Misplaced Pages

Papal election 1130
Dates and location
14 February 1130 monastery of S. Gregorio, Rome
Key officials
Dean	Pietro Senex
Elected pope
Gregorio Papareschi Name taken: Innocent II
← 11241143 →

The 1130 papal election (held February 14) was convoked after the death of Pope Honorius II and resulted in a double election. Part of the cardinals, led by Cardinal-Chancellor Aymeric de la Chatre, elected Gregorio Papareschi as Pope Innocent II, but the rest of them refused to recognize him and elected Cardinal Pietro Pierleoni, who took the name of Anacletus II. Although Anacletus had the support of the majority of the cardinals, the Catholic Church considers Innocent II as the legitimate Pope, and Anacletus II as Antipope.

The double election was a result of the growing tensions inside the College of Cardinals concerning the policy of the Holy See towards the Holy Roman Empire, initiated by the Concordat of Worms (1122), which ended the investiture controversy. Several, particularly older, cardinals considered the compromise achieved in Worms as desertion of the principles of the Gregorian Reform, and inclined to accept it only as a tactical move. They supported the traditional alliance of the Papacy with the Normans in southern Italy. Some of them were connected to old monastic centers in Southern Italy such as Montecassino. One of their leaders was Cardinal Pierleoni, representative of one of the most powerful families of Rome.

The opposite faction was headed by Aymeric de la Chatre, who was named cardinal and chancellor of the Holy See shortly after signing the Concordat of Worms and was one of the main architects of the new policy. He and his adherents looked at the compromise as a good solution both for the Church and the Emperor, and did not trust the Norman vassals of the Holy See, who expressed some expansionist tendencies. It seems that at least some major representatives of this faction had strong connections to the "new spirituality", meaning the new religious orders such as regular canons. Besides, they were allied with the Roman family of Frangipani, opponents of the Pierleoni family.

In the last weeks of the lifetime of Pope Honorius II the cardinals, fearing the possible schism, made an agreement that the new pope would be elected by the commission of eight of them, including two cardinal-bishops, three cardinal-priests and three cardinal-deacons.

Cardinals

The College of Cardinals had probably 43 (or 42) members in February 1130. It seems that no more than 37 (36) were present at Rome on the death of Honorius II:

Probably six cardinals were absent from Rome:

Preparations for the election

The parties of the College of Cardinals were of different sizes. The party of Aymeric was smaller, with 19 members, while that of his opponents 24, but the party of the Chancellor was certainly better organized.

One of the undeniable aspects of that division is that the Anacletans were mainly senior cardinals, veterans of the investiture controversy, created either by Paschalis II or early in the pontificate of Callixtus II, while Innocentine cardinals with few exceptions were created after Concordat of Worms (1122), which established peace with the Emperor. Out of nineteen cardinals created before 1122, only five supported the Chancellor, while out of twenty four appointed from that time onwards as many as fourteen. The other possible reasons for such radical tensions in the College (e.g. national divisions, connections to different spiritual centres) are widely discussed by historians without final conclusion.

In the elected committee the party of Aymeric had 5 members out 8. This was due to the way of their election – each of the three cardinalatial orders had to elect their own representatives. Although adherents of Aymeric were in the minority in the whole College, they had a majority among cardinal-bishops and cardinal-deacons, while their opponents were mainly cardinal-priests. Therefore, the faction of the Chancellor acquired a majority in the electoral body

The following cardinals were elected to the committee (the opponents of Aymeric are denoted with †):

• Cardinal-Bishops (two adherents of Aymeric)
  • Guillaume, Bishop of Palestrina
  • Corrado della Suburra, Bishop of Sabina
• Cardinal-Priests (two opponents and one adherent of Aymeric)
  • Pietro Pierleoni, O.S.B.Cluny, Priest of S. Maria in Trastevere †
  • Pietro Pisano, Priest of S. Susanna †
  • Pietro Ruffino, Priest of SS. Silvestro e Martino
• Cardinal-Deacons (two adherents and one opponent of Aymeric)
  • Gregorio Papareschi, C.R.L., Deacon of S. Angelo in Pescheria
  • Aymeric de la Chatre, C.R.S.M.R., Deacon of S. Maria Nuova and Chancellor of the Holy See
  • Gionata, Deacon of SS. Cosma e Damiano †

