When looking at the topic of the "Investiture Controversy" and its research, it is noticeable that one aspect receives little attention: the investiture itself. The background to this initially surprising finding is that the investiture was not the central issue at the beginning of the conflicts between Henry IV and Gregory VII, but only became so later and in retrospect - but more on this later.
This article will first clarify what exactly is meant by the term investiture, followed by a look at bishop investitures before the Investiture Controversy. It will then look at how bishop and abbot investitures became a problem in the second half of the 11th century and were ultimately banned. When exactly this happened is disputed - the research controversy, which was mainly fought out between Johannes Laudage and Rudolf Schieffer, will also be briefly discussed here; finally, the development up to the first agreements on investiture in Saint-Denis and London in 1107 between Pope Paschal II and Philip I of France and between Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury and Henry I of England, which 15 years before the Concordat of Worms showed what a solution to the problem could look like.
What is investiture?
Although it is often used in this way, the Latin word investitura was originally not a synonym for the investiture of a bishop or abbot, but had a more general meaning. The word is derived from the verb "investire" ("to clothe") and refers to "clothing", i.e. the act of vesting.
In this sense, the word investitura (or vestitura) has also been used since late antiquity, which is used in a figurative sense for the appointment to an office, in the sense of being clothed in the official costume. This gave rise to the idea that an investiture was a legal appointment to a new status.
In the early Middle Ages, the word "(in)vestitura" was often used to describe the transfer of land both as property and as a loan. In this case, the new owner was inducted through a symbolic act, for example a procession or the handing over of a staff. The staff is a universal symbol of authority and power, as we know it from the sceptre. Other symbols were also used for handovers, for example bell ropes or altar cloths when it came to churches, lumps of earth and blades of grass for land. The handing over of a staff or other symbol represents the handing over of a right. It is therefore not surprising that ecclesiastical offices were also handed over with an investiture. The handing over of a staff also played an important role here, as clergymen also carried a staff as a symbol of their power and their spiritual oversight function - the shepherd's staff has been documented since the 6th century.
A similar symbol of appointment to an office was the ring. The presentation of rings, especially signet rings, was also common for the appointment to secular offices; however, rings and staffs also became emblematic symbols for bishops and abbots from the early Middle Ages onwards. It follows that in the period before the church reforms of the 11th century, staffs and rings were ambivalent symbols. They were not clearly assigned to the spiritual or the secular sphere; they belonged to both fields, which were not yet clearly separated anyway. This only changed in the run-up to the Investiture Controversy and during its course, when the division between the spiritual and secular spheres became sharper.
The handing over of a staff to a bishop as part of the installation of a bishop has been documented since around 900. However, it was not initially the king who performed this ritual. This is only documented for Otto II (973-983). It was not until the reign of Henry II (1002-1024) that we learn of the emperor handing over the ring to a newly elected bishop. Even these are likely to have been isolated cases at first; it was only in the course of the 11th century that evidence of the handing over of staffs and rings by the king or emperor became more frequent. The phrase investitura cum anulo et baculo ("investiture with ring and staff"), often used in the polemical writings, did not even appear until the 1070s.
When the rift between Henry IV and Gregory VII occurred in 1076, the investiture of bishops and abbots with ring and staff by the ruler was not a practice that had been known for centuries, but was still comparatively recent. And as soon as the practice had apparently become established in the middle of the 11th century, it was criticised. Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, a very controversial and radical reformer, only mentions the terms investitio and investire in two places in his extensive books against the Simonists, however, in a comprehensive work that comprises 153 pages in a modern edition. For - as the title of his work shows - he is primarily concerned with simony, i.e. the venality of spiritual ordinations.
How were bishops appointed before the Investiture Controversy?
This brings the second topic of this article into focus, namely the question of how one became a bishop in the Roman-German Empire before the Investiture Controversy. There are several answers to this question, at different levels. Canon law prescribed the election of the bishop by the clergy and the people. This did not mean an election as we understand it today, in which every vote counts equally and winners are determined by the majority of votes. The aim of such an election was precisely not to reveal differing opinions, but to establish unanimity. Such an election should result from the establishment of a consensus, led by the leading personality of the diocese (or those who were present at the time), which the others present should follow. Princely, even royal, influence was therefore at least not fundamentally excluded under canon law and was acceptable in moderation.
In practice, the election of clergy and people before the Investiture Controversy was an acclamation - an approval of an election that had already been made. In the Empire, the king or emperor often exercised a decisive influence on the election. This was similar in England and also applied to the appointment of some bishoprics in France; however, most were under princely control. In the Roman-German Empire, too, the king's control over the appointment of bishops was not complete. This was due to the excessive number of bishoprics in the empire, which also included the kingdoms of Burgundy and Italy. However, at least in the German part of the empire, it was generally possible for the emperors to appoint a particular man as bishop at their will.
