Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T09:28:22.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Golden Priesthood and the Leaden State. A Note on the Influence of a Work Sometimes Ascribed to St. Ambrose: The Sermo de Dignitate Sacerdotali

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

George Huntston Williams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The cosmic imagery whereby Innocent III likened the Papacy to the sun and the Empire to the moon has been traced before. The purpose of the present inquiry is to examine Gregory VII's scarcely less striking comparison of the sacerdotium to gold and the regnum to lead in three letters, two to Bishop Hermann of Metz and one to William the Conqueror. The comparison is made in its simplest form in the first letter to Hermann in 1076, wherein Pope Gregory in reference to Henry IV and his counsellors writes as follows:

Perchance they imagine that the royal dignity is higher than that of bishops; but how great the difference between them is, they may learn from the difference in their origins. The former came from human lust of power; the latter was instituted by divine grace. The former constantly strives after vain glory; the latter aspires ever toward the heavenly life. Let them learn … how St. Ambrose in his pastoral letter distinguished between them. He said: “If you compare the episcopal dignity with the splendor of kings and the crowns of princes, these are far more inferior to it than the metal lead is to splendorous gold.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 1957 , pp. 37 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This paper was originally prepared for an Italian miscellanea in honor of Professor emeritus George LaPiana of Harvard Divinity School. It is in part an extended Note on one of the tractates of the Norman Anonymous. Harvard Theological Studies, XVIII, 1951.

2 Most recently by Hugo Rahner, “Das christliche Mysterium von Sonne und Mond,” reprinted in Mythen, Griechische in christlicher Deutung (Zürich, 1945), pp. 175–229Google Scholar; Kempf, Friedrich, S.J., Papsttum und Kaisertum bei Innocenz III, Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, IX (Rome, 1954), p. 285Google Scholar and the literature, n. 15.

3 Register, iv, 2 ed. Erich Caspar, p. 295.

4 Migne, PL, 17, col. 598. The text printed here is that of Jean Mabillon based on a Limoges MS (n. 8, below). My translation is based upon a collation of this text with the Benedictine text (n. 9, below) and eight Vatican MSS: Reg. Lat. 407, ff. 77r–86r, s. IX; Vat. Lat. 266, ff. 37r–44v, s. X; Vat. Lat. 296, s. X; Vat. Lat. 282, s. XI; Vat. Lat. 289, s. XII; Pal: Lat. 591, s. XV; Vat. Lat. 1359, s. XIII; Reg. Lat. 712, s. XII–XIII. These were collated for me by Professor Chauncey E. Finch of Saint Louis University, using the resources of the Knights of Columbus Vatican Film Library. He describes the oldest Vatican MS as “a very beautiful Carolingian MS” of the early ninth century. I am greatly indebted to Professor Finch and also to Mr. Ermatinger, curator of the microfilm collection.

5 All Vatican texts read fulgori. See n. 8 below.

6 The Mabillon text, at this point inferior, reads decretis (decretals).

7 The Mabillon text reads plebis.

8 Vetera Analecta, nova ed., p. 103.

9 Vol. II, Appendix of suppositious works, col. 358. The apparatus refers to the Mabillon variants and to those in other MSS.

10 PL, 17 (1875), col. 598; PL, 139 (1880), col. 169.

11 Paris, 1867, p. 269.

12 “Sermo de informatione episcoporum (Sermo de dignitate sacerdotali)”, Neues Archiv… für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, I (1876), 587Google Scholar.

13 Loc. cit., IX (1883), 354. In reference to a “senator's” wearing a chlamys, which to the Benedictine editors indicated a forgery, since Ambrose would have been informed as to the Roman senatorial habiliments, it should be noted that the preacher undoubtedly has in mind a high military officer (senator militum) above the ducenarius and with barbari as his soldiers. Grosse, Robert, Römische Militärgeschichte (Berlin, 1920), 119 fGoogle Scholar.