Death of Honorius II and the election of Innocent II

Honorius II died in the night 13/14 February 1130 in the Roman monastery of S. Gregorio, after a long illness. Cardinal Aymeric arranged a hasty burial there and immediately called the members of the committee to the monastery to proceed for the election of a new pope. But Cardinals Pierleoni and Gionata, realising that the commission certainly would elect a supporter of the Chancellor, withdrew from it hoping that a lack of quorum would prevent it from functioning. But Aymeric ignored this fact and the commission assembled with six members only. Despite the protests of Cardinal Pietro Pisano, who was a distinguished canonist, the committee elected one of its members, Cardinal Gregorio Papareschi of S. Angelo, who accepted the election and took the name Innocent II. He was enthroned in the Lateran Basilica early in the morning on February 14. His election was almost immediately recognized by six other cardinals: two bishops (Giovanni of Ostia and Mathieu of Albano) and four priests (Joselmo of S. Cecilia, Petrus of S. Anastasia and Giovanni of S. Crisogono; the identity of the fourth one is uncertain, but most probably it was Gerardo of S. Croce). In a short time they were joined also by the next eight cardinals.

The election of Anacletus II

The majority of the cardinals, however, did not recognize Innocent II under the influence of Pietro Pisano, who, as a distinguished canonist, declared that his election was invalid. On February 14 in the morning the opponents of Aymeric and his candidate assembled under the leadership of Pietro Pierleoni in the church of S. Marco to elect the new Pope. Initially, Cardinal Pierleoni proposed the election of the Dean of the College Pietro Senex of Porto, but he refused to accept the papal dignity. Then the cardinals unanimously elected Pierleoni himself, who took the name of Anacletus II.

It is not known how many cardinals elected Anacletus II. The decree proclaiming his election issued on the same day was subscribed by 14 cardinals:

• Bishop Pietro Senex of Porto,
• Priests Gregorio de Ceccano of SS. Apostoli, Saxo of S. Stefano, Pietro of S. Marcello, Comes of S. Sabina, Gregorio of S. Balbina, Crescenzio of SS. Marcellino e Pietro, Lectifredo of S. Vitale, Pietro Pisano of S. Susanna, Matteo of S. Pietro in Vincoli and Enrico of S. Prisca,
• Deacons Gregorio of S. Eustachio, Gionata of SS. Cosma e Damiano and Angelo of S. Maria in Domnica.

It is not known whether the remaining five adherents of Pierleoni, who are believed to have been present at Rome, participated in the electoral proceedings. There is no doubt, however, that the lesser clergy of Rome was represented in the election. The electoral decree of Anacletus II bears the subscriptions of some of them, including Subdeacon Gregorio, primicerius scholae cantorum, who was appointed Cardinal-Deacon of S. Maria in Aquiro the following February 21, and Rainiero, Archpriest of the Patriarchal Liberian Basilica.

Division of the College of Cardinals

The double election resulted with the open split of the College of Cardinals into two parties. Their compositions can be established in the following way:

• Liber Pontificalis mentions the names of 16 cardinals who supported Innocent II from the very beginning. To them should be added two other cardinals (Guido of Tivoli and Rustico of S. Ciriaco), whose attitude is attested by the fact that they subscribed the bulls of Innocent II.
• The obedience of Anacletus II may be reconstructed basing on the letter addressed to king Lothair III of Germany by his cardinals soon after his coronation. This letter bears the subscriptions of 27 cardinals, including five created by Anacletus II on February 21, a Friday of the ember week. To them should be added also cardinal Oderisio of S. Agata, who later subscribed the bulls issued by Anacletus II.

Therefore, at the beginning of the schism 18 cardinals belonged to the College of Innocent II, and 28 to the College of Anacletus II.

The Innocentine cardinals, who are not mentioned by Liber Pontificalis, and the Anacletan, who did not subscribe the letter to king Lothair, are denoted with †.

Stefano Stornato joined the obedience of Innocent II no later than 1132; Lectifredo of S. Vitale and Giovanni Dauferio did the same in 1133, Pietro Pisano in 1137, and Desiderio of S. Prassede shortly before the end of the schism in 1138. It seems that ca. 1135 Comes of S. Sabina also abandoned Anacletus II.

The schism

Both popes were consecrated and crowned on the same day, February 23. Innocent II received episcopal consecration from Cardinal Giovanni of Ostia in the church S. Maria Nuova, the titular deaconry of Chancellor Aymeric. Anacletus II was consecrated by Cardinal Pietro of Porto in the Vatican Basilica, which means that Anacletus took the advantage in the city from the very beginning. Almost all Roman aristocracy (with the significant exception of the Frangipani family), the majority of the lesser clergy and the people of Rome recognized Anacletus II and at the end of May Innocent II had to flee to France. After his defection to France even the Frangipani submitted to Anacletus.