But let us look at the only detailed - and therefore often quoted - description of the ritual of a bishop's investiture from the years immediately before the Investiture Controversy. It was written around 1071/72 and concerned Gundekar of Eichstätt, who took office in 1057. He himself also wrote the account of the event.
"After these [bishops], Gundekar, the least of the brothers of the same holy church of Eichstätt, but nevertheless at that time chaplain to the Empress Agnes, was invested with the ring for this very seat on 20 August (...) in Trebur; and on 3 October, in the presence of the following named bishops (...) he was invested with the ring. On 3 October, in the presence of the following named bishops (...) and with the unanimous applause and vote of his own clergy, his armed servants and also his familia, he was invested with the pastoral staff in Speyer, and on 17 October, by the grace of God, he was solemnly installed in the episcopal see. On the day of St John the Apostle (27 December), who was loved by God more than all others, he was promoted to the highest degree of the priesthood at a place called Pöhlde. Also present at his ordination were his master, King Henry IV, and his beloved mother Agnes, the exalted empress, who organised everything necessary for his ordination on behalf of her chaplain - as if she had to do it for a son. Mr Hildebrand, Cardinal Subdeacon of the Holy Roman and Apostolic See (...) also took part in the same ordination."
Four steps in the episcopal investiture can be distinguished. Firstly, on 20 August, the investiture with the ring by the regent, Empress Agnes, took place in the Palatinate of Trebur on the Rhine, which is to be understood as a kind of designation. A few weeks later, on 3 October, the investiture with the crosier took place in front of a large audience at a meeting in Speyer in the presence of many bishops, the episcopal clergy and his ministerials. Only then did the event move to Eichstätt, where the ceremonial investiture took place on 17 October. The final act, the consecration of the bishop, then took place after Christmas in Pöhlde in the southern Harz mountains, hundreds of kilometres away from Eichstätt. The consecration was carried out by the responsible Archbishop of Mainz, again as part of a larger gathering in the presence of many bishops, as well as the young king and empress and the papal legate Hildebrand. The presence of the later Pope Gregory VII is particularly emphasised. From his presence it can be concluded that at that time he apparently had no objections to the manner in which the bishop was appointed by the regent.
The practice of princely or royal appointment was heavily criticised from the middle of the 11th century in reformist circles, which considered the primacy of the clergy in the election to be central. Humbert of Silva Candida wrote in his already cited work against the Simonists around 1060: "Although the most honourable and highest bishops for the whole world have prescribed in this way, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that the election of the clergy is confirmed by the approval of the metropolitan, but the desire of the people and the class by the consent of the princes, everything happens in the reverse order, to the disgrace of the holy canons and the downfall of the entire Christian religion; the first are last, and the last are first. For the secular power is the first in the election and confirmation, followed - whether it likes it or not - by the consent of the class, people and clergy, and last of all by the judgement of the metropolitan."
For Humbert, the contemporary practice of appointing bishops represented a reversal of order. Humbert's accusation that the secular side assumed a decisive role in the selection of bishops is - according to the example of Gundekar - not entirely unjustified. However, other views were possible, as Gundekar was clearly not plagued by any sense of injustice, but considered his appointment to be legitimate, indeed ideal, otherwise he would hardly have described it in this way.
When was lay investment prohibited?
This brings us to the next point: when was the practice of investiture by laymen, as was the case with Bishop Gundekar, prohibited? For from the criticism of the procedure of episcopal investiture, as expressed by Humbert, also specifically in relation to investiture, no general prohibition of investiture can be concluded.
Several dates have been cited for this prohibition. The earliest date mentioned in research refers to the Synod of Reims, which was held by Leo IX in 1049, because the canonical election of bishops by the clergy and people was demanded there. However, investiture is not mentioned in the resolutions of the synod and the content of the canon merely repeats a well-known rule.
The second date is more controversial - the papal election decree of Pope Nicholas II from 1059, which states in the synod's resolutions: "That no cleric or priest shall receive a church through laymen, neither for free nor for a price". The granting of churches by lay people is therefore expressly forbidden. Nevertheless, we cannot assume that this passage prohibits investiture. Firstly, clerics and priests are mentioned, not explicitly bishops and abbots, but it could be argued that they and their churches were also meant. And secondly, the ritual of investiture is not mentioned. It is about the granting of churches as a whole, not about the type of investiture. If we take seriously that investiture was not a synonym for "episcopal installation", we cannot understand the papal election decree as a ban on investiture.
