Sede Vacante 1099

The medieval Lateran Palace, as one approaches from S. Clemente,
before the removal of the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius in 1538
(Fra Filippo Lippi, detail of fresco of S. Thomas Aquinas in S. Maria sopra Minerva)

Last Days of Urban II

The Continuator of Berthold of Constanz, monk of Reichenau, summarizes the last months of Pope Urban II (Odo or Eudes of Châtillon). The pope was able to spend Christmas of 1098 in Rome and in peace. The Castel S. Angelo and other fortifications were in his possession, and he was in control of his opponents in the city.  In the third week after Easter, 1099, he held a Roman Synod, and once again confirmed the anathemas against his opponent Wibert (Guibert) of Ravenna and his followers ("Clement III", died September 8, 1100) {Baronius-Theiner, sub anno 1099, no. 23, p. 92):

Hoc anno millesimo nonagesimo nono, dominus papa Natalem Domini (December 25, 1098) Romae cum magna pace celebravit: nam et castellum Sancti Angeli cum aliis munitionibus in sua potestate detinuit, omnesque aemulos suos in civitate cum Dei adjutorio satis viriliter aut placavit aut vi perdomuit, Synodum quoque suam in tertia hebdomada Romae celebrandam post Pascha, missis litteris usquequaque denuntiavit.... Romae dominus papa generalem Synodum centum quinquaginta episcoporum, abbatum et clericorum innumerabilium tertia hebdomada post Pascha collegit [April 24-30, 1099]: in qua Synodo, confirmatis suorum antecessorum statutis, etiam sententiam anathematis super Guibertum haeresiarcham et omnes ejus complices iteravit. Statuit quoque ibi ne communicare praesumerent iis qui concubinas haberent, nisi prius eas dimitterent. De Hierosolymitano itinere multum rogavit ut irent et fratribus suis laborantibus succerrerent.

Canonical reforms, the Schism, and the Crusades were his principal concerns. But he did not live to hear of the success of his monstrous project, the capture of Jersualem by the Crusaders on July 15, 1099. Pandulph of Pisa adds that he was determined in opposing heretical dogma—by which is also meant the schism of Guibert (Wibertus, Antipope Celestine III) and the excommunicate Emperor Henry IV (Muratori RIS III., 352). He died on July 29, 1099 (JL, p. 701; or July 28, according to Ordericus Vitalis, wrongly), at the Church of S. Nicholas in Carcere Tulliano, in the house of Petrus Leonis. He was buried in the Vatican Basilica (according to Pandulphus Pisanus: Muratori, RIS III.1, p. 352 column 2; Petrus Pisanus: Watterich I, 574 and n. 5; Baronius-Theiner 18, sub anno 1099, xxiv, p. 92 and xxxix, pp. 95-96), or in the Lateran Basilica (according to Bernardus Guidonis: Muratori, RIS III.1, p. 354 column 2—wrongly).

The Cardinals

A firm and accurate list of the cardinals at the time of the decease of Urban II, is the first desideratum. Panvinio's list of Cardinals created by Urban II (Epitome Pontificum Romanorum [Venetiis 1572], pp. 77-79) provided a start, but ultimately he did not probe very deeply. He lists thirty cardinals, but cannot name six of them, and likewise cannot provide tituli or deaconries for six. The names of the first four of the Cardinal Bishops are provided by Petrus (Pandulphus) Pisanus (Watterich II, 2). Ciaconius-Olduinus lists forty-one cardinals, an overflow of riches (columns 885-898). Dom Thierri Ruinart (Ouvrages posthumes de D. Jean Mabillon et de D. Thierri Ruinart Volume III [Paris 1724], 333-334 = Migne, Patrologiae 151, column 264) attempted to draw up a list of cardinals created by Urban II (1088-1099, at least thirty-seven in number, praeter ignotos. This is not, in any case, the number of cardinals present at the Election of 1099.

