At Arm’s Length? On Papal Legates in Normandy (11th and 12th centuries) Kriston R. Rennie University of Queensland Abstract: For the church in France (Gallia, Francia) during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there was no universal reception of reforming ideas, persons, and legislation. Dispute settlement in Normandy was routinely practiced within the ecclesiastical province of Rouen, where the frequency of provincial church councils surpassed any need for direct papal representation in this region, thereby narrowing the channels of ecclesiastical business and justice between Rome and Normandy. Until the early twelfth century, in fact, papal legates played a seemingly insignificant role in Norman ecclesiastical government and church councils. Whereas these hand-picked papal representatives were active elsewhere in Aquitaine, Burgundy, Gascony, and northern Francia, their services were of little apparent use in the ecclesiastical province of Rouen until the 1120s. This article asks why as it examines the limitations of legatine movement and usefulness in Normandy, in addition to the legates’ overall contribution and role in that region. 1 For the church in France (Gallia, Francia) during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there was no universal reception of reforming ideas, persons, and legislation. While regional councils like those proclaiming the Peace and Truce of God1 played a ‘vital part by creating in France a milieu within which the reformed papacy came to be, on the whole, quietly accepted by the French church’2, the impetus to reform did not take hold simultaneously in every ecclesiastical province. In the duchy of Normandy, that territory corresponding closely with the ecclesiastical province of Rouen, papal intervention ‘remained a dead letter unless it had the backing of ducal sanction.’3 This lay support came in varying degrees: from founding and maintaining proprietary churches and monasteries to offering a safe environment in which councils could be convened, where jurisprudence could be practiced and implemented, and where reforming legislation could be pronounced and disseminated more widely. Elsewhere in France, the local or regional presence of papal legates helped bridge the gap between the provinces and the pope in Rome, making more accessible the recourse to law and church reform. But in Normandy, papal legates played a seemingly insignificant role until the twelfth century. This article asks why. At first glance, Normandy presents something of a paradox in legatine history. Whereas papal legates were most active in Aquitaine, Burgundy, Gascony, and northern Francia4, their services were of little apparent use in the ecclesiastical province of Rouen until the 1120s.5 Despite royal claims throughout the Capetian period (987-1328), French kings exercised competing influence over Normandy, owing primarily to the political and ecclesiastical assertions of English kings in that region following the Norman Conquest. Dispute settlement was routinely practiced within the ecclesiastical province of Rouen itself; the frequency of provincial church councils, moreover, appears to have surpassed any need for direct papal representation in this region, further narrowing the channels of ecclesiastical business and justice between Rome and Normandy. Indeed, this is the traditional argument posited by historians like Raymonde Foreville who, in an important article, argued that legates in the second half of the eleventh century were ‘kept at an arm’s length’6 from Norman synods. She goes on to suggest that such assemblies ‘did not extend beyond the borders of the province of Rouen.’7 Whereas legates since Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) were increasingly supplanting metropolitan authority, in eleventh- century Normandy legatine intervention – it seems – was not yet an established practice. 1 The decrees issued at the councils of Charroux (989) in the first instance, and at the later-held councils of Narbonne (990), Le Puy (990 and 994), Anse (994), Limoges (997), Poitiers (1000 and 1014), Elne- Toulouges (1027), and Bourges (1031), among others, are revealing for their devotion to defining proper clerical and lay behavior. 2 H.E.J. Cowdrey, ‘The Peace and Truce of God in the Eleventh Century,’ Past and Present 46 (1970), 54. 3 Marjorie Chibnall, in The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnall (6 vols) (Oxford, 1969-80), 1.96. 4 For this activity, see especially I.S Robinson, The Papacy, 1073-1198: Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge, 1990), 146-78. 