14 Cf. Didascalia, ed. R.H. Connolly, p. 97 (= Funk, ii, 34); Constitutions, ii, v, 34. The shift from the second person plural to the second person singular in the gold-lead paragraph would further suggest that our crucial passage had been worn smooth by usage and was familiar to the audience in the didactic second person singular.

15 The Benedictine editors of the Opera refer in their Admonitio, col. 358, to fourteen Vatican MSS. Professor Finch (n. 4, above) has located twelve. Pertz mentions a copy in Salzburg ascribed to Sylvester II. Archiv für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, IX (1847), 482.

16 Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters, II, 1923, 742.

17 Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio, II, 1929, 11, n. 1.

18 Geschichte des Papsttums, II, 1933, 71. H-X, Arquillière noncommittally ascribes the Sermo to “Ambrosiaster.” S. Grégoire VII, 1933, 27s, n. 1.

19 The prophetic consciousness of Ambrose I have pointed out in “Christology and Church-State Relationships in the Fourth Century,” Church History, XX (1951): 4, p. 9Google Scholar.

20 De Spiritu sancto, ii, 13 (145 ff.); PL. XVI, col. 805. Cf. Expositio Lucae, vi, 22: “Ergo nee Petrus ipse, quia ecclesia dilexit in Petro, nee Paulus ipse, quia Paulus quoque eius est portio.” CSEL, XXXII, 3, p. 240Google Scholar, 12 f.

21 De Spiritu sancto, ii, 13 (158); PL, XVI, 808. Ambrose's vindication of the coördinate apostolic authority of Paul and Peter is similar to that of Ambrosiaster who went even further, arguing against Damasus for a “primacy” for each of the apostles. Noted by Joseph Ludwig, Die Primatworte Mt. 16, 18. 19 in der altkirchlichen Exegese, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, XIX: 4 (Münster, 1952). 65. Cf. Quaestiones, ed. A, Souter, CSEL, L, p. 135, lines 15 f.: “manifestum est in Petro omnes contineri.”

22 De incarnationis sacramento, iv, (33); col. 862. Cf. also Expositio psalmi 38, 37: “… quod Petro dicitur, apostolis dicitur.” CSEL, LXIV, 213, 3Google Scholar.

23 De incarnationis sacramento, v, (34); PL, XVI, 862: Fides… ergo est ecclesiae fundamentum: non enim de came Petri, sed de fide dictum est…. Ibid., (33); 861: [Petrus] statim loci non immemor sui primatum confessionis utique, non honoris; primatum fidei, non ordinis. Expositio Lucae, vi, 98 f.; CSEL: 3, 275: Petra tua actus est, petra tua mens est. supra hanc petram aedificatur domus tua, ut nullis possit nequitiae spiritalis euerberari procellis. petra tua fides est, fundamentum et fides ecclesiae. si in ecclesia fueris, in ecclesia eris, quia ecclesia supra petram est.

24 As indicative of his respect for the apostolic see of the West, one might quote De virginitate, xvi (105); PL, 306; Ep. XI, 4; col. 986; Ep. XLII, 5; col. 1174. Somewhat more “Roman” are the following places: De excessu fratris sui, i, 47, where “catholic” bishops are understood as those in communion with the Roman see; De fide, iv, 57, which is primarily christological rather than ecclesiological in intent; and De poenitentia, against the Novatianists, possibly in Rome, where Ambrose writes, i, 7 (33): “… non habent enim Petri haereditatem, qui Petri sedem [some MSS though generally inferior have fidem] non habent.” The most important passage in respect to papal authority is in Explanatio psalmi 40, CSEL, LXIV, 250, 19: “… ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.” But J. Ludwig, who has most recently reviewed the evidence, while insisting that Ambrose consciously opposed the extremism of Cyprian and Ambrosiaster, concludes that the Bishop of Milan repudiated any Dominical basis for the jurisdictional primacy of the successors of Peter. Op. cit., 67.