In France, however, Innocent II found a strong ally in the person of Bernard of Clairvaux. Under Bernard's influence, almost all European monarchs and episcopates recognized the exiled Innocent II. Anacletus II, although he controlled Rome and the Patrimony of St. Peter, received the support only of the Normans of southern Italy, Scotland, Aquitaine, some cities in northern Italy (incl. Milan), and perhaps Outremer and probably also Poland.

Both elections were irregular, because they contradicted the rules established by the decree In Nomine Domini in 1059, but both sides defended the legality of the respective pontificates. The adherents of Anacletus argued that he was elected by the majority of the cardinals, lower clergy and the people of Rome. The partisans of Innocent II answered that Innocent II was elected by majority of the cardinal-bishops, who according to the decree In Nomine Domini had to play the preeminent role in the election. Their opponents answered with another version of the decree (false, but very popular at the time), which stated that the pope was elected by "cardinals" (meaning cardinal-priests and deacons), while cardinal-bishops could only express their approval or disapproval. Both parties used, by analogy, the Benedictine rule, which stated that in the case of a double election for abbot, the valid election was the one made by "the sounder part" (sanior pars) of the electors – but there was no consensus which part of the College was "sounder" in this case.

Decisive for the verdict about the legality of both pontificates were not the legal arguments, but the attitude of the Catholic world, which had almost universally recognized Innocent II. His main supporters were Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, Archbishop of Magdeburg Norbert of Xanten and King Lothair III of Germany. The few secular lords who had initially supported Anacletus gradually abandoned his cause as lost; only King Roger II of Sicily, who had received the crown from Anacletus in exchange for support, stood at his side to the very end. Although Anacletus II was able to retain the control of the city of Rome and the Patrimony of St. Peter until his death in January 1138, his successor quickly made his submission to Innocent II, who is now regarded as true Pope.

