"Like the churchmen and secular leaders of the twelfth century, many scholars seem to have accepted the opinions of the northern reformers with little questioning. Because of their admiration for these figures—particularly for St. Bernard—and because of their inclination to see the candidate recognized by the church as the one deserving of that recognition, they tend to examine the evidence from this perspective. They may also be influenced by the fact that the great preponderance of extant sources favors Innocent."
Mary Stroll, The Jewish Pope (1987), 171.
This was undoubtedly one of the more indecorous vacancies in papal history. There were several strands of conflict. The first was between those who favored the movement for reform of the Church and those who opposed the rigorism of the reformers. The second was the Investiture Controversy, which had recently been negotiated to a settlement by Emperor Henry V and Pope Celestine II (Concordat of Worms, 1122); its terms were not wholly satifying to either party, however, and pressure for changes was bound to increase. Each interest was looking for opportunities to to test and to take advantage of the other. The third strand of conflict was a familiar Roman urban partisan contest, in this case between the adherents of the Frangipane and those of the Pierleone. The Pierleone were a recent arrival on the scenes of power, and the Frangipane were suffering through a long twilight of their influence. The struggle of 1130 was a repetition and continuation of the one which had disgraced the Election of 1124. Pandulphus of Pisa (no friend of Pope Honorius) tells the story at the beginning of his "Vita Honorii Papae II" (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores III.1, 421):
Religiosae autem memoriae Calisto Papa dufuncto, omnes Patres de curia, Cardinales et alii, praesertim Petrus Leonis et Leo Franjapane pariter condixerunt ut usque ad diem tertium cum simul exinde secundum scita Canonum pertractarent, interim nulla de electione mentio haberetur; hoc idcirco potissimum Leo Frajapane constituerat ut infra datum spatium, quod de Lamberto diutius cogitaverat, aliquando quietus persiniret, nam totus ab hoc populus Saxonem S. Stephani Cardinalem futurum Papam petebant. Quos ut deciperet aptius Leo Frajapane itidem simulabat, insero autem praesenti idem Leo per nuncios unumquemque seorsum de capellanis Cardinalium praemonet, ut mane summo diluculo cum pluviali rubeo sub cappa nigra retento, ignorante domino, eumdem suum dominum inducerent; istud vero propter hoc ingenium adinvenerat, quatenus singulos pro accipiendo de manibus ejus Papatu attentiores redderet, et sic saltem absque timore venirent et quidam factum Papae Gelasii recolentes, convenire timebant, tamen in crastinum illecti fatuique conveniunt ad B. Johannis Basilicam in Ecclesia quae Sancti Pancratii dicitur, Episcopi et Cardinales intrarunt, ibique post verba quaelibet Jonatas Sanctorum Cosmae et Damiani Diaconus Cardinalis collaudantibus omnibus, ipso etiam Domino Lamberto Episcopo Theobaldum Cardinalem Presbyterum Sanctae Anastasiae in Papam Coelestinum calppa rubea coelitus induit; sed patitur Coelestinus, ego nescio tunc aliquando quae nollet. Incaeptum est: Te Deum laudamus gaudendo, non tamen dimidiato adhuc Lamberto pariter nobis cum alta voce cantante in Ecclesia; Robertus ipsius Frajapane verti fecit in luctum cytharam, etenim ipse cum quibusdam consentaneis fuit, et aliquibus de curia Lambertum Ostiensem Episcopum Papam acclamaverunt, deinde infimiis, quae ante Ecclesiam Sancti Silvestri sitae sunt, sine mora eum composuerunt: unde licet magna discordia et tumuntus emerserit, tamen postea pacificatis omnibus et ad concordiam redactis Papam Honorium sublimant.
Unfortunately, efforts to arrange the cardinals neatly into two parties based on these issues has not been successful. The real facts do not support the vast superstructures of speculation and inference as to interests and motives.
In 1124, all of the leaders of the Curia, including the Cardinals, and especially Petrus Petri Leonis (Pierleone) and Leo Frangipane had agreed that they should put off all discussion of the election until the third day from the death of Pope Callistus (Guy de Bourgogne, brother of Count Stephen). This would have been in accordance with canons and custom. Frangipane had already decided on Cardinal Lambert of Ostia, while the whole people were demanding Cardinal Saxo, Cardinal Priest of S. Stefano. Leo Frangipane tricked all the cardinals into attending a meeting, though they were afraid as they remembered the election of Pope Gelasius. Nonetheless, they assembled at the Lateran Basilica in the chapel of S. Pancrazio, and there, after a few words by Jonathan, Cardinal Deacon of SS. Cosmas and Damian, they unanimously (even including Lambert, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia) elected Theobald Boccadipecora , the Cardinal Priest of S. Anastasia, as Pope Celestine. They then sang the Te Deum, led by Cardinal Lambert. But Robert Frangipane, along with some of his supporters in the Curia, loudly proclaimed Cardinal Lambert, and at the far end of the Basilica where the Chapel of Saint Silvester is, they immediately installed him, and, though a great tumult ensued, eventually they accepted Lambert as Pope Honorius. Theobald resigned.
The "Life of Honorius II" (Muratori RIS III.1, 422), provides the continuation of the story, noting the bad conscience of Honorius, his resignation of the papal throne, and his reinvesting by the Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests, and Cardinal Deacons:
Hic electus est sub contentione cum Tebaldo Buccapecu Presbytero Cardinali tituli Sanctae Anastasiae, anno incarnationis Dominicae MCCXXV. Sed quia electio ipsius Honorii minus canonice processerat, post septem dies in conspectu Fratrum sponte mitram et mantum refutavit, atque deposuit. Fratres vero tam Episcopi quam Presbyteri et Diaconi Cardinales, videntes ipsius humilitatem et prospicientes in posterum, ne in Romanum Ecclesiam aliquam inducerent novitatem, quod perperam factum fuerat, in melius reformarunt et eumdem Honorium denuo advocantes, ad ejus vestigia prociderunt et tamquam Pastori suo et universali Papae consuetam sibi obedientiam exhibuere.
Thus, the defective claim of Honorius to the papal throne was repaired through his resignation and the repledging of obedience by the College of Cardinals. Whether that was actually done according to the canons,and whether the action of the Cardinals constituted an Election, is a moot question, since the affair was never challenged and Honorius continued to reign.
Even before Pope Honorius II was dead there was street fighting between Leo Pierleoni (the Cardinal's brother) and Leo Frangipane. Both swore, however, in the presence of the Cardinals, that neither one would create trouble over the election of a new pope (Watterich II, 181).
In addition there was trouble in northern Italy which was tending toward schism, or so Honorius believed. He deposed the Archbishops of Venice and Aquileia ("Life of Honorius II," in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores III. 1, p. 422).