However, researchers still disagree on the exact date of the ban on lay investiture. The controversy surrounding this question, which was primarily centred on Rudolf Schieffer and Johannes Laudage, mainly revolves around the evaluation of the first evidence of a ban on investiture. Shortly after the Lenten Synod of 1075, the Milanese chronicler Arnulf wrote about the resolutions of the assembly: "(...) after the pope had held a synod in Rome, he publicly forbade the king to have any right to the bishoprics to be assigned from then on, and he removed all lay persons from the investiture of the churches."
However, this seemingly clear evidence of a papal ban on lay investiture offers no certainty. The official minutes of this synod with its resolutions, which are preserved in Gregory VII's register, do not mention any prohibition of investiture, nor are any reactions in favour of or against this prohibition known. In his 1981 work on the origins of the ban on investiture, Rudolf Schieffer therefore assumed that no general ban on investiture had been issued in 1075, but that the ban handed down by Arnulf related specifically to the situation in Milan. Henry had been prohibited from exercising investiture in this specific case due to the banishment of his councillors. Johann Englberger even assumed that Arnulf did not write shortly after the events, as is usually assumed, but only after the outbreak of the conflict and that the assumption of a ban on investiture in 1075 was a backward projection.
However, it is quite possible that there was indeed a general ban on lay investiture in this year, but that this was not included in the surviving list of resolutions. Johannes Laudage argued that, on the one hand, a ban on investiture fitted in perfectly with the development of papal policy at the time. On the other hand, the reactions failed to materialise because the dispute with Henry IV, who was banished in 1076, initially rendered the issue obsolete. According to Laudage, two letters by Gregory VII from 1078, which seem to refer to an earlier ban, also speak in favour of a ban in 1075.
According to a letter from Gregory, Bishop Huzman of Speyer "knowingly and recklessly received the crosier from the hand of the king in spring 1075, contrary to a decree of the Apostolic See"; Rudolf of Amiens is to be investigated as to whether he "received the investiture from the hand of a layman out of shameful ambition and rash daring, contrary to the decree of a Roman synod and the Apostolic See". But even here it cannot be ruled out that these are isolated cases. Moreover, all those who were accused of having received the lay investiture affirmed that they had known nothing of a ban - a clear indication of the low publicity of the matter.
The next two bans are undisputed: The strict legate Hugh of Die, responsible for France, proclaimed two bans on investiture at provincial synods in Autun and Poitiers in 1077 and 1078, but these could not claim any validity for the church as a whole. The chronicler Berthold von Reichenau records a papal ban on investiture for the Lenten Synod of 1078, but he is completely alone in this, meaning that the first unequivocal ban on the acceptance of investiture from the hands of laymen was issued at the autumn synod of 1078. It was not until the Lenten Synod of 1080 that laypeople were expressly prohibited from exercising investiture.
Lay investiture was therefore quite controversial in the early years of the investiture controversy. However, it was not the decisive issue, especially not at the beginning of the investiture controversy, regardless of whether lay investiture was banned in 1075 or 1078. The background to the bans was not necessarily the rejection of the investiture ritual as such, but rather its association with simony - we see this in Humbert, for example, but investiture is also considered to be a consequence or concomitant of simony.
Tightening and possible solutions (1080-1107)
From 1080 onwards - i.e. after the final ban on the exercise of investiture in an ecclesiastical office by lay people - the subject of investiture is repeatedly mentioned in synodal resolutions, for example in the years 1089, 1095, 1096, 1098 and 1099.
However, if we take a look at other source genres, the topic of lay investiture is not very present. Neither in the historiography nor in the pamphlets are there any major reflections on the subject before the year 1100. There were more important areas of controversy: the schisms - from 1084 at the latest there were two popes and numerous bishoprics in the empire were occupied by two popes -, the Pope's redemption of oaths and the question of whether the Pope was authorised to depose the king were central themes in the polemical literature of the time. One of the few exceptions is a writing by Wido of Ferrara, who in his De Scismate Hildebrandi (1086) aggressively defended the imperial right of investiture.
Almost at the same time, another type of text appeared on the scene in Italy that attempted to secure the emperor's right of investiture, namely the false investiture privileges. They claimed that Pope Leo III had granted Charlemagne the right of investiture.
From 1100 onwards, interest in investiture increased dramatically. There were a number of reasons for this. Urban II and Clement (III) died in 1099 and 1100 respectively and Urban's successor Paschal II had no serious rivals backed by the emperor, despite several attempts in the city of Rome. He now had the opportunity to tackle the problem fundamentally. In addition, there was soon a new king, as Henry V overthrew his father in 1105, who died the following year. Henry sought a compromise with the Pope, but did not want to renounce the investiture, which is why the issue became increasingly important. However, solutions were initially found elsewhere.