Salvador Miranda's list of Cardinals created by Urban II is riddled with errors and impossibilities. When it comes to the Election of 1099, he is content to name only four Cardinal Bishops (Ostia, Albano. Porto, and Palestrina) and two other bishops, Offo of Nepi and Bovo of Labico. In fact, the last two are mentioned by Pandulphus of Pisa only as participants in the Consecration of the new Pope as Bishop, not as electors [Watterich II, p. 2; Muratori, RIS 3. 1, p. 355; Baronius-Theiner 18, sub anno 1100, no. 6, p. 106]. Bruno of Segni is nowhere to be found; "The only absentee was Cardinal Bruno, bishop of Segni". In stating that he is the only absentee, Miranda presumably rejects the episcopates of Crescentius of Sabina and Joannes of Tusculum at the time of the Election of 1099. Ruinart, however, includes Cardinal Crescentius, Bishop of Sabina, and states that there were only five Cardinal Bishops: Odo, Galterius, Milo, Mauricius and Crescentius; he rightly does not include Offo or Bovo.

There is also a list of the schismatic cardinals of "Clement III" (Guibert, Wibert, Wiberto, of Ravenna) [Baronius-Theiner 20, sub anno 1198, nos. 10-11, p. 82], who held a synod in Rome in August of 1098. They had, of course, been excommunicaterd. by Urban II. They included two legitimate Cardinal Bishops: Adelbert of Silva Candida [Hüls, pp. 136-137] and John of Ostia [Hüls, p. 103]; as well as Hugo [Candidus] of Praeneste, who had been elevated from Cardinal Priest of S. Clemente [Hüls, pp. 158-160] by "Clement III".

The following is a tentative list of the cardinals who might have been eligible to participate in the Election of Paschal II   (though the Constitution of Nicholas II was still in effect, which gave the right to nominate exclusively to the Cardinal Bishops):

Others ( suggested by Ciaconius-Olduin, Cardella, or others )

• Robertus, Cardinal Priest in the titulus of S. ?Caeciliae?  This is a conjecture of Olduinus in Ciacconius, column 888, in place of 'Clementis'— which is impossible. Cardella (p. 189) insists that there were two Roberts of the same family, the Capizucchi, one created Cardinal of S. Clemente in 1097, and the other Cardinal Iohannes Robertus of S. Cecilia under Honorius II, created in 1127.  Cardella's information probably derived from an inscription in the Church of S. Maria in Porticu (S. Maria in Campitelli), where the burial chapel of the Capizucchi is located [V. Forcella, Inscrizioni delle chiese di Roma V (1874), p. 380 no. 1042;  P. Galletti, Inscriptiones Romanae infimae aetatis   I (Romae 1760), p. cclxxxi, no. 176]. The inscription was placed by Cardinal Raymundus Capizucchi, OP, in 1685, who built the new chapel and transferred the remains of his family thither.  It represents the ambitions of the Capizucchi family at the end of the 17th century, nearly six centuries after the alleged accomplishments of the early 11th century cardinals.   Actually the Cardinal of S. Caecilia in the 1120's was Cardinal Johannes, not Cardinal Robertus, and not Cardinal Ioannes Robertus; and this Johannes of S. Cecilia had been at the Lateran Synod of 1112, and his latest subscription was on May 7, 1128 [JL 7312]; he was succeeded by Goselinus or Jocelinus in 1129.  Cardinal Johannes could not, therefore, be the alleged Capizucchi cardinal, Ioannes Robertus. But neither of those Capizucchi, then, has a real existence as a cardinal. No Capizuccho was Cardinal of San Clemente. It is Cardinal Rainerius who is attested as Cardinal of S. Clemente since the reign of Gregory VII; he was elected Pope on August 13, 1099 [Migne PL 163, p. 31 no. 1; Watterich II, p. 17]. The only Robertus known is Robertus of S. Eusebio.
  