5 Raymonde Foreville, ‘The synod and the province of Rouen in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,’ in Church and Government in the Middle Ages, ed. C.N.L. Brooke et al (Cambridge, 1976), 20-21; cf. Theodor Schieffer, ‘Die päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich vom Vertrage von Meersen (870) bis zum Schisma von 1130,’ Historische Studien 263 (1935), 194. 6 Foreville (1976), 36. 7 Ibid. 2 Contrary to Foreville’s argument, however, I see no reason to suspect this gradual development as a ‘weakness of delegation’ at other French councils. Evidence for French legatine activity during the eleventh and twelfth centuries suggests a thoroughness and efficiency of papal government, signaling – if anything – a strong level of cooperation between the papacy in Rome and French ecclesiastics. And as this article suggests, papal legates were not entirely unknown to this region or period, nor did they encounter direct or consistent opposition from the local lay or ecclesiastical elite. That there were limitations to their movement and usefulness in Normandy, however, begs the question of their overall contribution and role. * As an organ of papal government abroad, the ecclesiastical office of papal legation was developing throughout the Middle Ages under successive papal administrations, subject to increasing specialization and legal use by individual popes. By the end of Gregory VII’s pontificate in 1085, the authority assigned to legates was unprecedented. Whether or not we subscribe to the legitimacy of Gregory’s Dictatus papae (c.1075), whose fourth sentence declared that a legate has ‘precedence over all bishops in a council, even if he be of a lower grade of orders…’8, there is no denying the commissioning of legates from this period onward with new powers of representation and jurisdiction. According to Rudolf Hiestand’s calculations, some 150 legates were active in France between Pope Leo IX to the end of the twelfth century, 81 of which were recruited from the college of cardinals (23 cardinal-bishops, 28 cardinal-priests, and 23 cardinal-deacons), 27 from inferior ranks of the Roman curia, and a further 39 chosen from among the local French clergy.9 Furthermore, Popes Gregory VII, Paschal II (1099-1118), Calixtus II (1119-24), Innocent II (1130-43), Anacletus II (1130-38), Gregory VIII (1187), and Celestine III (1191-98) were all legates in France before their rise to the apostolic see.10 Over this century and a half, moreover, some 1150 acta were recorded through legatine intervention11; 115 church synods were held, yielding 62 depositions, 25 episcopal elections, and 50 excommunications.12 While comparatively fewer legations were commissioned to Normandy in this period, it stands to reason that papal incentive was far from lacking or organized elsewhere in France. A glance at England in this period offers a similar picture of continuous legatine activity. While the flow of ecclesiastical traffic with Rome varied with successive English rulers, legatine activity continued largely uninterrupted throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries.13 Pope Leo IX commissioned an unnamed legate to England in either 1049 or 8 Das Register Gregors VII, ed. Erich Caspar (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae Selectae 2) (Berlin, 1920-23); English translation by H.E.J. Cowdrey, The Register of Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085 (Oxford, 2002), 2.55a. 9 Rudolf Hiestand, ‘Les légats pontificaux en France du milieu du XIe à la fin du XII siècle,’ in L’Église de France et la papauté, ed. Rolf Grosse (Paris, 1993), 60. 10 Ibid, 65. 11 See Stefan Weiss, Die Urkunden der päpstlichen Legaten von Leo IX. bis Cölestin III. (Cologne, 1995). 12 Hiestand (1993), 72. 13 For the fullest summary of papal representation in England see Helene Tillmann, Die päpstlichen Legaten in England bis zur Beendigung der Legation Gualas (1218) (Bonn, 1926). 3 1050.14 Ten years later, in either 1059 or 1060, Pope Nicholas II sent legates to England who confirmed possessions and privileges for the church at Dorchester.15 Bishop Ermenfred of Sion visited England in 1070 (see more below); the Roman subdeacon Hubert was active in this westerly Christian province between 1070 and 1085; Roger and Herbert Losinga in 109316; Walter of Albano in 109517; Abbot Jarento of St-Bénigne at Dijon in 109618; Archbishop Guy of Vienne in 1100 or 110119; Cardinal John of Tusculum in 110120; Tiberius the chamberlain in 1101 and 110321; Peter the chamberlain in 1108; the cardinal-priest Ulrich in 110922; Anselm of St Sabas in 1115 and 1116-1923; the cardinal-priest Peter Pierleoni of St. Mary of Trastevere in 112124; the cardinal-priest of St. Chrysogonus, John of Crema, in 1124/2525; Henry of St. Jean d’Angely in 1123; and the cardinal-priest Peter Rufus in 1131, among others. While legates were often commissioned to