According to Onuphrio Panvinio, Epitome Pontificum Romanorum (Venetiis 1557), twenty-four cardinals followed Anacletus II (pp. 105-106), seventeen followed Innocent II [Gregory, Cardinal Deacon of S. Angelo] (p. 100)—a total of forty-one. Thirty-three of the names of the cardinals are easily verified from the Electoral Decree of Anacletus II and the list in the Vatican manuscript of the 'Cardinal of Aragon' [Baronius-Theiner 18, sub anno 1130, no. 3]. Some indication of loyalties can also be gathered from the letter of the cardinals and others in Rome (obedience of Anacletus II) to Lothar, King of the Romans and from the Letter of the Cardinals to the Church of Compostela (Obedience of Anacletus II). A bull of Honorius II, dated May 7, 1128, provides a good list of thirty-four Cardinals and their tituli [Pressutti, Regesta Honorii Papae III, Volumen primum, p. lxiv]. Modern scholarship insists that there were 42 cardinals (Klewitz, Ende, p. 372; Schmale, Schisma 32-33; Zenker, Mitglieder, pp. 194-195; Mario da Bergamo, La duplice elezione, p. 302; H. Bloch, Montecassino, p. 950).
The new cardinals of Pope Anacletus II (perhaps created on Friday, February 21, 1130 [R. Zopffel, Die Papstwahlen (1892) p. 384 n. 361; and see Fedele, Lo scisma, 680-682]), were:
It is often contended that there was another Cardinal, who (according to the standard account) played no role whatever in the Election of 1130 or in the Schism that followed [H. Bloch, Montecassino, p. 950 n. 2]. His name was Guido, Bishop of Tivoli [Tibur], and he had previously been Archdeacon of Pisa. The evidence for his career is as follows:
This is, in fact, very weak evidence on which to base Guido of Tivoli's supposed cardinalate.
When Pope Honorius II perceived that he was mortally ill, he commanded (or he was persuaded by Cardinal Aymeric, the Chancellor) that he be taken from his residence at the Lateran to the Monastery of St. Andrew and St. Gregory on the Clivus Scauri (Monte Celio), desiring no doubt to die in repentance among the monks of that House ("Life" by Pandulphus (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores III. 1, 432; Baronius-Theiner, sub anno 1130 no. 1, p. 415); the monastery was also well-fortified. Already by February 7 or 8, there were rumors going around that the Pope was dead, immediately followed by counter-rumors that he was still alive (Löwenfeld, Neues Archiv 11 (1886) 595-596). According to a letter written to St. Norbert of Magdeburg by Hubert, Bishop of Lucca (a supporter of Innocent II), the original plan of the cardinals who were gathered around the pope, conceived apparently on February 12 as the pope was dying, was to provide a successor to Pope Honorius by the use of the Way of Compromise (Watterich II, 179-180; 188). The cardinals met in the Secretarium of the Monastery of S. Andrew and S. Gregory on Wednesday, February 12. This meeting and discussion was in fact uncanonical and untraditional, as the majority at least of the cardinals admitted [Watterich II, 188]:
Quod quidam consilium approbantes astruebant, iuxta sententiam canonum vivente Romano Pontifice et eo de more non sepulto, non debere de succedentis electione tractari. Cui sententiae licet fratrum pars necessitatem temporis, urbis odia, partium studia, ecclesiae discrimina praetendentes resultarent, dicentes, oportere pro necessitate et tempore canones temperari: tamen post haec et alia sub districto anathemate stabilitum est ab omnibus, ut insepulto Papa nulla de personae alicuius electione mentio penitus haberetur.
That there should be no discussion of any successor by name while the current pope was alive was a position which Cardinal Petrus Leonis Pierleone had proclaimed at the previous election in 1124 (Pandulphus Pisanus, "Vita Honorii Papae II," in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores III. 1, p. 421). He was correct. In 499 A. D., at a Synod in Rome, Pope Symmachus had legislated against this very abuse:
Propter frequentes ambitus quorumdam et Ecclesiae nuditatem vel populi collisionem, quae molesta incompetenter episcopatum desiderantium generavit aviditas, ut extinguatur futuris praesumptio tam perniciosa temporibus, constituit sancta synodus: ut is quis presbyter aut diaconus aut clericus, papa incolumi et eo inconsulto, aut subscriptionem pro Romano pontificatu commodare, aut pitacio promittere aut sacramentum praebere tentaverit aut aliquod certe suffragium polliceri, vel de hac causa privatis conventiculis factis deliberare atque decernere, loci sui dignitate vel communione privetur...pari severitate feriendo eo, qui hoc vivo, sicuti dictum est, Pontifice quolibet modo fuerit ambisse convictus aut certe tentasse, omnibus pariter hujus culpae reis anathematis poena plectendis.
This legislation was not forgotten. It was quoted towards the end of the 11th century by Manegold in his treatise written to Gebehard, Archbishop of Salzburg, in defense of Gregory VII [MGH Libelli, Libelli de lite I, pp. 387-388]. It was enshrined in Gratian, Si quis Papa, c. 2, Dist. 79. Nonetheless, the cardinals agreed on a compromise committee and on a site for the Election, the Church of S. Adriano (the old Roman Senate House), which could be secured and defended from intrusion, and which they decreed should be handed over to the Cardinals. The Deaconry belonged to Cardinal Petrus, who did not take part in the electoral events. Two cardinals were sent to take custody of the fortifications, but they were prevented from doing so by certain bishops. A meeting at S. Adriano, as the compact dictated, never took place.
Eight cardinals were to have formed the committee of election, two Cardinal-Bishops, three Cardinal-Priests, and three Cardinal-Deacons.
Convenientibus cardinalibus in ecclesia sancti Andreae Apostoli, statutum est ab eis octo personis, duobus episcopis: Guillelmo Praenestino et C(onrado) Sabinensi; tribus cardinalibus presbyteris: P(ietro) Pisano, P(ietro) Rufo, et Petro Leonis; tribus cardinalibus diaconibus: Gregorio sancti Angeli, Ionathe, Aimerico cancellario; electionem Pontificis committi, ita ut si committeret, dominum Papam Honorium, qui tunc in articulo mortis positus erat, ab hac vita transire, persona, quae ab eis communis eligeretur vel a parte sanioris consilii, ab omnibus pro domino et Romano Papa susciperetur.
The agreement was ratified by Cardinal Guillaume, Bishop of Palestrina, and all the other cardinals:
Praenestinus etiam cum ceteris decrevit, ut si quis electioni taliter factae contradiceret, anathemati subiaceret, et si quis alium attemptaret eligere, factum pro infecto haberetur, nec ipse ulterius in ecclesia locum consequeretur.
Cardinal Petrus Petri Leonis confirmed his acceptance of this agreement with additional words of his own:
Non oportere eos dubitare, quod occasione sua in ecclesia scandalum oriretur, quoniam mallet in abyssum submergi quam propter se scandalum nasci.