25 I have written somewhat more on the place of Ambrose in the history of the priesthood in Niebuhr, H. Richard, ed., The Ministry in Historical Perspective (New York, 1956)Google Scholar, chs. ii, iii.

26 “Quas oves, quem gregem non solum tune beatus suscepit apostolus Petrus; sed et nobiscum eas accepit, et cum illo eas suscipimus [Limoges text and Reg. Lat. 407; some other texts: accepimus] omnes.”

27 In Expositio, x, 91 the threefold expression of love is construed as compensation for the denials of Christ before the Resurrection. CSEL, XXXII; 3. The same in De sacramentis, ii, 21.

28 PL, XV, 1942; CSEL, XXXII, 524.

29 Cf. Bernard, J. H., A Critical Commentary… to St. John (Edinburgh, 1928), II, 702Google Scholar.

30 A threefold division of the faculties or wills in man was widely accepted in antiquity.

31 The phrasing may echo in “verumtamen praesulibus rerum divinarum devotus colla submittis” in Duo quippe sunt addressed by Pope Gelasius to the Emperor Anastasius.

32 For example, Petronius Arbiter says of one who is clearly the child of Fortune: “In manu illius aurum plumbum fiebat.” Satiricon, 43. Lead had occasionally a harmful or sinister connotation in antiquity. Lead was employed metallurgically in the refining of gold. O. Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte, II, 1906, 1113, n. 3. Cf. also p. 876, n. 5 and p. 1037, n. 5.

33 Contra Celsum, vi, 22. PG, 11, 1324. The full Mithraic list reads lead, tin, bronze, iron, alloy, silver, gold. This list differs slightly from another one common in antiquity. See on both, Fr. Cumont, “La Fin du monde selon les mages occidentaux,” Revue de l'histoire des religions, CIII (1931), esp. p. 52 and J. Daniélou, “La typologie millénariste de la semaine dans le christianisme primitif,” Vigiliae Christianae, II (1948), pp. 1 ff. On the sevenfold astral-chemical scheme of ancient religious, psychological, and later alchemical significances see further O. Schrader, Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte, 3rd ed., II: 1. 1906, Die Metalle; J. Brandis, “Die Bedeutung der sieben Thore Thebens,” Hermes, II, 1867, 17; Reitzenstein, R. and Schaeder, H., Studien zum antiken Synkretismus aus Iran und Griechenland, I (Berlin, 1926), esp. pp. 67 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar; 228, n.; von Lippmann, Edmund O., Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Alchemie, II (Berlin, 1931), 67 ffGoogle Scholar. and literature.

34 Plato makes threefold and socially contemporaneous what for Hesiod was five- (four-) fold and epochal. Of Hesiod's five successive ages, four of them were symbolized by metals, the first being the Golden Age, the last the Iron Age. The fourth, the Heroic Age without a metallic symbol, has been shown to be an interpolation. The five ages reappear in Ovid's Metamorphoses, I, 89 ff. In commenting on Plato's Timaeus, Proclus Diodachus (ed. E. Diehl, I, 43) mentions four metals and their astral counterparts: gold, silver, lead (Kronos), and iron.

Cf. also the four metallic “men” in the dream of the third-century Alexandrian alchemist Zoslmus. Berthelot, M., Collections des anciens alchimistes grecs (Paris, 1888)Google Scholar, II, iii; cf. the Serpent, II, 22.

35 Stromata, v. 14, 98; PG, 9, col. 145; O. Stählin, II, 390 f.; copied out by Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica, xiii, 13; E. Gifford, ed., II, 268 f. See Harry Wolfson, Philo, II, p. 431. Philo himself frequently interprets gold metaphorically, e.g., Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum (Armenian), ed. Ralph Marcus, Loeb library, Philo, Supplement II, esp. p. 102.

36 Divine Institutes, v, 6; 8; Epitome, XX (25); CSEL, XIX, pp. 418; 421; 691. For the most recent literature on the Golden Age, see “aetas aurea,” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, II (1950)Google Scholar. On Lactantius' use of Hystaspes, see Cumont, loc. cit., pp. 67, 93.