England ‘for special purposes, rather than the exercise of the plenitude of papal power’26, the regularity of their commissioning is revealing nonetheless for the true ‘extent of papal communication with England.’27 For the English Church, the exercise of papal jurisdiction fell to the archbishops of Canterbury alone. Anselm argued as much in opposing Guy of Vienne’s appointment in 1100 or 1101, managing even to secure a promise from Pope Paschal II that Canterbury would not henceforth ‘be subject to the judgment of any legate but only of ourself.’28 As Ian Robinson remarked, ‘twelfth-century archbishops of Canterbury shared the royal enthusiasm for native legations: not because they shared the kings’ wish to limit papal interference in England, but because the legation gave weight to their claim that Canterbury possessed the primacy over the English church.’29 Prior to becoming archbishop, Anselm himself was commissioned to England, sent ‘in the hope of taking back with him the current installment of Peter’s pence.’30 Unfortunately for Rome, 14 Regesta pontificum Romanorum, ed. P. Jaffé, 2 vols (2nd edition by W. Wattenbach, S. Loewenfeld, F. Kalternbrunner, and P. Ewald) (Leipzig, 1885-88) (= JL), 4208; Tillmann (1926), 11. 15 Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. J.D. Mansi, 31 volumes (Florence and Venice, 1759-98) [hereafter Mansi], vol. XIX, cols 875-78; JL 4461. 16 Tillmann (1926), 19-21. 17 Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia et opuscula duo de vita Sancti Anselmi et quibusdam miraculis ejus, ed. Martin Rule (Rolls Series, no.81: London, 1884), 68ff. 18 Tillmann (1926), 21-22. 19 Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 126; Sancti Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia, ed. F.S. Schmitt (London, 1938-61), iv, 111-14, ep. 214; Chronicon Hugonis monachi Virdunensis et Divionensis abbatis Flaviacensis (hereafter Hugh of Flavigny), ed. G.H. Pertz (MGH, SS 8) (Hanover, 1848), 494. 20 Tillmann (1926), 22-23. 21 Ibid, 23. 22 Ibid, 23-24. 23 Ibid, 25. 24 Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 294-95. 25 JL 7203; cf. S.B. Hicks, ‘The Anglo-Papal Bargain of 1125: The Legatine Mission of John of Crema,’ Albion 8 (1976), 301-10; cf. Paul C. Ferguson, Medieval Papal Representatives in Scotland: Legates, Nuncios, and Judges-Delegate, 1125-1286 (Edinburgh, 1997), 31-4. 26 Martin Brett, The English Church under Henry I (Oxford, 1975), 47. 27 Ibid, 50. 28 Sancti Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi Opera Omnia 4, ed. F.S. Schmitt (Edinburgh, 1949), ep. 214, p.112; JL 5908; Anselmi Epistola, 222; cf. Brett (1975), 35-6; Robinson (1990), 172. 29 Robinson (1990), 172. 30 Brett (1975), 40; cf. Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 245, 259. 4 neither he nor his successor Cono of Palestrina ever reached England, and Guy of Vienne and Peter Pierleoni achieved very little in so doing. Such cross-channel comparisons notwithstanding, the limited reception of legates to Normandy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries remains problematic. If anything, the frequency of legatine activity in England renders the Norman situation as even more anomalous. Surely, there are other historical dimensions to be considered here, especially given that individual legations depended on commissioning by individual popes, and that the latter were often intricately involved in the contemporary politics (secular and religious) of their pontificate. For the mid-1090s, for example, Pope Urban II’s conciliar programme and preaching tour throughout France greatly diminished any need for direct papal representation in the north.31 Bishop Hugh of Die (archbishop of Lyons from 1082- 1106), the legate most active under Gregory VII in the 1070s and 1080s, was of little use to successive popes in the 1090s or 1100s, despite his reinstated role under Urban c.1094- 99.32 The same can be said for a small handful of permanent legates commissioned in this period, such as Bishop Amatus of Oloron, Bishop Gebhard III of Constance, Archbishop Bernold of Toledo, and Bishop Adhémar of Le Puy.33 Not until the first quarter of the twelfth century, in fact, do we find more explicit evidence of legatine activity in Normandy. Prior to the turn of the century, only a few cases are mentioned in any detail. Take, for example, that long-winded affair concerning the monastery of Saint-Évroul (from which Orderic Vitalis wrote his Ecclesiastical History c.1114-41), which dispute first erupted during the pontificate of Nicholas II (1059-61).34 The origins of this matter relate to accusations made against Abbot Robert by one Rainer, monk of Conches, then prior at Saint-Évroul. Summoned to Duke William of Normandy’s (†1087) court at Lillebonne to answer ‘several false charges’, Robert (on the advice of Bishop Hugh of Lisieux) instead fled to the pope in Rome on 27 January.35 Upon hearing in person the reasons for Robert’s journey, Pope Nicholas II ‘promised him full support in his need.’ Though nowhere explicitly defined, the nature of the charges leveled against the abbot presumably fit with the ‘serious troubles’ (dissensio gravis) that had broken out between William and his Norman magnates. In his Ecclesiastical History, Orderic Vitalis mentions a few cases whereby the ‘quick-tempered duke gave full reign to his anger’, though his actions are depicted here as ‘cunningly incited’ and thus not entirely unwarranted.36 In returning to Normandy, the abbot was accompanied by two unnamed cardinal-legates from Rome. As Orderic informs us, the duke ‘flew into a violent rage’ upon hearing that Abbot Robert of Saint-Évroul was ‘approaching in the company of papal legates to claim the abbacy of Saint-Évroul and charge the duke’s 31 See especially Alfons Becker, Papst Urban II (1088-1099), vol. 19.1 (MGH, Schriften) (Stuttgart, 1964), 213-26; René Crozet, ‘Le voyage d’Urbain II et ses négociations avec le clergé de France (1095-96),’ Revue historique 179 (1937), 271-310. 32 See Kriston R. Rennie, Law and Practice in the Age of Reform: The Legatine Work of Hugh of Die (1073-1106) (Turnhout, 2010). 33 Robinson (1990), 154-55. 34 Orderic Vitalis, 2.90-91; Schieffer (1935), 65-66. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 5 candidate Osbern with usurpation of his rights.’37 Notwithstanding his vehemence against the abbot, however, Duke William was famously said to have declared his readiness to ‘receive legates of the pope, their common father, in matters touching the Christian faith, but that if any monk from his duchy dared to bring a plea against him he would ignore his cloth and hang him by his cowl from the top of the highest oak-tree in the wood near by.’38 Significantly, the duke’s strong dislike for Robert did not extend to those commissioned alongside him, to those papal legates instructed and empowered by the pope to judge and settle the matter conclusively. Attempting to fulfill his role in abbatial appointments, William may have perceived the commissioning of papal legates as possible vindication for his preferred candidate: Osbern. Indeed, Osbern was eventually installed into the abbacy of Saint-Évroul, though not without continued opposition from the ousted Robert.39 Yet because William’s candidate was ultimately favoured, this particular incident appears as an isolated case in an otherwise long and uncontested history of Norman secular control. For the most part, Orderic depicts William’s role in ecclesiastical affairs as congruent with the popes’ in Rome; the treatment and subsequent reception of papal legates appears friendly on both sides of the channel, if more frequent in England. The nature of this relationship can be adduced best from the council of Lisieux in 1054, convened by the legate and bishop Ermenfred of Sion, where Archbishop Malger of Rouen was deposed for his ‘notoriously unworthy character.’40 Ermenfred, it is worth noting, was commissioned to Normandy following William’s plea to Leo IX requesting Malger’s deposition.41 According to H.E.J. Cowdrey, it was at this council that ‘the reform of the Norman Church was genuinely promoted and also that ducal power in upper Normandy was usefully consolidated.’42 Furthermore, it was at Lisieux that William gained invaluable experience on how church councils, ‘when they were held at his own will, might promote his ends, and of how papal legates… might reinforce his authority in his lands.’43 With Duke William’s advice and support, the now-vacant see of Rouen was awarded to one Maurilius (1054-67), a native of Rheims educated at Halberstadt (Saxony), and a former monk at the abbey of Fécamp and abbot of Santa Maria in Florence.44 37 Ibid, 2.94-95. 38 Ibid. 39 See Orderic Vitalis, 2.108-13. 40 H.E.J. Cowdrey, ‘Bishop Ermenfrid of Sion and the Penitential Ordinance following the Battle of Hastings,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 20 (1969), 227; cf. Orderic Vitalis, 4.84-7; cf. Chronicon S. Stephani Cadomensis (St Etienne de Caen) (ed. Giles, Scriptores rerum gestarum Willelmi Conquestoris in unum collecti) (London, 1845); Mansi, XIX, cols 751; Odette Pontal, Les conciles de la France capétienne jusqu’en 1215 (Paris, 1995), 196. 41 William of Poitiers, Histoire de Guillaume le Conquérant (Gesta Guillelmi), ed. and trans. Raymonde Foreville (Paris, 1952), c.54, pp.131-33 and c.58, pp.138-39; Foreville (1972), 22-23. 42 Cowdrey (1969), 228. 43 Ibid. 44 Orderic Vitalis, 4.86-87; 3.88-89. 