It was then decided that the Electors would meet together on the next day. According to Bishop Hubert's letter, Cardinal Pietro Pierleoni went off to conspire in a meeting of his own (nothing odd about that in papal Rome). In a piece of daring fiction, Pope Honorius rises from his deathbed and shows himself at a window along with his brother and attendants, to prove that he was not dead, as Pietro and his followers are said to have believed. If this detail is not fiction, it demonstrates the length that Cardinal Aymeric would go in deception to carry out his plan: dragging a dying pope out of his bed to show his still living body to the people.
There is a story, retailed by the Continuator of the monk Anselm of Gembloux (Anselmus Gemblacensis † 1136; MGH SS VI, 383 cf. Holder, 61-64; Zopffel, 329), that Pope Honorius had designated Cardinal Gregory of S. Angelo as his successor:
Lambertus qui et Honorius papa moritur. Romanae ecclesiae pax interpolatur, altercantibus duobus de sede apostolica, quodam Gregoris et altero Petro Leonis ... Gregorius privilegium electionis ab Honorio papa adhuc vivente consensu quorumdam cardinalium sibi usurpat.
These cardinals (some of the cardinals, quorumdam cardinalium, as the anonymous Continuator puts it) according to Abbot Suger (Watterich II, 199), were those "qui assiduitate et familiaritate propinquiores Apostolici fuerant." Suger's comment seems to be an obvious inference, not necessarily inside information. The single reference hardly agrees, indeed is inconsistent with, the narratives in the Italian sources. If there already was a designated successor, why would the Cardinals—while the Pope was still living—agree to appoint an Electoral Committee to carry out the Election? Why, especially, would Honorius' and Gregory's supporters agree to a plan which might perhaps frustrate Honorius' wishes? This is especially troubling if, as seems to have been the case, that four out of the five Cardinal Bishops who were present were partisans of Cardinal Gregory. They could have had a legitimate election according to the rules of Nicholas II's In nomine Domini. No, the alleged designation of Cardinal Gregory of S. Angelo must be considered a fiction, invented after the fact by his supporters to bolster his cause. Its canonical authority is, in any case, extremely doubtful (see Peries, passim). The French sources are all tainted with partisanship, and the monastic sources in particular, which had been in favor of reforming the Church along monastic lines since the days of Hildebrand. Gregory Papareschi of S. Angelo was one of them (a Canon Regular of the Lateran), and they would supply him with all the help they could.
It was in fact the Chancellor Cardinal Aymeric who was managing the death and burial of Honorius and the election of his successor, and Aymeric was a trickster, quite capable of putting out some convenient information when he was in Rome or when he was in France, trying to justify what had happened in Rome. Aymeric must have realized that even if the Cardinal Bishops chose the name of Gregory, that he could not win the endorsement of a majority of the Cardinal Priests and Cardinal BIshops (who had another preference), nor could Gregory win the endorsement of the nobles and people of Rome. A lengthy election might well produce a pope who was not a creature of Aymeric, the Burgundian chancellor, as Honorius had been.
But, as soon as Pope Honorius was dead, he was hastily buried in the cloister of the Monastery of S. Gregorio Magno in Clivo Scauri (to which the church of S. Andrew was attached), where he was residing when he died. The burial (it cannot be called a funeral) was carried out indecently and without the customary ceremonies; there was no laying-in-state and no public services of any kind (Watterich, 181):
cum Papa in sexta feria de initio quadragesimae ad patres suos appositus esset, celebratis exequiis pro necessitate loci et temporis, non tamen ex more sicut oportebat, cum calamitatis tempestas instaret
The Cardinal of Santa Susanna, Petrus Pisanus was present at the event and describes what happened (Watterich II, 189);
Et cum Papa adhuc vivere praedicarent, subito per laicorum manus mortuus miserabiliter defertur; non deponitur feretrum nec ulla ei obsequia fiunt, sed recto gradu, sicut vilissima bestia in claustrum trahitur et in vilissimum sepulcrum immergitur.
It is not stated what the calamity was that suddenly threatened the Church, that might justify the abandonment of canonical procedures, which had not threatened the Church earlier in the day or in the days preceding the Pope's death, unless it was that the opposition had withdrawn for the night. Secrecy was what the Chancellor Cardinal Aymeric and four of the five Cardinal-Bishops who were with the pope when he died wished. The body of the dead pope had to be buried (it was disinterred after a few hours and carried to the Lateran where it was finally buried) before the election of his successor could begin. This canonical rule is applied again by Innocent III in June, 1215, in the case of the election of a Bishop of Parma [Potthast, Regesta, 4989]. In the middle of the night of 13/14 February, 1130, as soon as Pope Honorius was dead and buried, the four Cardinal-Bishops held a secret 'election' of Cardinal Gregory of S. Angelo in Pescheria. Bishop Hubert makes it seem as though the Electoral Committee were meeting, though there is no evidence that the three Cardinals who were members of the Committee and who were not present at the death of the pope were summoned or even notified. The Electoral Committee was supposed to meet at S. Adriano, which it never did. It was in fact the custom that the senior Cardinal Bishop, who was Petrus of Porto, and who was not present at the death and funeral of Honorius II, would convene the cardinals for an election—as he had done in 1118—and preside over the nomination of a candidate [Pandulphus Pisanus, in Watterich II, p. 94]. This meeting that did take place at S. Gregorio in 1130 was in fact a partisan meeting, comprised of some ten cardinals in all (or thirteen: H. Bloch Monte Cassino II, 946):
De octo personis ad electionem electis, Praenestinus, Sabinensis, P. Rufus, A. Cancellarius quintum Gregorium cardinalem diaconum sancti Angeli, invitum et omnibus modis renitentem, cum religiosis viris episcopis, cardinalibus presbyteris, diaconibus et subdiaconibus in summum Pontificem elegerunt, cum Petro leonis qui erat octavus Petro Pisano sexto et Ionatha remanentibus.
This was contrary to the Electoral Agreement into which all the cardinals had entered only shortly before, while Honorius was still alive, but in the throes of dying. This agreement on the Way of Compromise was forgotten. As Gregorovius puts it (p. 420): "The proceeding was entirely contrary to law, and Gregory's action was altogether uncanonical."
Gregorovius is quite correct. The canons laid down that there could be no business concerning a papal election until the third day after the death of the pope. This canon had been enacted in the seventh century (A.D. 607), under Pope Bonifatius, in a synod at St. Peter's attended by 72 bishops, 33 Roman priests, deacons, and the entire clergy (Liber Pontificalis, in MGH SS 5, p. 164 ed. Mommsen):
Hic fecit constitutum in ecclesia beati Petri, in quo sederunt episcopi LXXII, presbiteri Romani XXXIII, diaconi et clerus omnis, sub anathemate, ut nullus pontificem viventem aut episcopum civitatis suae praesumat loqui aut partes sibi facere nisi tertio die depositionis eius adunato clero et filiis ecclesiae, tunc electio fiat, et quis quem voluerit habebit licentiam eligendi sibi sacerdotem.