Solutions - Saint-Denis and London 1107
The issues that were negotiated in the investiture dispute in the Roman-German Empire did not only concern the empire, but were acute for the entire area of Latin Christendom. And in the two other great old kingdoms of this area, England and France, there were also disputes that did not reach the intensity of the investiture dispute in the Roman-German Empire, but nevertheless demanded a binding solution. This happened in both England and France in 1107.
The relationship between the Norman kings of England and the popes was ambivalent. On the one hand, the popes Alexander II and Gregory VII had approved of William the Conqueror's conquest of England and were largely lenient towards him and his successors; on the other hand, the English kings kept the popes at arm's length: papal legates were generally not allowed to enter the Anglo-Norman dominions. It was only under William's youngest son Henry I, who came to the throne in 1100 and whose position was initially precarious, that the issue reached the island. In 1101, King Henry I and Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury fell out over the issue of lay investiture and the homagium, the bishops' oath of fealty to the king. In 1107, a compromise was reached in the Concordat of London and Westminster. The agreement reached here essentially involved the king renouncing the investiture of the bishops of his realm, but he was still allowed to take the homagium from them.
In France, too, there were repeated conflicts over the selection and appointment of bishops in the late 11th century, and it was no coincidence that Pope Leo IX held his first major reform council in Reims in 1049. Gregory VII and other popes and their legates frequently intervened here to dissuade the king or a prince from the simonistic appointment of bishops or to force them to recognise a pretender to the bishop's see who had been legitimately elected from a Roman perspective. In most cases, the princes and King Philip I (1060-1108) usually gave in, so there was initially no serious break with the popes.
The break between King Philip and the popes came about for a completely different reason: in 1092, King Philip repudiated his wife Bertha - according to the English chronicler William of Malmesbury, she had become too fat for him - and took a new wife, Bertrada of Montfort. Although marriages were in principle indissoluble, there were enough exceptions to justify a separation. The problem in this case, however, was that Bertrada was also married, to the powerful Count Fulko of Anjou. Multiple marriages were, of course, forbidden.
Phillip and Bertrada promised to separate, but initially did not put this promise into practice, which led to an excommunication, which was cancelled when they finally did separate. Nevertheless, they had three children, whereupon they were excommunicated again. In 1104, they again declared their separation, which now probably actually took place, and were readmitted to the church. From this point onwards, Philip's eldest son from his first marriage, the future King Louis VI ("the Fat"), was fully integrated into the reign and ruled de facto for his increasingly old and ill father even before Philip's death in 1108.
This is why a meeting that took place in Saint-Denis on the outskirts of Paris in 1107, which in retrospect took on an epochal character, was primarily the responsibility of Louis - the meeting with Pope Paschal II, at which the Concordat of Paris and Saint-Denis was concluded. This was the starting point for the rapprochement between the popes and the French kings, which was to characterise Europe for centuries to come. We only have rudimentary knowledge of the content of the talks and the agreements reached there, as this meeting is only known from a single, rather late source, the biography of Louis the Fat, written around 1140 by the Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis, who was present at the meeting.
Suger's account of the meeting aims above all to create a contrast between Henry V, the persecutor of the Church, and his protagonist Louis, who promises the Pope obedience and protection against all enemies of the Church. This marks the beginning of the rapprochement between the French kings and the popes, which was to characterise the following centuries.
The kings of France are likely to have renounced investiture by this meeting at the latest, but it is uncertain to what extent it had been customary in France beforehand. However, it is not explicitly mentioned.
Investiture in the Investiture Controversy - Conclusion
For a long period of time, the investiture dispute was not primarily a conflict over investiture. It is not even certain whether the investiture of bishops and abbots by the king was already forbidden in 1076/77 when the conflict between Gregory VII and Henry IV broke out. Even after this happened, regardless of whether it was in 1075 or 1078, lay investiture initially remained a marginal issue in the serious disputes between Henry IV and Gregory VII and the relationship between the spiritual and secular spheres in general. It was only over time that the topic of lay investiture came to the fore. Investiture - actually a symbolic act of appointment to a new office or a new right - became increasingly important, especially from 1100 onwards. The background to this was the end of the papal schism between Urban II and Clement (III) and the end of the reign of Henry IV. It was only from this time onwards, and especially after Henry V's visit to Rome in 1111, which ended with the capture of the pope, that the investiture dispute really became a conflict over the right of the king to invest bishops and abbots.
The path to a solution to the concrete problem of investitures was first found in England and France in 1107, where the kings renounced the right to investiture of their bishops and abbots, but were able to secure other possibilities of influence over the high clergy of their kingdoms.