  
• Theodinus, OSB Cassin., said to be related to the Counts of the Marsi. Cardinal Deacon of S. Maria in Porticu, allegedly created in 1062. Promoted by Gregory VII to the post of Archdeacon, and said to have been transferred to the Deaconry of S. Maria in Domnica (Gregory VII, of course, had been Deacon of S. Maria in Domnica and Archdeacon). As Archdeacon, Theodinus witnessed the oath taken by Robert, Bishop of Chartres, in St. Peter's in April of 1076 [Registrum Gregorii VII, III. 17a; Jaffé (ed.) Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum II (Berlin 1865), pp. 232-233]. In 1084, he joined the schism of Wibertus of Ravenna ("Clement III"). [MGH SS Libelli 2, 369; Cardella I, 1, pp. 164-166; R. Hüls, Kardinäle, Klerus und Kirchen Roms: 1049-1130. (Tübingen: 1977), p. 254, no. 30). He subscribed for "Clement III" on November 4, 1084 [Monumenta ordinis Servorum Sanctae Mariae II (Bruxelles 1898), pp. 191-193]. He did not participate in the papal elections of 1086-1087 or 1099. He died in 1099 or 1100 [Cardella, 165].
  
  
• Jonatas (Gionata), Romanus, Cardinal Deacon of SS. Cosmae et Damiani, created by Urban II [Ciacconius-Olduin, 896; Cardella, 198-199]. The Annuaire pontifical catholique 1927 (p. 153 no. 67), states that he was created Cardinal Deacon by Urban II in 1099 and that he died ca. 1106, based on no evidence at all. Ciaconius-Olduin states that he subscribed documents in 1121 and 1123, and there was indeed a Cardinal Jonathas at SS. Cosmae et Damiani between 1121 and 1130, but he was preceded by Cardinal Petrus, who subscribed between March 24, 1116 and May 21, 1120. There are therefore, it seems, two Cardinal Jonatas. The first Cardinal Jonatas, the one in whom we are interested for the Election of August 13, 1099, was still subscribing on December 27, 1106 [Pressutti, Regesta Honorii Papae III   I (Roma 1888), p. lxviii:] When he was created Cardinal is the question. This first Jonatas, however, is not registered by Hüls, p. 224.
  