This legislation was not a forgotten artifact of ecclesiastical history either. It was used as a weapon in the complaints about the illegal election of Gregory VII on April 22, 1073. Cardinal Beno, Cardinal Priest of SS. Silvestri et Martini [MGH SS 6 Libelli 2, pp. 367-368], refers to Boniface III's legislation in his Gesta Romanae Ecclesiae contra Hildebrandum [MGH SS 6 Libelli 2, p. 370]:
Alexandro papa iuxta vespertinam horam defuncto, eadem die a laicis contra canones electus est. Sed cardinales non subscripserunt in electione eius: sub anathemate enim canones precipount neminem eligi in sedem Romani pontificis ante diem tertium post sepulturam ipsius predicessoris. Postquam aliunde ascendit, a consilio removit cardinales sacrae sedis.
And Gregory VII himself admits what the canonical tradition was in his Epistle 1, to Desiderius of Montecassino, written on April 24, 1073: there was a wait of three days between the death of a pope and the beginning of the Election and there were definite ceremonies [Baronius-Pagi 17, sub anno 1073, no. xx; Jaffé, Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum 2, p. 10-11; JL 4772]:
Nam in morte ejus, primo quidem Romanus populus contra morem ita quievit et in manu nostra consilii froena dimisit ut evidenter apparereret, ex Dei misericordia hoc provenisse. Unde accepto consilio hoc statuimus, ut post triduanum jejunium, post Litanias et multorum orationem eleemosynis conditam, divino fulti auxilio statueremus, quod de electione Romani Pontificis videretur melius. Sed subito, cum praedictus dominus noster Papa in Ecclesia Salvatoris sepultura traderetur, ortus est magnus tumultus populi et fremitus, et in me quasi vesani insurrexerunt, nil consulendi facultatis, aut spacii relinquentes, violentis manibus me in locum Apostolici regiminis, cui longe impar sum, rapuerunt.
At the Election of 1118, in which Gelasius II was elected, before the electoral process even began, there was an informational meeting held at the Vatican Basilica, summoned by several lawyers, during which a trained reader ascended the pulpit and spoke at some length about the various decrees regulating the election of a pope [Alibrandi, Studi e documenti di storia e diritto 8 (Roma 1887), 208]:
Magister Guarnerius de Bononia et plures legis periti populum romanum ad eligendum Papam convenit, et quidam expeditus lector in pulpito s. Petri per prolixam orationem decreta Pontificum de substituendo Papa explicavit.
It seems clear that the canons were generally known, and had even been discussed in a meeting in the presence of the general public. There was no ignorance of the law.
The irregularity of the proceedings in 1130 was noted by Teulfus, the chronicler of the Chronicon Mauriniacense (Migne, Patrologiae 180, column 157):
Anno Incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi 1129, Honorius II, qui post Calixtum papam super cathedram Petri sederat, Romae in ecclesia beati Andreae, quam apud clivum Aemilii Scauri beatus ac praecipuus doctor magnus Gregorius suis sumptibus aedificavit, defunctus est. Cardinales, qui cum cancellario inibi aderant, et Honorio infirmanti assederant, Gregorium quemdam scientia ac religione praeclarum sibi praeficiunt, et nimis festinatner, ut a quibusdam dicitur, pontificalibus induunt insignibus.
In both the cases of 1073 and 1130 it was the abandonment of the canonical procedures that brought about an irregular election, and thereby caused schism. Pope Coelestinus II (Guido di Città di Castello), in a letter to Abbot Peter and the monks of Cluny (November 6, 1143) is careful to note that Innocent II (unlike Honorius II, in whose hasty double burial he had participated) was buried with full honors with a very large crowd of clergy and people in attendance, and that he himself was elected on the third day after the death of Innocent II [Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum 21, 592; Migne, Patrologiae 179, p. 766; JL 8435=5978]:
Notum facimus dilectioni vestrae quod Domino nostro bonae memoriae papa Innocentio, VIII Kal. Octobris defuncto, et in Lateranensi ecclesia cum maximo cleri ac populi Romani frequentia tumulato, cardinales presbyteri et diaconi, una cum fratribus nostris episcopis et subdiaconis, clero ac populo Romano acclamante, partim et expetente, tertia die in ipsa ecclesia unanimi voto et pari consensu, me indignum, et prorsus tanti officii imparem, nescio quo Dei judicio, in Romanum pontificem concorditer elegerunt.
To return to the election of 1130. Bishop Hubert, whose information is all second-hand, is also misinformed (or lying) as to the cardinals present and participating. In fact the cardinals who supported the election of Gregory Papareschi were a minority of the Sacred College. The names of Cardinal Gregory's supporters (NOT his electors), a total of sixteen, are given by an 'anonymous' manuscript in the Vatican Library [Baronius-Theiner 18, sub anno 1130, no. 3; in fact the author is Cardinal Boso.]:
Magna in Urbe discordia facta; nam episcopi et cardinales se in duas partes diviserunt, sed melior et sanior pars cum eodem Innocentio, qui majoribus studiis et meritis juvabatur adhaesit; omnes subscripti cum ipso constanter steterunt
But Cardinal Petrus Pisanus was present, and he provides an eyewitness view of what happened, placing the responsibility on the shoulders of Cardinal Aymeric, the Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church (Watterich II, 188):
Sicque non cooperto corpore, contempto ipsorum eorundem iuramento et anathemate, Aymerici, quondam cancellarii, dolis et astutiis ebriati cum nimia festinantia, sicut inter se condixerant, fraudulenter conveniunt, non convocatis neque interrogatis fratribus, contradicente cardinali sanctae Susannae Petro Pisano, qui tunc aderat, seorsum, sicut scriptum est, colligentes se ad altare aliud in tenebris, et maledictionis titulum erigere volentes, diaconum sancti Angeli sibi in simulacrum et in idolum zeli ausu temerario fabricaverunt.
In fact, Cardinal Peter states that Aymeric had not called together the Electoral Committee nor had he put the question to the Cardinals— to which Cardinal Peter made objection. Nonetheless, the enthronement of Cardinal Gregory of S. Angelo in Pescheria went forward at the Monastery of Andrew and St. Gregory. No sooner was this accomplished than the corpse of the dead pope was exhumed, and a procession brought both the deceased Pontiff and his successor to St. John Lateran. The enthronement there took place as soon as the body of Pope Honorius was placed in a cheap tomb without a proper cover:
... quorundam laicorum paucitas subito de sepulcro abstractum mortuun Papam ante plasmatum idolum, a saepe nominato monasterio sancti Gregorii diffugiens, Lateranum deduxit, ita ut in basilicam Salvatoris mortuus et vivus simul intrarent; ibique corpore Pontificis non selpulto, immo in vilis tumili angustia sine cooperimento et obsequio male deposito, fabricatum idolum ad papatia miserrima festinatione deduxit.
