid. in Brunswig. ann. 1071.
[534] Paul Bernried. Vit. Gregor VII. c. ii. § 20.
[535] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. c. iii. § 26.
Even Gregory, however, was not equal to his contemporary Hugh, Bishop
of Grenoble, who, during fifty-three years spent in the active duties
of his calling, never saw the face of a woman, except that of an aged
mendicant.—Rolevink Fascic. Temp. ann. 1074.
The fanciful purity which came to be considered requisite to the
episcopal office is well illustrated by the case of Faricius, Abbot
of Abingdon, who was elected to the see of Canterbury. His suffragans
refused his consecration because he was a skilful leech—“tunc electus
est Faricius ad archiepiscopatum, sed episcopus Lincolniensis
et episcopus Salesburiensis obstiterunt, dicentes non debere
archiepiscopum urinas mulierum inspicere” (De Abbat. Abbendon.—Chron.
Abingdon. II. 287). The prejudice against the practice of physic
as incompatible with the purity of an ecclesiastic was wide-spread
and long-lived, as chronicled in the canons of numerous councils
prohibiting it (e. g. Concil. Claromont. ann. 1130 c. 5)—but it was not
always so. In 998 Theodatus, a monk of Corvey, received the bishopric
of Prague from Otho III., as a reward for curing Boleslas I., Duke of
Bohemia, of paralysis, by means of a bath of wine, herbs, spices, and
three living black puppies four weeks old (Paulini Dissert. Hist. p.
198); and about the year 1200, Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury,
bestowed the see of St. David’s on Geoffrey, Prior of Llanthony, his
physician, whose skill had won his gratitude.—Girald. Cambrens. de Jur.
et Stat. Menev. Eccles. Dist. VII.
[536] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. I. Epist. 30.
[537] Ut secundum instituta antiquorum canonum presbyteri uxores non
habeant, habentes aut dimittant aut deponantur; nec quisquam omnino
ad sacerdotium admittatur qui non in perpetuum continentiam vitamque
cœlibem profiteatur.—Lambert. Hersfeldens. ann. 1074. Cf. Gregor.
Epist. Extrav. 4.
[538] As regards Germany, Gregory, in 1074, sent two legates to Henry
IV., who promulgated the canon in a national council; and the next
year he followed this up by a legation empowered to forbid the laity
from attending the offices of married priests. (Herman. Contract. ann.
1074-5.) His correspondence, however, shows that he did not rely alone
on such measures, but that he also addressed the prelates directly.
[539] Lambert. Hersfeldens. ann. 1074.
[540] Novo exemplo et inconsiderato prejudicio, necnon et contra
sanctorum patrum sententiam ... ex qua re tam grave scandalum in
ecclesia oritur, quod antea sancta ecclesia nullius hæresis schismati
tam graviter est attrita.—Chron. Turonens. (Martene Ampl. Collect. V.
1007.)
[541] Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav. 4, 12, 13.—Bernald. pro Gebhardo
Episc. Apologet. c. 4, 5, 6, 7.
[542] Vit. S. Altmanni.—Hinc capitulum illud de incontinentia
sacerdotum a tam invicto propugnatore castitatis dissimulatum non
approbatum remansit.
[543] Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav. 12.—Lambert. Hersfeld. ann.
1074-5-6.—Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 132.—Gregor. Regist. Lib. II.
Epist. 29.—Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 237.
An encyclical letter of Siegfrid, in 1075, states that Gregory had
sent to his diocese commissioners to reform the immorality of the
clergy, and that they had labored earnestly, but fruitlessly, to
accomplish the task by a liberal use of suspension and excommunication.
He had thereupon reported to the pope the scandal and infamy of his
church, when Gregory, considering the multitude of the transgressors,
counselled moderation. Siegfrid therefore orders all incorrigible
offenders to be suspended and sent to him for judgment. (Hartzheim
Concil. German. III. 175.)—Hartzheim also (III. 749) gives, under date
of 1077, another letter from Siegfrid to Gregory, in which he promises
to do his best in reforming the clergy, but advises moderation towards
those whose weakness merits compassion.
[544] See, for instance, Lib. I. Epist. 30; Lib. II. Epistt. 25, 55,
61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68; Lib. III. Epist. 4; Lib. IV. Epistt. 10, 11,
20; Lib. VII. Epist. 1; Epistt. extrav. 4, 12, 13, etc.
[545] His præcipimus vos nullo modo obedire, vel eorum præceptis
consentire, sicut ipsi apostolicæ sedis præceptis non obediunt, neque
auctoritati sanctorum patrum consentiunt.—Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav.
14. “Omnibus clericis et laicis in regno Teutonicorum constitutis.”
[546] Regist. Lib. II. Epist. 45.
Letters conceived in the same spirit are extant, addressed to the
principal laymen of Chiusi in Tuscany, to the Count and Countess of
Flanders, &c. (Lib. II. Epist. 47; Lib. IV. Epistt. 10, 11.)
[547] Martene et Durand. Thesaur. I. 218.—Hugon. Flavin. Chron. Lib.
II. ann. 1079.—Cf. Chron. Augustinens. ann. 1075. Theodoric was
naturally forced in the end to take a decided stand against Gregory.