  
• Rangerius, OSB, Archbishop of Reggio Calabria (Regiensis). He began his ecclesiastical career as a monk at Majoris-Monasterii, at Marmoutiers, just outside Tours. He was made Archbishop of Reggio Calabria ca. 1190 [Ughelli 9, 324-325]. Rangerius was, in the received opinion, a cardinal, created by Urban II in 1091 [See Kehr, Italia Pontificia 10, p. 22], though his titulus is unknown. If he was created a cardinal at all by Urban II, he was not present at the Election of 1088.   In August, 1092, he attended a judicial hearing in the presence of Pope Urban II, concerning Duke Roger of Sicily's deposition of a legitimate archdeacon at the Cathedral of S. Maria de Domno and substitution of one of his creatures [Pflugk-Harttung, Acta pontificum Romanorum inedita 2, pp. 149-150 no. 184]; in the text he is Rangerio Regino archiepiscopo, and in the subscription Rangerius Regiensis archiepiscopus; there is no mention of his cardinalate, nor indeed should there be, but, of the four suscribers, he signs as Archbishop after the two Cardinal Bishops who were present, and before Azo the Subdeacon. In the text of the same document are listed the names of Hubaldus BIshop of Sabina, Iohannes Tusculanensis, Bruno Segnensis, and Rangerius Reginus. The text proves nothing, except that Rangerius was Archbishop of Reggio Calabria, and a local metropolitan.  On September 5, 1192, Pope Urban II and sixteen cardinals took part in the dedication of the Monastery SS. Trinitatis Cavensis and its basilica, and Rangerius consecrated the collegiate church of S. Maria de Cava in the nearby village [Muratori Rerum Italicarum Scriptores VI, 237-240; JL p. 670; Kehr IP 8, 36, though Kehr's lemma is tendentious]; there is actually no mention of his cardinalate (and the surviving grant of indulgences is spurious).  Rangerius' name occurs after that of Bruno of Segni and before Gerardus of Troja and Johannes Rapollanus, i.e. among the bishops and before the Cardinal Priests. No one has ever claimed that Johannes of Rapolla was a Cardinal; he and Bruno, though, were bishops immediately dependent upon the Holy See. The evidence does not support the claim of a cardinalate   In the first week of March, 1095, he was present at the Synod of Piacenza [Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum 20, 804], though his notice leaves something to be desired; he appears between the BIshop of Imola and the Patriarch of Venice: Rodulfus Reginus archiepiscopus subscripsi.  And there is no mention of his cardinalate; he is just a bishop.
        He travelled to France with Pope Urban (perhaps as a favorite, perhaps as someone who might have influence on the French nobility), and was present at the Council of Clermont in 1095 [Recueil des historiens des Gaules 14, p. 99; JL 5587], when the disputes between the Monastery of Majoris-Monasterii and Archbishop Rodulfus of Tours were examined, assistente pariter domino abbate nostro B(ernardo), de monachis nostris domino Rangerio cardinali, qui fuit Regiensis archiepiscopus [Notitia seu Libellus de tribulationibus , et angustiis, et persecutionibus, Majori-Monsterio injuste illatis ab archiepiscopis et clericis S. Mauricii Turonensis; et de adquisitione et renovatione privilegii et libertatis ejusdem ecclesiae, in: Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules 14, p. 98]. It is his friends from his old monastery (who are not disinterested in his prestige) who salute him as Cardinal. In a bull of Pope Calixtus II of September 24, 1119 [JL 6743], recalling the visit of Urban II, the pope's suite included Hugone Ludgunensi, Alato Burdegalensi archiepiscopis et tunc temporis Ecclesiae Romanae legatis; Brunone Segniensi et Rangerio Lucano episcopis; et Johanne Cajetano ejusdem Romanae Ecclesiae diacono cardinali ac bibliothecario. Here, too, there is no mention of a cardinalate.
        On January 10, 1096, Rangerius was present at the consecration of the high altar of the Monastery of Carrofum (Charroux). Huic siquidem operi affuerunt domnus Amatus Burdegalensis archiepiscopus sanctaeque sedis Romanae legatus, Hugo Lugdunensis archiepiscopus similiterque legatus, Daimbertus Pisarum archiepiscopus, Raingerus quoque [Rhegiensis] archiepiscopus, Petrus Pictavorum, Bruno Signiensis episcopus, Johannes cardinalis diaconus [Recueil des historiens des Gaules 14, pp. 102-103]. No cardinalate is mentioned, but then neither is Hughes of Lyons'. But now Rangerius' name appears ahead of Bruno of Segni.
        Rangerius was present as well on March 10, 1096 at the consecration of the Monastery of Majoris-Monasterii, whose basilica was dedicated to SS. Peter, Paul, and Martin of Tours [Recueil des historiens des Gaules 14, pp. 99-100; MGH SS 26, 461]. The narration of the consecration indicates that Rangerius became a cardinal after the issue and sending of a privilegium from Rome and before he became Archbishop of Reggio Calabria (April 16,1190, JL 5435) This privilege had been requested per manus reverendorum fratrum nostrorum domni Bernardi Remensis, cognomento Pontii, tunc prioris nostri, domnique Rangerii, qui postea presbyter cardinalis S.R.E. ac deinde Regiensis archiepiscopus fuit, et in praefato concilio ut archiepiscopus et cardinalis sedit. It is an author or two from his old monastery (who are not disinterested in his prestige) who salute him as Cardinal.
        According to R. Hüls [Kardinäle, Klerus und Kirchen Roms: 1049-1130. (Tübingen: 1977), p. 207-209, no. 2], he died shortly after July 20, 1096. If so, he was certainly not present at the Election of 1099. Subsequent notices to him would represent a confusion between his name and that of his successor, Archbishop Rogerius.   Rangerius (or his successor, Rogerius) was present at the Council of Guastalla in 1106 [Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 20 (Venetiis 1776), column 1212]. Paul Kehr [ IP 8, p. 23] believes that Rangerius is to be distinguished from Archbishop Rogerius, his successor, who was present at the Lateran Council of 1112. In the opinion of Klaus Ganzer, Die Entwicklung des auswärtigen Kardinalats im hohen Mittelalter (Tübingen 1963), p. 49, the cardinalate of Archbishop Rangerius is very doubtful.
        Hüls, p. 207-209, makes Archbishop Rangerius the Cardinal Priest of S. Susanna, on the basis of JL 5658 (signed at the Monastery of S. Egidio, on July 20, 1096). The document, however, is known only through a copy written into the Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Sernin de Toulouse, published by Canon C. Douais (Paris 1887), not from the original.   It cannot be missed that the knowledge of Rangerius' cardinalate is confined to two Benedictine houses in the city of Toulouse, in one of which Rangerius had begun his religious career. But in any case, Cardinal Benedictus of S. Susanna, who is known from a document of 1092 [Historia Consecrationis Sacri Monasterii Sanctissimae Trinitatis Cavensis solemniter factae a beatae memoriae Urbano Papa Secundo anno Domini MXCII, die quinta Septembris (Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores VI, 237-240)], is also mentioned in a document of June, 1098 (JL 5705). This excludes the presence of Archbishop Rangerius at the cardinalatial titulus of S. Susanna between 1092 and 1098. And if, as Hüls argues, Rangerius died shortly after July 20, 1096, his tenure seems impossible. Equally impossible would be his presence at the Election of 1099. Hüls (p. 209) has missed some of the facts. Ganzer is on more solid ground.
  