The public adoration of a new pope should have taken place at St. Peter's Basilica, but the neighborhood in which that venerable shrine lay was in the hands of the enemies of his supporters, Aymeric the Chancellor and the Frangipane and Corsi. It may be remembered tha the Frangipane had been the leaders of the uncanonical election of Honorius II in 1124. Most of the many authors who support the legitimacy of Innocent II decline to discuss the reason for the unseemly haste in conducting the Election within an hour or two of the pope's death.
Gregory the Cardinal Deacon of S. Angelo was ordained a priest (and presumably consecrated bishop) on the next Saturday, February 22 (Feast of St. Peter's Chair, a delicious irony), and crowned the next day, Sunday, February 23, at Santa Maria Nova (Annales Marganenses: Watterich II, 190)—the well-fortified monastic church next to the fortifications of the Frangipane on the south side of the Palatine Hill. St. Peter's Basilica was unavailable to Gergory/Innocent, since Pope Anacletus II was being crowned there on the same day.
On the morning of February 14, between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m (circa horam tertiam: Watterich II, 182), while the burial of Honorius II and the enthronement of Innocent II were taking place at the Lateran Basilica, the majority of the Cardinals, the clergy and people of Rome, led by the senior Cardinal Bishop, Petrus of Porto, were gathering at S. Marco at the foot of the Campidoglio (now next to the Palazzo Venezia), expecting to hear of the death of Pope Honorius and intending to do him the honor of a solemn funeral, in accordance with the traditions of the Roman Church (Watterich II, 189). San Marco was a convenient assembly place for the magistrates, people and clergy of the City near the seat of Government on the Capitoline, with an interior space large enough to accommodate a large meeting [ right ]. It was also near the home of Petrus Leonis at S. Niccolò in Carcere:
Ceterum exceptis quinque, suum Papam habere volentibus, priores cardinales cum reliquis cardinalibus, ad quos cum clero Romani Pontificis spectat electio, diacones cum subdiaconibus et cunctis ecclesiae Romanae ordinibus, archipresbyteri, abbates, cum omni Romanae urbis clero et populo, qui apud sanctum Marcum convenerant, obitum Papae expectantes, ut eum, sicuti mos est, antiquam iuxta Romani ordinis normam honorifice sepelirent....
It was there that they heard that Pope Honorius was already dead and buried. They therefore proceeded—between 11:00 and noon (hora sexta: Watterich II, 182)— to the election of a new Pontiff, with Cardinal Peter, Bishop of Porto carrying out the electoral function. He chose (eligit) Cardinal Petrus Petri Leonis (Pierleone), the Cardinal Priest of S. Calixtus, who took the name Anacletus II. Falco of Benevento (Migne Patrologiae Latinae 173, column 1203) has a reasonably accurate account of what happened:
Eodem anno dominus papa Honorius medio mense Februario viam universae carnis ingressus est ad Dominum: et dominus Innocentius electus est, post quem Innocentium die ipso ad horam tertiam Petrus Portuensis episcopus Petrum filium Petri Leonis elegit pro Anacleto. Deinde Innocentii illius electionem damnantes, Anacleti pontificis electionem confirmabant. Cumque Leo Frangenspanem, qui partem Innocentii sequebatur, electionem Anacleti audivisset, coepit Romanos cives fideles suos et amicos exhortari ut ejus faverent auxilio. Inde Leo germanus praefati Anacleti, aerario aperto, totum fere populum Romanum rogavit, ut juxta vires fratris electionem tueretur, quod et factum est.
After Cardinal Peter chose Petrus Petri Leonis as his candidate, those assembled condemned the election of Innocent and confirmed the election of Anacletus. After Leo Frangipane heard about the election, he began to raise his supporters to support himself and Innocent. It was then (not before, during the night or early in the morning) that Leo Pierleone, the brother of the new Pope Anacletus began to use money to encourage the Roman People to support his brother's election.
Fourteen Cardinals, who were present and gave their consent to the Bishop of Porto's choice, signed the Electoral Decree of Petrus Petri Leonis. Anacletus was eventually joined by Aegidius, Bishop of Tusculum, Desiderius Sanctae Praxedis, Lictefredus Sancti Vitalis, Petrus of S. Adriano, and Comes (Conte) Sanctae Sabinae, who were not present at the election. According to the anonymous Vatican manuscript quoted by Baronius [Annales Ecclesiastici 18,sub anno 1130 no. 3], which he takes to be a reliable contemporary document,
Tres vero ex illis, qui adversae parti adhaeserunt, Desiderius Sanctae-Praxedis, Godefredus Sancti-Vitalis, et R. S. Sabinae, ad pap. Innocentium sunt conversi....
It is, however, a highly partisan document in favor of Innocent II, and highly inaccurate and misleading. There was no Godefredus of San Vitale; his name was Lictefredus, and he subscribed documents for Anacletus II in April, 1130; he does appear among signatories of Innocent's documents, beginning on December 21, 1133 and continuing until May of 1140 (probably the year of his death: his successor, Thomas, signs on April 11, 1141). Desiderius of Santa Prassede, too, signed for Anacletus in April 1130, but he does not appear among Innocent's signatories until April 22, 1138, after the death of Anacletus and the resignation of Victor IV and the end of the schism. There is no R. of Santa Sabina; the Cardinal Priest of S. Sabina was Comes, who also signed documents for Anacletus in April of 1130, and who was succeeded by Amatus, after March 21, 1135 (JR 8431). Innocent had no cardinal of Santa Sabina as a signatory until April 22, 1138 (Cardinal Stancius)—and again, that is after the end of the schism. The evidence that exists, therefore—and it must be treated with caution since so little of the documentation of Anacletus' pontificate survives—does not support the sweeping generalities of the anonymous Vatican fragment of Baronius. Only Lictefredus (and not Godefredus) can be shown to have left the party of Anacletus and gone over to the party of Innocent, and then not for nearly three years. His motives are completely unknown. The evidence actually shows that at the time of the election of 1130 and for some considerable time afterward, these three cardinals were partisans of Anacletus, not of the uncanonical Gregory Papareschi. The anonymous Vatican document cannot be quite as contemporary as Baronius imagines, or as authoritative.