See his letter in Goldastus, T. I. p. 236, and the account of his
episcopate in the Gesta Trevir. Archiep. (Martene Ampl. Collect. IV.
175-8).
[548] Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. cap. 162.
[549] Annalista Saxo, ann. 1076.
We have already seen (p. 142) that Nicholas I., in the ninth century,
had expressly forbidden any popular interference with married priests,
and it is a little singular to observe that his decretal on the subject
is extracted by Ivo of Chartres (Decreti P. II. cap. 82) and presented
as valid law, in less than a generation after the death of Gregory VII.
[550] The writer indignantly adds—“Si autem quæris talis fructus a
qua radice pullulaverit, lex ad laicos promulgata, qua imperitis
persuasum est conjugatorum sacerdotum missas et quæcumque per eos
implentur mysteria fugienda esse, in reipublicæ nostræ ornatum illud
adjecit.”—Martene et Durand. Thesaur. I. 230-1.
[551] Sigebert. Gemblac. ann. 1074.
[552] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 81, 107.
[553] Ibid. No. 105, 106, 107.
[554] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IV. Epist. 20.
[555] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 87.—Ekkehard of Uraugen and
the Annalista Saxo, however, in their accounts of these disturbances,
attribute them to political rather than to ecclesiastical causes. The
latter, no doubt, would hardly have been efficient without the former.
The efforts of Henry to reduce the savage feudal nobles to order made
him, throughout his reign, a favorite with the cities.
[556] Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1076.
[557] Hugon. Flaviniac. Lib. II.
[558] Ob hanc igitur causam, quia scilicet sanctam Dei ecclesiam
castam esse volebat, liberam atque catholicam, quia de sanctuario
Dei simoniacam et neophytorum hæresim et fedam libidinosæ
contagionis pollutionem volebat expellere, membra diaboli cœperunt
in eum insurgere, et usque ad sanguinem præsumpserunt in eum manus
injicere.—Hugon. Flaviniac. Lib. II.
Eo vesaniæ imperatorem induxerat cæca sacerdotum (qui tunc frequentes
apud eum erant) libido. Timebant enim si cum pontifice in gratiam
rediret, actum esse de concubinis suis, quas illi pluris quam vel
propriam salutem vel publicam pendebant honestatem.—Hieron. Emser Vit.
S. Bennon. c. III. § 40.
Gregory’s celebrated exclamation on his death-bed does not, however,
specially recognize this—“Dilexi justitiam et odivi iniquitatem,
propterea morior in exilio.”
[559] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. I. Epist. 30; Lib. III. Epist. 3.
[560] According to Conrad of Ursperg (Chron. ann. 1080) among the
reasons adduced for the deposition of Gregory the synod of Brixen, was
“Qui inter concordes seminavit discordiam, inter pacificos lites, inter
fratres scandala, _inter conjuges divortia_, et quicquid quiete inter
pie viventes stare videbatur, concussit”—in which the words italicized
may possibly allude to the separation of the married clergy. Conrad,
however, was a compiler of the thirteenth century, and his statements
are not to be received without caution. If this motive had its weight
with the prelates of the synod, they did not care to publish it to the
world, for there is no allusion to it in the letter of renunciation
addressed by them to Gregory (Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 238)—forming a
striking contrast to the proceedings of the synod of Pavia in 1076,
already alluded to.
[561] Wibert Antipap. Epist. VI.
Bishop Benzo, the most bitter of imperialists, did not desire to be
confounded with the Nicolitan heretics—
“Omnis enim caste vivens templum Dei dicitur;
Si quis tantum sacramentum violare nititur,
Unus de porcorum grege protinus efficitur.
Facti cœlibes ardentem fugiamus Sodomam:
Hierosolymam petamus, Christianis commodam.”
Comment. de Reb. Hen. IV. Lib. V. c. 6.
[562] Honorius III. in Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 15.
[563] Bernald. Constant. ad Herman. Contract. Append. ann. 1085.
[564] Henricus multitudinem sequens, accessit eis qui sacerdotum
conjugium sublatum volebant. Quare resistentes ei opinioni condemnati
sunt.—H. Mutii German. Chron. Lib. XV.
I do not remember to have met with any contemporary authority for this
assertion, nor is there any provision of this nature in the decrees of
the Diet as given by Goldastus (I. 245); but the chroniclers of the
period were generally papalists, and would be apt to omit recording
anything which they would deem so creditable to their adversaries. Yet
that the imperialists were no longer held responsible for clerical
irregularities is evident from a letter written in 1090 by Stephen,
the papalist Bishop of Halberstadt, to Waltram of Magdeburg, who
was a follower of Henry. In all his violent invectives against the
imperialists, and in his long catalogue of their sins, he makes
no allusion to priestly incontinence, showing that they must have
disavowed these irregularities so formally as to leave no ground for
imputations of complicity (Dodechini Append. ad Mar. Scot. ann. 1090).
[565] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1091.
[566] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1089.
[567] A monkish chronicler professes to record of his own knowledge
Guiberto’s death-bed remorse for the schism which he had been
instrumental in causing. “Malens, ut ab ore ipsius didicimus,
apostolici nomen nunquam suscepisse.”—Chron. Reg. S. Pantaleon. ann.
1100.
[568] Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 173.