  
• Bernardus, Cardinal Deacon [known to Cardella (p. 197) only from a single bull of Paschal II, which noted no deaconry; Annuaire pontifical catholique 1927 [(Paris 1928), p. 154 no. 74]. Salvador Miranda, however, claims on the authority of the Annuaire pontifical catholique 1927 [(Paris 1928), p. 148, no. 29] that a Cardinal Berardo was created Cardinal Deacon of S. Adriano in 1075 and opted for S. Angelo in Pescheria "toward 1090", which he held until 1107. This translation is necessary to take account of Cardinal Petrus of S. Adriano, who subscribed on September 15, 1092 [Migne PL 151, columns 348, 352].
        However, the Berardus of S. Angelo in Pescheria, which the Annuaire and Miranda, presume to be the same Berardus who had been promoted from S. Adriano "ca. 1090", had a predecessor named Gregorius who subscribed on December 27, 1106 [P. Pressutti , Regesta Honorii Papae III   I (Roma 1888), p. lxviii], and therefore Berardus could not have held the Deaconry from ca. 1190 to 1107. Berardus of S. Angelo in Pescheria begins to subscribe on February 24, 1107 [PL 163, p. 206; JL 6125] and also subscribes on September 1, 1107 [JL 6165]. In September, 1109, he became Cardinal Priest of S. Crisogono [Hüls, 222]. He was promoted to the See of the Marsi in the Abruzzi in 1110 [Loud, Latin Church, p. 217]. One would have to create yet another Berardus before Cardinal Gregory of S. Angelo. The musings of the Annuaire and Miranda, therefore, are unlikely. The "promotion" of Berardus obviously conflates two separate persons named Berardus. Is Bernardus the Cardinal Deacon under Paschal II yet a third person? He cannot be either of the two Cardinals Berardus, the earlier one created "ca. 1190" and supersceded at S. Adriano by 1192 by Cardinal Petrus; and the other of whom was not yet Cardinal of S. Angelo until 1107. Was a Cardinal Deacon Bernardus or a Berardus eligible to take part in the Election of August, 1099? [no]
        Unfortunately Cardella does not provide a reference for his Cardinal Bernardus of unknown diaconate, speaking only of a bull in favor of S. Benedetto di Mantova. All of the materials relevant to the Monastery of S. Benedetto (S. Benedictus super Padum) [Kehr, Italia Pontificia 7. 1, pp. 331-333, nos. 11-16], concern Cardinal Bernardus, the Cardinal Priest of S. Crisogono, who was Apostolic Legate and Vicar of Paschal II in Lombardy and adjacent territories from 1101-1105. Cardella evidently made a mistake in calling Bernardus a Cardinal Deacon.   Our conclusion must be, then, that the first Bernardus should be deleted, and the second is not in office until 1107. There was, therefore, no Cardinal Bernardus at the Election of 1099.
  