Onuphrio Panvinio, who had access to the Vatican Archives on a regular basis as a Scriptor, states in his Epitome Pontificum Romanorum (Venetiis 1557), pp. 105-106, that twenty-four cardinals eventually joined the Obedience of Anacletus II (Jaffé, Regesta pontificum Romanorum p. 599). Indeed, it might appear that all the cardinals who were not present at either election chose for the Obedience of Anacletus II. That is an important point: these cardinals needed to choose a side, and investigating the situation of the double election, they all opted for Anacletus. Their action is much more important than the ravings of a passel of French monks.
Special effort is made in the Electoral Decree of Petrus Petri Leonis to make clear that the Bishops of Todi and Sutri, the clergy of Rome (to a number of more than three hundred), and the laity of Rome were present and gave consent to the Election, in contrast to the nocturnal goings-on of Cardinal Gregory's election:
Anno dominicae incarnationis millesimo centesimo XXX, indictione VIII, mensis februarii, die XIIII, convenientibus nobis in unum, ut moris est, id est sacerdotibus et levitis et reliquo clero et generali militia ac civium universitate et cuncta generalitate istius a deo conservandae Romanae urbis in personam domni. P. huius apostolicae sedis Romanae ecclesiae cardinalis presbiteri tituli Calisti, deo cooperante beatorum apostolorum intercessione, concurrit atque consensit electio.
The coronation of Anacletus II took place at St. Peter's Basilica on Sunday, February 23. It is said by his enemies that the forces of Cardinal Pietro Petri Leonis (Pierleone) attacked the Basilica of St. Peter and seized its many treasures. That is so, in the sense that the new Pope took possession of the Vatican Basilica and all the treasures of the Holy Roman Church, inasmuch as he was their legitimate custodian and was empowered by his office to use them to the advantage of the Church. This is a case of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. There is no evidence brought forward by his enemies that Cardinal Pietro was resisted by the Canons of St. Peter's or by the officials of the Apostolic Camera or by the Roman Curia. Invective is all that his opponents can produce. Indeed the only people who resisted Anacletus II were the Frangipani, as the same source, the anonymous manuscript of the Vatican [Baronius-Raynaldus, no. 3, p. 416] admits: "Talibus ergo tantisque mercibus inique dotatus, majorem venalis Urbis partem emere studuit, corrumpens vulgus etiam ita sibi astrinxit, ut praeter Frangipanum et Corsorum munitiones, papa Innocentius nullum in Urbe subsidium haberet." The fact was that Innocent completely lacked the support of the people of Rome from the beginning. They had not been consulted in his elevation, and had not been asked to approve his election, and did not attend his coronation.
The Cardinals who were loyal to Pope Anacletus II, wrote a letter to the German King Lothar on the day after the coronation [Watterich II, 185-186; P. F. Palumbo, Lo scisma del MCXXX (Roma 1942) 652; Mario da Bergamo, "La duplice elezione", 283-289; W. von Petke (editor), Regesta Imperii, IV,1,1: Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Lothar III. und Konrad II. Teil 1. Lothar III. 1125 (1075)-1137 (Munich 1994) no. 234], pointing out the lies that were circulating and leading toward schism, propter quorundam hominum dolosa figmenta et mendacia venenosa, qui Dei ecclesiam scindere et simplicium animas evertere moliuntur.
The Cardinals (and two suffragan bishops) who signed the letter as loyal supporters of Pope Anacletus were:
It may be noticed that the Cardinal Deacon of S. Angelo was no longer Gregory Papareschi (Innocent II), but Erimandus. The replacement must have been immediate. None of the other cardinals was ejected however. Pope Anacletus seemed to be choosing a mild and diplomatic course with his colleagues. R. Zopffel, Die Papstwahlen (1892) p. 384 n. 361, theorizes that the date of the new creations was Ember Friday, February 21, 1130.
Falco of Benevento continues his story (Migne Patrologiae Latinae 173, column 1203-1204). In March, Pope Anacletus asked the people of Benevento to swear fealty. Innocent II, however, having taken counsel in the light of the civil war in the city of Rome, fled to France:
Anno Dominicae Incarnationis 1130, mense Martio VIII indictionis. Cum praedictus Anacletus electus fuisset, Beneventanis mandavit qualiter ipse electus fuisset, et ut Beneventani sibi faceret fidelitatem. Praefatus igitur Innocentius consecratus pontifex, videns populi Romani divisiones et civilia bella quotidie oriri, consolio habito, ultra montes perrexit ad regem quidem Francorum et ad alios Romanae Sedis fideles, qui honeste et diligenti cura ab eis susceptus est.
Though still in Rome as late as May 11, Innocent II was finally driven out of Rome by the Roman people, once the Frangipane changed sides (as authorized by the Constitution of Pope Nicholas II, cited by Gratian: "Si quis pecunia", c.2. D.79) :
Si quis pecunia vel gratia humana, vel populari seu militari tumultu, sine concordi et canonica electione ac benedictione cardinalium episcoporum, ac deinde sequentium ordinum religiosorum clericorum fuerit apostolicae sedi inthronizatus, non Apostolicus sed apostaticus habeatur, liceatque cardinalibus episcopis cum religiosis et Deum timentibus clericis et laicis invasorem etiam cum anathemate et humano auxilio et studio a sede apostolica repellere, et quem dignum iudicaverint praeponere. Quod si hoc intra Urbem perficere nequiverint, nostra auctoritate apostolica congregati in loco, qui eis placuerit, eligant quem digniorem et utiliorem apostolicae sedi perspexerint, concessa ei auctoritate regendi et disponendi res et utilitatem sanctae Romanae ecclesiae, secundum quod ei melius videbitur, iuxta qualitatem temporis, quasi iam omnino inthronizatus sit.
A letter of Anacletus himself indicates that this had been accomplished by May 15, and that the Roman nobility was now solidly behind him. By June 20, Innocent was residing in Pisa, publishing very uncomplimentary remarks about Petrus Petri Leonis. He finally moved on to France (that repeated haven of expelled pontiffs). Both he and Anacletus began to appeal to the Emperor (King Lothar III) for recognition of their claims. With the help of S. Bernard of Clairvaux' reputation, influence and pen, Innocent's version of events became the accepted history of the Election of 1130 throughout Europe. St. Bernard is at his most revealing when he remarks (Migne Patrologiae 182, 294): Iudaicam subolem sedem Petri in Christi occupare iniuriam. This, no doubt, was a principal theme in the propaganda against the Roman pope (See Gregorovius, pp. 415 and nn. 1 and 2; 416 and n. 1; Palumbo, La scisma, xiv-xv, 54, 95; Stroll, The Jewish Pope, pp. 156-178, especially 164-167 and 172). Bernard's standard for his choice of Innocent is expressed in Epistle 124: Funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur (Ecclesiastes 4, 12.) Electio meliorum, approbatio plurium, et, quod his efficacius est, morum attestatio, Innocentium apud omnes commendant, summum confirmant pontificem. Bernard was making up the rules as he wrote, and ignoring the historical facts.