6 Recognised for his part at Rouen, Bishop Ermenfred is better known for his legatine role in the see of Canterbury in 1070. Orderic refers to the bishop of Sion as having deposed Stigand, the former archbishop of Canterbury, and subsequently inviting Abbot Lanfranc of Caen to ‘undertake the duties of archbishop’. This ‘earnest wish of holy church’, moreover, was related to Lanfranc ‘in a council of Norman bishops and abbots’45, believed to have been convened sometime between April and August 1070. Thus it was at this Rouen council, convened by Ermenfred and the Roman lector and subdeacon Hubert, that Lanfranc was allegedly persuaded to take up the vacant see of Canterbury – a position held from 1071 to his death in 1089.46 As for Duke William’s role in this election, Orderic mentions him as the initial solicitor of papal legates from Pope Alexander II47 – a view confirmed by the Vita Lanfranci, written c.1140-56.48 In reply to William’s ‘petition’ (petitione), Alexander sent Ermenfred and two cardinal priests (John and Peter) to Normandy, where they remained for one year. Not only was this assistance willfully sought from Rome but William is said to have ‘listened to their counsels and honoured them as though they had been angels of God.’ As for their role, these legates ‘took part in much business up and down the country, as they found needful in regions which lacked ecclesiastical order and discipline.’49 William’s positive reception of legates is manifested once more in 1067, following Archbishop Maurilius of Rouen’s death. The Norman duke again turned to papal agents for their help in filling the vacant see of Rouen – a position first offered to Abbot Lanfranc. According to Orderic Vitalis, the archbishop-elect ‘refused the burden of such office, and strove with all his might to have John bishop of Avranches raised to this dignity in preference to him.’50 The latter accepted only after Lanfranc made a personal journey to Rome, securing from Pope Alexander II ‘licence for John’s consecration’ and the sacred pallium. As for the vacant see of Rouen, the selection process took much longer than was presumably desired. After the initial assembly in 1067, the legate Ermenfred convened two further councils at Rouen in 1068 and 1069 for this exact purpose, succeeding ultimately in electing John II (1069-79) to the see.51 Despite their convening church councils, however, papal legates exercised a varied and intermittent role in Norman ecclesiastical government. As to what constituted legatine business, urgency of the matter at hand could often play a determining role, as exemplified by a case involving Archbishop John II of Rouen who, in 1077, suffered a stroke and lost the power of his speech.52 This was a matter of grave concern to both Duke William II and Pope Gregory VII, the latter who recognized the ‘impediment of sickness’ and thus sought to bring help to the church of Rouen, fearing its inevitable 45 Orderic Vitalis, 2.252-53. 46 Orderic Vitalis, 2.252 and n. 2; Schieffer (1935), 79-80; Pontal (1995), 199; see Tillmann, 13, 53f., and 79ff. 47 Orderic Vitalis, 2.236-38. 48 Vita Lanfranci, PL 150, col. 40. 49 Orderic Vitalis, 2.236-38. 50 Orderic Vitalis, 2.200-1; JL 4643. 51 For these councils, see Pontal (1995), 198. 52 Orderic Vitalis, 3.18-23 7 destitution without an able shepherd.53 Writing to William in April 1078, the pope informed the king of England about his plan of action: he sent his legate Hubert to ‘examine by careful and godly consideration whether he [John] is able to be active in pastoral oversight as is proper.’ Two possible outcomes were detailed: the first decreed that ‘if they judge him to be so bereft of bodily health that he is no longer fitted for episcopal rule, they should not be slack in urging him by godly admonitions, and if it shall be called for also by apostolic authority, that the church should be provided for with his agreement.’ A second and more invasive measure was to be taken ‘if sickness shall have so overwhelmed him as to render him incapacitated and unmindful of his duty, and unperceptive of how harmful his illness is to himself and to his whole country.’ If the latter case proved imminent, then Gregory’s legate – with assistance from other Norman bishops and abbots – was ordered to elect ‘by consent of all’ and with ‘apostolic authority’ a suitable replacement, someone deemed ‘capable of so great a burden, of good character, and prudent.’54 Following this brief medical enquiry, no mention is made of any papal legate in Normandy until 1109, and then only with fleeting references to the cardinal-priest and legate Ulrich (Olricus) in 1109 (mentioned above) and the legate Abbot Anselm of St. Sabas in 1115 (ibid).55 This silence in the sources of nearly thirty years is troubling; it owes in large part to the disappearance of Orderic’s narrative on Norman conciliar history, which reappears in 1118. Being unable to account for Norman legatine activity between 1079 and 1109 ostensibly forces our attention to the late 1110s, when legates re- emerge in the narrative with decisively more established roles in Norman Church councils and government. When King Henry I of England convened a council at Rouen on 7 October 1118, for example – a provincial assembly that ‘considered the peace of the realm with Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, and other barons whom he had summoned’56 – he was assisted by the cardinal-bishop Cono of Palestrina (1109-22), influential legate to Popes Paschal II and Gelasius II (1118-19), and active in this capacity in the kingdom of Jerusalem and the ecclesiastical provinces of Rheims, Sens, Rouen, and Bourges.57 By 1128, the cardinal-bishop and legate Matthew of Albano not only convened a synod at Rouen, but he issued three ‘reforming’ canons on the celibacy of priests, simony, and the protection of church property.58 Three years later (1131), under Matthew of Albano and King Henry I, papal and secular forces were joined at Rouen, where another provincial council ‘took measures for the advantage of the [Norman] Church.’59 While Archbishop 53 Gregory VII, Register, 5.19; JL 5074 (4 April 1078). 54 Ibid. 55 Hugo Cantor, History of four Archbishops of York by Hugh the Chantor, ed. J. Raine, Historians of the church of York, vol. II (Rolls Series, London, 1886), 119; Eadmer, Historia Novorum, 258; cf. Schieffer (1935), 194-95; Tillmann (1926), 23-25. 56 Orderic Vitalis, 6.202-03. 57 Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens (see no.96), p.184: ‘qui tunc legatus dicebatur triarum provinciarum Rothomagensium et Senonensium atque Remensium’; Hiestand (1993), 79; Schieffer (1935), 200. 58 Mansi, XXI, col. 375; Pontal (1995), 303. 59 Orderic Vitalis, 6.388-89. 8 Geoffrey of Rouen lay sick and dying, the king summoned together the bishops and abbots of Normandy in the chapter house at Rouen, presumably to discuss the imminent matter of succession. Like the council of Séez five years earlier (1126), where the bishop and legate Gerard of Angoulême was present to witness the consecration of the cathedral church dedicated to St Gervase of Milan60, this 1131 Rouen council saw the participation of prelates from outside the ecclesiastical province of Rouen: namely Bishops Geoffrey of Chartres and Joscelin of Soissons. As English king and Norman duke, Henry I – it is noted – assumed the role of ‘protector’, though his advice was likely sought before any outcome was decided. Here the legate’s conciliar role ensured that right conduct and free elections were observed; in no way was the legate’s presence interfering or hostile. On the contrary, the papal legate was by this stage of the twelfth century a recognized canonical figure in provincial church politics. It was at this 1131 Rouen council, moreover, that Matthew of Albano promulgated the following ‘reforming’ canons: No priest may have a wife. Anyone who refuses to separate from a concubine may not hold a church or receive any share in ecclesiastical benefices; and none of the faithful may hear him say Mass. One priest may not serve two churches, nor may any clerk hold prebends in two churches, but he shall minister to God and daily offer prayers for his patrons in the church whose revenues he draws. Monks and abbots may not receive churches or tithes directly from laymen; but laymen shall restore their usurpations to the bishop, and the monks may receive from the bishop what is given according to the wishes of the possessors. By papal indulgence they may enjoy undisturbed possession of whatever they have previously acquired in any way; but in the future they may not presume to usurp anything of this sort without the licence of the bishop in whose diocese it is located.61 Dealing primarily with matters of succession, this council was successful in promulgating canons of contemporary relevance to both Roman and Norman Churches. The council itself offered an ideal legal forum wherein local and regional prelates, a papal representative, and the duke of Normandy, were able to meet peacefully and cooperatively for the benefit of the church of Rouen. Whereas in the second half of the eleventh century such councils were exclusive to Norman prelates and dukes, by the 1120s the papal legate had become something of a permanent fixture in their surroundings, with a platform even for issuing contemporary legislation. Between 1128 and 1172, in fact, the only church councils summoned in Normandy were those convened by papal legates.62 This subversion of roles is a most curious 60 Orderic Vitalis, 6.366-67. For Gerard’s legatine commissioning, see Schieffer (1935), 184; Arnoul of Séez, Invectiva, MGH Libelli de Lite 3 (Hanover, 1995), 91; see also JL 6865, 6726, 6739. For his commissioning under Honorius II, see JL 7389. See also H. Claude, ‘Gérard d’Angoulême, ses pouvoirs de légat en Aquitaine au nom des papes Pascal II, Calixte II et Honorius II,’ in Mémoires de la Société Archéologique et Historique de la Charente (1968), 171-82. 