  
• Landulfus Rangone [Mutinus], Cardinal Priest in the titulus of S. Lorenzo in Lucina. (a privilege given at Parma, November 2, 1106: JL 6098) [Ciacconius-Olduin, 894]; he is also mentioned in a bull issued at Souvigny on June 6, 1107 [Migne, PL 163, 221], and another on July 25, 1107 [Migne, PL 163, 224; JL 6161]. He subscribed at Benevento on April 20, 1117 [Kehr, IP 8, 252 no. 23]. He died (according to Falco of Benevento) on August 4, 1119. It is not possible that his predecessor was "Cardinal Bovo"— who survived to at least 1111 (see below, under "Others", on Bovo). Landulphus was a real cardinal, but there is no evidence that he was in his titulus at any time near the Election of August 13, 1099, or for seven years thereafter.
  
  
• Amicus, OSB, Cardinal Priest in the titulus of S. Crucis in Jerusalem [Ciacconius-Olduin, 889; Cardella, 191]. He subscribed on December 27, 1106 [Pressutti, Regesta Honorii Papae III   I (Roma 1888), p. lxviii]. A real cardinal, but there is no evidence at all that places him in the reign of Urban II.
  
  
• Comes (Cosma), Mediolanensis, Cardinal Deacon of S. Maria in Aquiro [Ciacconius-Olduin, 896;Cardella, 199; Panvinius believed he was a creation of Paschal II]. Salvador Miranda lists his creation under 1088, that is, that Cardinal Comes was a creation of Urban II. His subscriptions, however, begin in 1116 [Hüls, p. 231]. He was present, according to Pandulphus Pisanus, at the Election of Pope Gelasius II in 1118. He did not participate in the Election of Calixtus II at Cluny on February 2, 1119, but he was one of the Cardinals in Rome who consented to the election. Promoted by Honorius II to S. Sabina (1226-1230), he followed Pope Anacletus II (Petrus Petri Leonis) in the schism of 1130-1138, rather than Gregory Papareschi (Innocent II). When Pope Anacletus died in 1138, he was received by Innocent II and named Cardinal Priest of S. Pietro in vincoli {Brixius, p. 32 no. 8, 72-73, and 136], but he was treacherously deposed in the Lateran Council of 1139. It is highly doubtful that he was a cardinal at the time of the Election of August 13, 1099.
  
  
• Risus, Cardinal Priest in the titulus of S. Lorenzo in Damaso (Consecrated Archbishop of Bari on August 1, 1105 by Paschal II [Cappelletti, Chiese d' Italia 21, p. 13; Cardella, 193; Ughelli Italia Sacra 7 (1721) 614-618]). He was present at Gaeta in March of 1118 with Gelasius II after the flight from Rome [Watterich II, p. 98]. He died in 1118, not in 1117 (as Falco of Benevento has it). [Hüls, pp. 179].  He was succeeded by Cardinal Deusdedit who seems to have begun subscribing by May 24, 1116—an anomaly which Hüls does not address. Though included as a Cardinal of Urban II, the long interval until his earliest subscription does not lend any confidence at all to the assertion of his participation in the Election of 1099.
  
  
• Bonifacius, Cardinal Priest in the titulus of S. Marci.  He was present at the Council of Guastalla on October 22, 1106 [Mansi , Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 20 (Venetiis 1776), column 1212], but it is only a vague statement by Ciaconius-Olduin that makes him a creation of Urban II [Ciaconius-Olduin, 889-890; Cardella, 191-192].   Hüls (p. 186) states, without providing positive evidence, "Er hat seine Titelkirche spätestens 1100 erhalten."   But that does not make him a Cardinal at the Election of August 13, 1099.
  