The extent to which Ambrose drew upon the classical imagery of the Golden Age is admirably documented by Lovejoy, Arthur O., “The Communism of St. Ambrose,” Journal of the History of Ideas, III (1942), 458–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 “Aurum splendorem sapientiae, vel intellectum spiritualem sacrarum Scripturarum, vel charitatis eminentiam significare potest….” De universo, xvii, 12; PL, CXI, col. 475.

The In Apocalypsin expositio of one Berengaudus, composed possibly in the ninth century, also recognizes that gold often signifies wisdom. PL, XVII, coll. 997B, 1037A, 1040C. It does so, interestingly, in connection with identifying Christ as the foundation of the Church along with the twelve apostles, Peter being no more important than the others. On Berengaudus, see Antonio Romeo, Enciclopedia Cattolica, II, 1949, 1377.

38 Loc. cit., col. 479. Isidore, Etymologiarum, xvi, 22, ed. W. Lindsay, II.

39 Sigebertus, monk of Gembloux, may also have known the Sermo to which he refers, in his Apologia, c. 1074/5. Cf. Libelli de Lite, II, 441, 12 ff. and Sackur's note.

40 Migne, PL, 139, 46. Coll. 446C f. is quoted expressly from the Sermo, coll. 174C f.

41 See opening Excerpt above (Of bishops) and cf. Apologeticus, col. 465D.

42 Women he also divides into three ranks: the married, the widowed or continent, and the virgins or betrothed.

43 Loc. cit. col. 461, 464; cf. ep. viii. Cf. Kantorowicz, Ernst, Die Wiederkehr gelehrter Anachorese (Stuttgart, 1937)Google Scholar, where it is pointed out how the ancient connection between the robed philosopher and the Christian hermit finds notable expression in Abelard.

44 Hans von Schubert, Der Kommunismus der Wiedertäufer in Münster und seine Quellen, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, SB, philos.-hist. Kl., X:ii (1919).

45 Loc cit., col. 465; cf. ep. xiv, col. 441.

46 I, 16; PL, 143, coll. 1040–2 = De dignitate, PL, 139, coll. 174–6.

47 Quoted above, p. 37; Register, iv, 2; ed., E. Caspar, 293.

48 Ibid., viii, 21; p. 544.

49 Ibid., ix, 37; p. 630.

50 Loc. cit., 296, 41–4.

51 Loc. cit.,553, ft.

52 In i, c. 80; ed. F. Thaner, 55; for the date, Fournier, and Le Bras, G., Histoire des Collections canoniques, II, 1932, 28Google Scholar.

53 Libelli de lite, (henceforth L.d.l.) I, 492, 30 ff.

54 This is demonstrable from the fact that he includes the phrase “nullis potest comparationibus adequari”, which is left out in the first letter to Hermann.

55 In iii, 184; ed. V. Glanvell, I, p. 490, 25–491, 8; for the date, Founder and Le Bras, op. cit., II, 38.

56 L.d. l., II, 292, 30 ff.

57 In v, 478; PL, 161, col. 438; for the date, Fournier and Le Bras. op. cit. II, 82.

58 In v, 109; PL, 131, 1235 f.

59 Pars, i, D 96, c. x; ed. E. Friedberg, I, 340 f.

60 Italics for subsequent reference.

61 See above, n. 49.

62 Jaffé, P., ed., Monumenta Gregoriana, 1865, p. 570Google Scholar, No. 44.

63 Hist. Eccl. vii; ed. Bouquet, 12, 614.

64 The fullest modern account is that of Bourrienne, V., “Odon de Conteville, évêque de Bayeux: son rôle au début de la première Croisade,” which was serialized in Revue catholique de Normandie, the especially helpful instalment for the present purpose being, VIII (1898), 506Google Scholar. Cf. Gleason, Sarell, An Ecclesiastical Barony of the Middle Ages: The Bishopric of Bayeux, 1066–1204 (Cambridge, Mass. 1936), p. 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 “Notice sur Orderic Vital”, Orderici Vitalis Historiae ecclesiasticae, iv; cf. Bourrienne, loc. cit., 517, n.3.