61 Ibid. 62 Foreville (1976), 37. 9 development, and one owing in large part to contemporary legal and administrative transformations within the Roman Church itself. Indeed, by the turn of the twelfth century, the machinery of papal government had reached a level of competence that effectively altered its use of direct representation to distant Christian provinces. The newly-created office of judge-delegate (iudex delegatus) came to assume the all- important role of relief assistance, developing to lighten the papal burden and – following the pontificate of Pope Paschal II – to operate as an ‘expedient for ascertaining local knowledge.’63 And from the 1130s onward, permanent native legates like those introduced by Gregory VII were being substituted by legates a latere – that elite class of Roman (i.e., curial, cisalpinus) papal representatives dispatched directly from the apostolic city.64 Normandy was not unaffected by these administrative and legal changes; it experienced them first-hand. Growing less reliant on permanent legations, the papacy under Calixtus II began commissioning its representatives with a renewed sense of determination.65 In 1123, Bishop Serlo of Séez received two such Roman figures at his court: the cardinal- presbyter Peter Pierleoni of S. Maria Trastavere66 and the cardinal-deacon Gregory of S. Angelo. Having just finished a meal, Bishop Serlo was alerted to the cardinals’ arrival in Séez. Without hesitation, it is said, he urged his messenger to ‘go quickly, and wait attentively on the Romans; make generous provision for all their needs, for they are coming as legates of the lord Pope, who is the universal father after God, and no matter who they are, they are our masters.’67 Though no explanation is given in the sources for their presence, these Roman legates were received into the bishop’s palace with honour and respect. Whether or not Bishop Serlo was adhering to some procedural or customary ordines, it is worth noting more generally that Norman authorities were not actively petitioning Rome for legatine assistance. That is, the sudden surge in legatine dominance at Norman church synods from the 1120s did not result from a growing local demand for justice. Rather, one might reasonably credit the increased legatine activity in Normandy during the twelfth century more to a changing papal administration. To be sure, the efficiency and independence of Norman secular government continued to dominate the region, with successive prelates and secular rulers presiding over provincial councils as before; only gradually did papal legates occupy a place alongside these local and regional figures, as participants and conveners of conciliar assemblies. Thus by no means a sign of diminishing secular or ecclesiastical authority, the gradual reception of legates into 63 Jane Sayers, Papal Judges Delegate in the Province of Canterbury, 1198-1254 (Oxford, 1971), 9. 64 Robinson (1990), 165. 65 Cono of Palestrina; Boso, cardinal priest of S. Anastasia; Petrus Leonis, cardinal priest of S. Maria in Trastevere; Lambert, cardinal bishops of Ostia; Deusdedit, cardinal priest of S. Lorenzo in Damascus; Aegidius, cardinal bishop of Tusculum; Comes, cardinal deacon of S. Maria in Aquiro; and John of Crema, cardinal priest of S. Grisogono. See Abbot Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. Henri Waquet (Paris, 1929); English translation by Richard Cusimano and John Moorhead, The Deeds of Louis the Fat (Washington, D.C., 1992), chapter 27. 66 For this legate’s ambition, see Arnoul of Séez, Invectiva, 94. 67 Orderic Vitalis, 6.338-9. 10 Normandy should be interpreted rather as a sign of papal influence, as a tangible exertion of centralized political authority through capable agents of representation and reform. To the modern historian, a paradigm shift in Norman legatine activity appears to have taken place in the late 1110s-early 1120s, coinciding with Calixtus II’s pontificate. As to what sparked this decisive shift, no catalyst can be positively identified. Indeed, for the contemporary observer in Normandy, the more regular attendance of papal legates at Norman synods was more likely perceived a subtle accumulation of change, a genuine reflection of the times, a new pattern that gradually became part of the larger fabric of Norman ecclesiastical government. 11