References

1. Robinson, pp. 71–72
2. Robinson, pp. 71–73
3. Robinson, p. 74; Bloch, p. 946
4. The College of Cardinals is reconstructed according to Klewitz, p. 211–229; Hüls, pp. 84 ff; and Brixius, pp. 17–19, 31–40. The one disputed cardinal is Enrico of S. Prisca (Klewitz, p. 211 note 3 denies that he was already a cardinal at the time of the election; Hüls, p. 200 says only that he appears for the first time on February 14, 1130 among signatories of the electoral decree of Anacletus but does not indicate by which pope he had been created; Brixius, p. 35 no. 19 lists him among the members of the Sacred College on the death of Honorius II but adds that he may have been created by Anacletus II). Brixius, p. 39 no. 38 lists also the 44th cardinal, Petrus, priest of S. Eusebio and adherent of Anacletus II, but see Klewitz, pp. 211–212 note 3, and Brixius’ own remarks, op. cit., pp. 18–19 and 82. Chroust, p. 352, also says that Petrus of S. Eusebio belonged to the College at the time of the election and identifies him with cardinal-deacon Petrus of S. Maria in Via Lata under Honorius II, but this identification is undoubtedly erroneous (see Hüls, p. 239).
5. Dates of promotions based mainly on Hüls, p. 84–87
6. Francesco Liverani, Delle opere di monsignor Francesco Liverani Volume IV (Macerata: Alessandro Mancini 1859), pp. 258–264, at p. 262.
7. Klewitz, p. 217, and Brixius, p. 39 no. 42, count Sigizo among the creations of Paschalis II. Hüls, p. 64 and 86, indicates that he was created only by Callixtus II in 1120, basing on his place in the order of seniority that can be assumed from the order of the cardinalatial subscriptions on the papal bulls. The only evidence for his creation by Paschalis II is Liber Pontificalis, which mentions him among the participants of papal election, 1118; however, it has been proven that this account contains several inaccuracies (Hüls, pp. 63–64, see also Klewitz's own remarks, op. cit., p. 100). Bloch, p. 950, note 3, seems to accept that Sigizo was created by Paschalis II.
8. This identification, though accepted by Brixius, p. 32 no. 8, and Klewitz, p. 214, is impossible because Comes of S. Maria in Aquiro subscribed papal bulls until February 6, 1126 (Hüls, p. 231; Jaffé, p. 823), while Comes of S. Sabina appears for the first time on April 15, 1123 (Hüls, p. 205, Jaffé, p. 781).
9. This is according to Klewitz, p. 211 note 3, and Bloch, p. 948. However, it is rather unlikely because Enrico of S. Prisca signed as cardinal the electoral decree of Anacletus on February 14, the same day that Anacletus had been elected, which would mean that he must have been created immediately after his election. It is not impossible, but it seems more reasonable to accept the year 1129 as date of his creation as cardinal of S. Prisca, given by S. Miranda The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and by Chroust, p. 351 (his predecessor Gerardus of S. Prisca died in April 1129). It must be added, however, that his identification with Cardinal-Deacon Enrico de Mazara of S. Teodoro, proposed by Chroust, p. 351, is certainly erroneous, as has been proved by Klewitz, p. 211 note 3.
10. This is according to Brixius, pp. 39–40 no. 43; Chroust, pp. 351–352; Salvador Miranda: The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church - Consistory of 1125 (no. 5); and Lorenzo Cardella, Memorie storiche de' Cardinali della Santa Romana Chiesa, vol. 1 pt. 1, p. 289. All these sources say that Anacletus II promoted him to the title of S. Lorenzo in Damaso, and that no later than 1132 he joined the obedience of Innocent II, who annulled this promotion. Klewitz, p. 219 note 38 explicitly denies this statement and counts him among Innocentine cardinals. Bloch, p. 950 note 2 says that he "almost certainly" belonged to Innocentine party and suggests that he may have been absent from the election. Hüls, pp. 228–229 says only in general that during the subsequent schism he supported Innocent II and adds that some authors mention his short episode in the obedience of Anacletus II. Cardinal Stefano of S. Lucia is attested in the obedience of Innocent II only from June 25, 1132 (Jaffé, p. 841); therefore, his identification with Anacletan Cardinal Stefano of S. Lorenzo in Damaso (attested only in 1130) seems to be quite likely.
11. For the absence of Gilles of Tusculum, Guido of Tivoli, Amico and Oderisio see Bloch, p. 949 and p. 950 note 2. For the legation of Uberto see Klewitz, pp. 224 and 250, and Hüls, p. 162. For the legation of Rustico, see Hüls, p. 158. The absence of Oderisio, Rustico and Guido of Tivoli is mentioned also by Brixius, p. 19.
12. or 23, if one excludes Enrico of S. Prisca.
13. Robinson, pp. 74–75 suggests that the opponents of the Chancellor formed themselves into one party only during the election.
14. The division of the College of Cardinals based on accounts in Klewitz, pp. 211–229, and Brixius, pp. 17–19 with corrections concerning the date of creation of Comes of S. Sabina. The question of the cardinalate of Enrico of S. Prisca and the initial attitude of Stefano Stornato is presented according to Brixius, while that of cardinalate of Pietro of S. Eusebio according to Klewitz. See also Bloch, pp. 946–950, who essentially follows Klewitz. For the party of Anacletus II see also Chroust, pp. 348–355
15. See Robinson, pp. 70–73.
16. Klewitz, p. 251.
17. It is believed that the committee itself was a device of the Chancellor. Robinson, p. 74
18. Bloch, p. 947, note 1; Robinson, p. 74; Klewitz, p. 252
19. ^ Robinson, p. 75
20. Bloch, p. 946; Robinson, p. 75
21. Bloch, p. 946, who does not identify the fourth cardinal-priest. Gerardo of S. Croce seems to be the most likely one because he was named legate of Innocent II in Germany already on February 18, see Patrologia Latina. Volumen 179, col. 53–54 no. I–II. The other possibility is Anselmo of S. Lorenzo in Lucina.
22. Bloch, p. 946
23. Chroust, p. 349
24. Bloch, p. 949
25. Chroust, pp. 349–350, 352
26. The account from Liber Pontificalis is available on Documenta Catholica Omnia – Innocentius II (Vita Operaque Auctore Cardinali Aragonio). See also Brixius, p. 17
27. Brixius, p. 17–18; and Bloch, p. 950 note 2, who adds here also Stefano Stornato; see also Jaffé, p. 840
28. The letter is included in Regesta Imperii Archived 2017-05-28 at the Wayback Machine. Its exact date is uncertain, though undoubtedly after the creation of five new cardinals on February 21. Regesta Imperii gives the date of May 15–18, 1130. Hüls, passim, gives February 1130. Brixius, pp. 77–78, suggests the date between February 21 and March 27, because cardinal Giovanni Dauferio still appears in this letter as deacon of S. Nicola, while on March 27 he signed the bull as priest of S. Pudenziana. Bloch, p. 949 indicates that the letter was written in May 1130 and puts into question the identity of Giovanni Dauferio of S. Nicola with Giovanni of S. Pudenziana; however, he does not explain the absence of the name of Giovanni of S. Pudenziana from the letter to king Lothair III.
29. For the dates of creations of the new cardinals see Brixius, Pp. 7–15
30. Bloch, p. 49; and Brixius, pp. 18–19 (Brixius indicates that only four cardinal-deacons were newly created, while Bloch says that as many as seven cardinals belonged to that category, adding Enrico of S. Prisca and probably Stefano of S. Lorenzo, though without mentioning the name of the latter one); see also Jaffé, pp. 911–912.
31. He is attested in the obedience of Innocent II from December 21, 1133 until May 18, 1140 (Jaffé, p. 840; Brixius, p. 36 no. 27). According to Brixius, p. 36 no. 27 and p. 48 no. 10, Lectifredo was deposed by Anacletus already in 1130, because on December 5 and December 10, 1130 the bulls of Antipope were subscribed by cardinal Matteo of S. Vitale. However, Jaffé, p. 911-912 does not mention this cardinal on the list of subscribers of the bulls of Anacletus. It seems that Brixius misread this list, because in Jaffé, p. 912 there is a cardinal-priest Matteo listed next to Lectifredo of S. Vitale as subscriber of the bulls on December 5 and 10, 1130, but he is certainly not assigned to the title of S. Vitale, but listed as cardinal-priest without the title. Both these bulls (Jaffé, p. 917 no. 8417 and 8419) are published in Patrologia Latina. Volumen 179, col. 717–719, though with inaccurate dates; among their signatories appears Matthaeus, presbiter et cardinalis, without the titular church, so Brixius' statement can be almost certainly rejected as erroneous.
32. He subscribed the bulls of Innocent II on December 21, 1133 and January 11, 1134 as deacon of S. Nicola in Carcere (Jaffé, p. 841); later, he was promoted again to the title of S. Pudenziana by Innocent II (Brixius, p. 35–36 no. 24).
33. Robinson, p. 138. He subscribed the bulls of Innocent II from January 12, 1138 (Brixius, p. 38–39 no. 37; Jaffé, p. 840).
34. He subscribed the bulls of Innocent II between April 22, 1138 and June 21, 1138 (Brixius, p. 33 no. 10; Jaffé, p. 840)
35. He subscribed the bulls of Innocent II only after the end of the schism in 1138, but already ca. 1135/37 Anacletus II appointed new cardinal-priest of S. Sabina, which indicates that up to that time Comes must have been deposed by antipope (Brixius, p. 32 no. 8 and p. 47 no. 2).
36. Bloch, p. 951–952
37. Anacletus II. Genealogie Mittelalter. Mittelalterliche Genealogie im Deutschen Reich bis zum Ende der Staufer. Materialsammlung. 2005. Archived from the original on 2011-06-29.
38. The allegation of Poland's support for Anacletus is based on indirect evidence only, see Dzieje Kościoła w Polsce, ed. A. Wiencek, Kraków 2008, p. 68 and 74.
39. For the arguments used in the polemics, see Robinson, p. 75–77
40. Robinson, p. 77
41. Innocent II. The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1907–1914.