66 Lanfranc, archévêque de Cantorbéry, 1877, pp. 252 f.

67 Gesta Regum, iv, 306; Rolls Series, XC; (1889), 361; copied by Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, LVII:2 (1847), 26.

68 Odo had hopes of succeeding Gregory as Pope, partly on the strength of a prophecy that an Odo would ascend the throne of Peter.

69 This goes back to Rufinus, HE, i, ii which in turn is based on Ex. 22: 28, Ps. 82:1, and John 10:34. See the recent discussion by Kantorowicz, Ernst, “Deus per naturam, deus per gratiam”, XLV (1952), esp. p. 173Google Scholar. Gregory VII makes the same reference to Constantine's deference to bishops as gods in the other two letters we have been considering: iv, 2; p. 296, 4 ff. by allusion and directly in viii, 21: p. 553, 7 ff.

70 “Hier endet der Text ohne jedes Interpunktionszeichen.” E. Caspar, ed. p. 631.

71 The problem and sources are discussed by Bourrienne, loc. cit., 526 ff.

72 Augustin Fliche barely notes the episode in his three-volume treatment, La Réforme Grégorienne, II, 1925, 6 and 16. The letter is not mentioned by H.-X. Arquillière, op. cit., nor by E. Voosen, Papauté et pouvoir civil à l'époque de Grégoire VIII, 1927.

73 Tractatus Eboracenses. Five of the most important of the tractates were published in L. d. l., III, and several more in Kirche und Staat in England und der Normandie, 1899, in which the “Anonymous of York” was discussed at length as an extreme royalist. Still more of the tracts were published and discussed by Scherrinsky, Harold, Untersuchungen zum sogenannten Anonymus von York, 1939Google Scholar. The unique source is a codex preserved at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, N. 415Google Scholar.

74 The Norman Anonymous of 1100 A.D.: Toward the Identification and Evaluation of the So-Called Anonymous of York, Harvard Theological Studies, XVIII, 1951. In the Appendix are published the remainder of the hitherto unedited tracts and fragments of the codex, including J10, p. 223.

75 The homogeneity of the collection and sole authorship of its contents with exception of J10 was demonstrated independently by H. Scherrinsky, op. cit., by Lapparent, P., “Un précurseur de la Réforme anglaise: l'Anonyme de York, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age, XV (1946), 149Google Scholar, and by myself, in 1946/51. All three studies were directed against Funk, Philipp, “Der fragliche Anonymus von York,” Historisches Jahrbuch, LV (1935), 251Google Scholar. Fr. Pelster, S.J., in a long review of my book, sees no objection to including even J10 among the writings of the Anonymous! Theologische Revue, XLVIII (1952), coll. 156–158Google Scholar.

76 See The Norman Anonymous, pp. 35 f. J10 is printed pp. 223 f. J24 is edited by H. Böhmer, III, 662 ff.; unedited portions and related fragments are published in the Appendix to my study, pp. 225–236.

77 Cf. the second letter to Hermann, ed. by E. Caspar, p. 548, 14 f; 556, 20 f.

78 Cf. ibid., 550, 4.

79 Cf. ibid., 556, 20.

80 Cf. ibid., 556, 18.

81 Cf. ibid., 550, 7.

82 The second letter to Hermann says that a sacerdos is a deus, 553, 12. It is in the letter to William that Gregory argues that a bishop is both a deus and a chritus. See quotation above, p. 55.

83 See above, opening Excerpt.

84 Loc. cit., 553, 4.

85 See above, at n. 60. There I have italicized the constrasting concepts which appear in our Norman fragment. The reconstruction prelatus is suggested by praeferre in the sentence from John.