As early as 1133, Anacletus II appealed to a general council to decide the issue of legitimacy between himself and Innocent. In the meantime, however, Innocent, accompanied by King Lothar and his army, was brought back to Rome and installed at the Lateran on April 30, 1133 (Annals of Hildesheim, MGH SS III, p. 115) But in September he was at Siena, and in November back in Pisa, unable to hold his chair in Rome due to universal disdain on the part of the Roman Church and People. Finally, on May 30, 1135, at a highly partisan assembly engineered by Innocent, the Council of Pisa ratified the election of Innocent II and hurled excommunications at Anacletus and all who had been ordained or consecrated by him, as well as at Roger of Sicily and anyone who helped him in his war against King Lothar (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum 21, columns 483-492; JL pp. 865-866). This was the price demanded of Innocent for Lothar' support: the surrender of territory under the feudal suzerainty of the Church of Rome into the hands of the German Emperor (Gregorovius, 434-436), and the reversal of papal policy toward the Norman kingdom in southern Italy. Innocent, however, continued to reside in Pisa until March of 1137. He then followed Lothar's armies in the war against the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (as Anacletus followed the Norman armies, from 1134 to 1137), and was again brought back to Roman territory by military force. He arrived in Tiburtine territory on October 3, 1137, and finally reached Rome along with the King of Germany on November 1.
Pietro Pierleoni, the Cardinal of S. Callisto in Trastevere, had been educated in Paris and had been a monk at Cluny. He had been appointed originally as Cardinal Deacon of SS. Cosma e Damiano (around 1112, according to Hüls, Kardinale, Klerus und Kirche, p. 225 no. 2—with an incorrect citation; cf. Stroll, p. 12 n. 6—who prefers the date of 1113, but also does not cite the actual documents). Petrus Petri Leonis subscribes on March 24, 1116 [JL 6517]). He was advanced to S. Maria in Trastevere, titulus Callisti, by Callistus II in June, 1120 [Hüls, Kardinale, Klerus und Kirche, pp. 189-190]. He was sent as Legatus a latere to England (1122) and to France [Migne, Patrologiae 163, 1297: September 30, 1123] to enforce rules of ecclesiastical discipline. He was sent a second time, along with Cardinal Gregorio Papareschi, to France, during which visit he met S. Bernard of Clairvaux. He presided at four synods, in Chartres, Beauvais, and Vienne. He and his family were strong supporters of Pope Callistus II (1119-1124) and great opponents of the Frangipani. He was back in Rome by May of 1125.
Bishop Guido of Arezzo, who was in Rome during the last week of Honorius' life and for a time thereafter, remarked on the position of Petrus Petri Leonis in the City: "Miror et satis, cum tot sapientes et nobilissimi et summi viri sint in urbe Roma, quod quocies ipsi sua colloquia mirabiliter celebrant, et in eis maiestative concionant, mox ut Petrus Leonis accedit, omnes obnubiliantur et liquefiunt." His nuntius replied: "Eius gratiae Petrus Leonis est Romae, ut ad illius nutum tota Roma taceat, et tota loquatur." [Loewenfeld, Neues Archiv 11 (1886), 597; Stroll, The Jewish Pope, 145-146]. Obviously he was a person of consequence in Rome, and people listened to his opinions.
After a reign of seven years, eleven months and twenty-two days, Anacletus II died, on January 25, 1138 (Falco of Benevento: Watterich II, 247). Peter, the Deacon of Montecassino wrote (Watterich II, 248):
Eo etiam tempore Petrus filius Petri Leonis humanis rebus exemptus diem clausit extremum et in loco illius fautores eius Gregorium cardinalem tituli Apostolorum sibi praeficientes Victorem [IV] appellari decernunt. Innocentius autem immensa in filios Petri Leonis et in his qui eis adhaerebant pecunia profligata illos ad suam partem attraxit, sicque cardinales, qui iam dicto filio Petri Leonis communicaverant, omni auxilio destituti Innocentii vestigiis advolvuntur, sacramento a parte illius prius accepto, ne illos officio privaret, ne bonis diminueret.
Pope Anacletus was burried secretly, no doubt out of fear of the sort of posthumous revenge that popes sometimes took against their rivals (cf. the case of Pope Formosus).
J.P. Migne (editor), Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus Tomus 179 (Paris 1899), "Anacleti Antipapae Epistolae et Privilegia," columns 687-732.
Eleven Letters of Pope Anacletus (Martène & Durand)
List of documents relevant to the Schism of 1130.
Arnulfi Sagiensis, Episcopus Sexoviensis, "Tractatus de schismate orto post Honorii II papae decessum," Ludovico Antonio Muratori (editor), Rerum Italicarum Scriptores Tomus III, pars 1(Milano 1723), pp. 423-432. [pro-Innocent].
Bernardus Guidonis, "Vita Innocentii Papae II," Antonio Muratori (editor), Rerum Italicarum Scriptores Tomus III, pars 1, pp. 432-434.
Pandulphus Pisanus, "Vita Innocentii Papae II," Antonio Muratori (editor), Rerum Italicarum Scriptores Tomus III, pars 1, pp. 432-434. José Maria March, Liber Pontificalis prout extat in codice manuscripto Dertusensi (Barcelona 1925) [This is the original version of Pandulphus Pisanus. The biographies were hitherto available only in an expurgated version by Petrus Guilolaume, a Cistercian, ca. 1142, working in the interest of the party of Innocent II].
Nicolaus Cardinalis Aragonius, "Vita Innocentii Papae II," Antonio Muratori (editor), Rerum Italicarum Scriptores Tomus III, pars 1, pp. 434-436.
Cardinal Boso, "Innocentii II vita," Watterich II, pp. 174-179. [Boso was Cardinal Priest of S. Pudenziana in tit. Pastoris, created by Honorius IV, died after 1178]
Falco of Benevento: "Falconis Beneventani Chronicon," in: J. P. Migne (editor) Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus 173 columns 1145-1262.
Letter of Pope Anacletus' Cardinals to Lothar, King of the Romans (May ?, 1130) (Watterich II, 185-187).
Letter of the Roman Church to the Church at Compostela about the election of 1130 (Watterich II, 187-190).
Alphonsus Ciaconius [Alfonso Chacon], Vitae et Res Gestae Pontificum Romanorum et S. R. E. Cardinalium ... ab Augustino Oldoino Societatis Iesu recognitae Tomus Primus (Romae: sumptibus Philippi et Antonii de Rubeis 1677) [Volume I of the 4 volume edition], esp. 1009-1010. Lorenzo Cardella, Memorie storiche de' cardinali della Santa Romana Chiesa Tomo primo (Roma: Pagliarini 1793). J. M. Brixius, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130-1181 (Berlin 1912).