Bibliography

• Robinson, Ian Stuart (1990). The Papacy 1073–1198. Continuity and Innovation. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-31922-6.

• Hüls, Rudolf (1977). Kardinäle, Klerus und Kirchen Roms: 1049–1130 (in German). Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom. ISBN 978-3-484-80071-7.

• Klewitz, Hans-Walter (1957). Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkolleg. Die Entstehung des Kardinalkollegiums. Studien über die Wiederherstellung der römischen Kirche in Süditalien durch das Reformpapsttum. Das Ende des Reformpapsttums (in German). Hermann Gentner Verlag, Darmstadt.

• Bloch, Herbert (1986). MONTE CASSINO IN THE MIDDLE AGES VOLUME II. Rome.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

• Jaffé, Philipp (1885). Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII. Vol. I (in Latin). Leipzig. Archived from the original on 2020-10-03. Retrieved 2009-03-03.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

• Migne, Jacques Paul (1899). Patrologia Latina. Volumen 179 (in Latin). Internet Archive.

• Böhmer, Johann Friedrich; Petke, Wolfgang (1994). Regesta Imperii – Lothar III. und Ältere Staufer 1125–1197 (in German). Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Archived from the original on 2017-05-28. Retrieved 2010-11-27.

• Brixius, Johannes Matthias (1912). Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130–1181 (in German). Berlin: R. Trenkel.

• Anton Chroust, Das Wahldekret Anaklets II, (in:) Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, vol. 28, 1907, pp. 348–355

• Catholicism
• Christianity
• Vatican City

• Definitions from Wiktionary
• Media from Commons
• News from Wikinews
• Quotations from Wikiquote
• Texts from Wikisource
• Textbooks from Wikibooks
• Resources from Wikiversity
• Data from Wikidata

• 12th-century elections
• Papal elections
• 1130 in Europe
• 12th-century Catholicism
• Schisms in Christianity
• Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor
• 12th century in the Papal States