86 The same passage from Pope John, not, however, connected with Gregory's letter, is quoted by Anselm of Lucca, c. 1083; iv. 12; ed. F. Thaner, pp. 196 f. It is found linked with Gregory's letter in the as yet unedited Polycarpus, i, 19 (20), 3, composed between 1104 and 1106 by Gregory, cardinal of Saint Chrysogonus. Fournier and Le Bras, op. cit., II, 171; 277. The John passage is also found in the likewise unedited Collectio Caesaraugustana, vii, 18, which reproduces at this point Anselm of Lucca. Ibid., 275. Close connections exist between this Collectio, Ivo's Decretum, and the Polycarpus. Ibid., 274: 277.

It is in part the fact that Böhmer and his successors have convincingly connected most of the other thirty tractates of the unique codex to events or circumstances c. 1100 that constrains me from dating fragment J10 after Gratian.

The John passage is mentioned briefly by Leicht, Piero, “Gregorio VII e il diritto romano,” Studi Gregoriani, I (1947), 98, n. 7Google Scholar.

87 Urban's letter is printed by Bourrienne, V., Antiquus cartularius ecclesiae Baiocensis (Rouen 1902), I, p. 213 f.Google Scholar; earlier in “Odon de Conteville,” Revue catholique de Normandie, X (1900), pp. 270 f.Google Scholar; and reprinted by J. Ramackers, Papsturkunden in Frankreich II, Normandie, No. 3, pp. 55 f. Abhandlungen, Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 3rd series, XXI, (1937).

88 L. d. l., III, esp. 668, 32–669, 28 and the long development of sanctus left out by Böhmer and now printed in The Norman Anonymous, pp. 225–28. Note especially “Ex quibus occupare,” which seems to be a response to the Gregorian assertion of exclusively worldly preoccupations in princes.

89 The Norman Anonymous, 104.

90 Ibid., 76.

91 Gregory also uses the phrase regales nuplias in connection with lauding Henry IV before their relations had worsened. E. Caspar, Register, ii, 31; p. 166, 2.

92 L. d. l., III, 662, 29 f.

93 See above, at n. 35.

94 See above, at n. 37.

95 Ascribed to Augustine (loc. cit., 662, 30); cf. the Homiliarium of Paul the Deacon, PL, XCV, col. 1457; ed. F. Wiegand, p. 64. The Norman Anonymous, 75.

96 L. d. l., III, 663, 32 ff.

97 Ibid, 663, 35 ff.

98 Ibid., 663, 26 f.

99 Ibid., 663, 16 f.

100 Several of the Norman tractates defend episcopal authority over abbots, using the argument of the diocesan church as mater ecclesia over her monastic daughter churches and also the argument of “Quid vos tangit.”

101 L. d. l., III, 684, 43 ff. copies De consecratione 663, 25 ff.

102 Placidus, monk of Nonantula, later bishop of an unknown see, quoted the Sermo independently of Gregory in his Liber de honore ecclesiae, c. iiii. L. d. l., II, 606, 38–609, 30; PL, CLXIII, col. 654–7. Placidus, opposing the compromises of Pope Paschal, was interested especially in the anti-simoniacal passage exploited by Abbo of Fleury and by Cardinal Humbert, but he included also the gold-lead passage in its entirety, going beyond the selection of Gregory to reproduce the whole of Ambrose's tripartite social scheme with the sacerdotium supreme over the regnum and the laici. The otherwise unoriginal Placidus went so far as to maintain that bishops rule also over bodies (cap. 72).

In 1433, Giles Charlier (1472), professor of theology at Paris, arguing as emissary of the Council of Basel with the leader of the Taborites in defense of the supremacy of the sacerdotium, likewise adduced among other arguments, but apparently not independently of Gregory or Gratian, the gold-lead passage from the Sermo. E. Martène and U. Durand, Amplissima Collectio, VIII, 1733, col. 460.

103 Letter to William in 1080, viii, 25; ed. E. Caspar, 550; cf. his n. 3.