Caesaris S. R. E. Cardinalis Baronii, Od. Raynaldi et Jac. Laderchii Annales Ecclesiastici denuo excusi et ad nostra usque tempora perducti ab Augusto Theiner Tomus Octavusdecimus 1094-1146 (Barri-Ducis: Ludovicus Guerin 1869), pp 415-452. [Baronius-Theiner] [The Annales again demonstrates that it is written by a good apologist and a bad historian; Baronius is completely lacking in objectivity in what he cites and how he uses what he does cite. He repeatedly cites St. Bernard of Clairvaux to bolster his case (e.g. at the beginning of no. 4, but continuously down to the end of no. 7), though Bernard had not been present at the events and knew what he knew only from partisan sources, one of which was Innocent II himself. It is the argument ex auctoritate. "Ipse dixit." Bernard's total committment to reform makes him a far from impartial judge. Neither can the antisemitism in this section of the Annales be overlooked, no. 5.]
Lorenzo Cardella, Memorie storiche de' cardinali della Santa Romana Chiesa Tomo primo (Roma: Pagliarini 1793).
Philippus Jaffé (editor) Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (editionem secundam correctam et auctam auspiciis Guilelmi Wattenbach; curaverunt S. Loewenfeld, F. Kaltenbrunner, P. Ewald) (Lipsiae: Veit et comp. 1885) [JL].
Johann M. Watterich, (editor), Pontificum Romanorum qui fuerunt inde ab exeunte saeculo IX usque ad finem saeculi XIII vitae ab aequalibus conscriptae Tomus II (Lipsiae 1862).
J. M. Brixius, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130-1181 (Berlin 1912). Barbara Zenker, Die Mitglieder des Kardinalcollegiums von 1130 bis 1159 (Würzburg 1964). Klaus Ganzer, Die Entwicklung des auswärtigen Kardinalats im hohen Mittelalter (Tubingen 1963) [Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom, 26]. Rudolf Hüls, Kardinäle, Klerus und Kirchen Roms: 1049-1130 (Tübingen 1977 [Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom, Band 48].
Richard Zöpffel, Die Papstwahlen und die mit ihnen im Zusammenhange stehenden Ceremonien von 11.-14. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen 1871), 267-395. Karl Hölder, Die Designation der Nachfolder der Päpste (Freiburg Schweiz: Universitäts-Buchhandlung R. Veith 1892). Georges Peries, L' intervention du pape dans l' élection de son successeur (Paris 1902), esp. pp. 90-91.
Jean de Lannes, Histoire du pontificat du pape Innocent II (Paris: Giffart 1741). Horace K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages Volume IX. 1130-1159 (London 1914), 1-66.
Wilhelm Bernhardi , Lothar von Supplinberg (Leipzig 1879). Ferdinand Gregorovius, History of Rome in the Middle Ages, Volume IV. 2 second edition, revised (London: George Bell, 1896) [Book VIII chapter 3], pp. 412-429. Herbert Bloch, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages III (Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura 1986).
E. Richard, Étude historique sur le schisme d' Anaclet en Aquitaine de 1130 à 1138 (Poitiers 1859). Emil Muhlbacher, Die streitige Papstwahl des Jahres 1130 (Innsbruck 1876). I. Bittl, Das papstliche Schisma von 1130-1138 (Romanshorn 1877). Abbé E. Amélineau, "St. Bernard et le schisme d' Anaclet II," Revue des questions historiques 30 (July 1881), 47-112. S. Löwenfeld, "Kleinere Beiträge. I. Zur Papstgeschichte des 12. Jahrhunderts," Neues Archiv für altere deutsche Geschichtskunde 11 (1886), 595-597 [1. Ueber die letzten Tage Honorius II. 2. Ueber Anaclets Persönlichkeit]. E. Vacandard, "St Bernard et le schisme d' Anaclet II en France," Revue des questions historiques 43 (1888), 61-126. A. Chroust, "Die Wahldekret Anaclets II, Mitteilingen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 28 (1907), 348-355. Hans-Walter Klewitz, "Das Ende des Reformpapsttums," Deutsches Archiv für Geschichte des Mittelalters 3 (1939) 371-412. Pier Fausto Palumbo, Lo scisma del MCXXX: i precedenti, la vicenda romana e le ripercussioni europee della lotta tra Anacleto e Innocenzo II, col regesto degli atti di Anacleto II (Roma: Presso la R. Deputazione alla Biblioteca Vallicellana 1942). Franz-Joseph Schmale, Studien zum Schisma des Jahres 1130 (Köln 1961) [Forschungen zur kirchlichen Rechteschichte und zum Kirchenrecht 3]. Pier Fausto Columbo, "Nuovi studi (1942-1962) sullo scisma di Anacleto II," Bolletino dell' Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo e Archivio Muratoriano 75 (1963) 71-103. Mario da Bergamo OFM Cist. [Luigi Pellegrini], "Osservazioni sulle fonti per la duplice elezione papale del 1130" Aevum 39 (1965) 45-65. Mario da Bergamo OFM Cist. [Luigi Pellegrini], "La duplice elezione papale del 1130: I precedenti immediati e i protagonisti," Contributi dell' Istituto di Storia Medioevale, Raccolta di studi in memoria di Giovanni Soranzo II (Milan 1968), 265-302. Luigi Pellegrini (Mario da Bergamo), "Cardinali e Curia sotto Callisto II (1119-1124)," Raccolta di studi in memoria de S. Mochi Onory (Milano 1972), 507-556. David Berger, "The Attitude of St. Bernard of Clairvaux towards the Jews," Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 40 (1972) 89-108. Franz-Josef Schmale, Die Papsttum im Zeitalter Bernhards von Clairvaux und der frühen Staufer (1985). Mary Stroll, The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130 (New York: Brill Academic Pubs. 1987). Herbert Bloch, Monte Cassino in the Middle Ages II (Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura 1986), pp. 944-967. Mary Stroll, Calixtus II (New York: Brill 2005).
L. Spätling, "Kardinallegat Petrus im Pontifikat Honorius' II," Antonianum 38 (1963), 163-191.
P. Kehr, "Diploma purpureo di re Roggero II per la casa Pierleoni," Archivio della società romana di storia patria 24 (1901), 253-258 . P. Fedele, "Le famiglie di Anacleto II e di Gelasio II," Archivio della società romana di storia patria 27 (1904), 399-440; 28 , 487.. [cf. M. Tangl, "Gregor VII. jüdischer Herkunft?" Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 30 (1905), 159-179].
A. Chroust, "Das Wahldekret Anaclets II," Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichisches Geschichtsforschung 28 (1907) 348-355. Stanley Chodorow, Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Century: The Ecclesiology of Gratian's Decretum (Berkeley 1972).
©2011 John Paul Adams, CSUN