  
• Ciaconius-Olduin also list Paulus Gentili, Cardinal Priest in the titulus of S. Sixti, as a creature of Urban II, but with no documentary proof at all [Ciacconius-Olduin, 889; Cardella, 191] Subscribed December 27, 1106 [Pressutti, Regesta Honorii Papae III   I (Roma 1888), p. lxviii]
  
  
• Azo [Ciacconius-Olduin, 895; and Cardella, 198. They identify him as being present at the Council of Guastalla (Lombardy), October 22, 1106: JL, p. 726; Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum 20, column 43, under the name Aldo]. He was Archpriest of S. Peter's Basilica on May 23, 1103: Archivio della R. Societa Romana di storia patria 25 (1902), 273, but he does not use the title cardinal in the document: Ego quidem presbyter Azzo, rector ecclesiae sancti Petri et de quattuor monasteriorum [sic]. In the subscription he is presbyter Azzo. One may well doubt both the cardinalate and the archpresbyterate.
  
  
  
  
• Offo, Bishop of Nepi (Nepi was a immediate suffragan of the pope in the Roman Province: Eubel I, p. 540). It is claimed that he was Cardinal Priest of S. Pudenziana (Cappelletti, Le chiese d' Italia Vol. 6, p. 213, derived from Ciacconius). This is impossible, since the incumbent at S. Pudenziana was Cardinal Benedictus, who had held the title since the reign of Gregory VII. A bull of Paschal II was subscribed by Offo Bishop of Nepi on May 11, 1112 [Kehr, Nachrichten von der k. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen . Phil.-hist. Klasse (1900), no. 11, p. 155-157]. There was actually one Cardinal Bishop of Nepi, Alberto, but he was a creation of the Antipope Clement III (Guiberto, Wibertus, of Ravenna) and participated in the schismatic Synod of Rome in 1098. In fact, Offo was just a bishop, who as suffragan of the See of Rome, and perhaps as an exile from his own see, participated in the consecration of Paschal II; though there is no evidence that he participated in the Election.
  
  

• Bruno of Asti (Astiensis), or Segni (Signiensis) [Ganzer, pp. 57-62]. He was made Bishop at the request of Pope Gregory VII [Vita anonymi, AA SS Julii 4, p. 481]. He first appears (His name is reported as Brunus episcopus Segninus !) on March 4, 1082 at the Lateran Synod of that year, listed last among the bishops [Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima editio 20, 578; JL, p. 642; Z. Zafarana, "Sul «conventus» del clero romano nel maggio, 1082," Studi medievali 7 (1966), 399 ff.]. He appears to have engaged in an intense struggle with the Count of Segni, Adolfo, who was a supporter of Henry IV. Bruno was imprisoned. The notion that Bruno of Segni was a cardinal is derived from a letter of Urban II [Stephanus Baluzius (Étienne Baluze), Miscellaneorum Liber Sextus (Paris 1683), pages 527-530], in which the Pope mentions that he was one of the Episcopi et Cardinales who were present at his election.  The list, it must be noted, is not a list of the Electors, but of those who gave their approval (the four abbots and many religious had no part in a papal election),
  "Notum itaque facimus dilectioni vestrae quod apud Terracinam Campaniae civitatem sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Episcopi et Cardinales, Portuensis videlicet, Sabinensis, Tusculanus, Albanensis, et Signensis cum aliis Episcopis numero XVI. et Abbatibus quatuor aliisque quam plurimis viris religiosis convenientes, cum Portuensis Episcopus omnium Romanorum clericorum catholicae parti faventium se legatum diceret, Abbas vero Cassinensis Cardinalis Diaconus caeterorum Diaconorum, P. quoque Cardinalis tituli Sancti Clementis omnium Cardinalium, Praefectus autem urbis laicorum omnium se ferre assereret legationem...."
  It has been taken that "Sigonensis" goes with the list of cardinals preceding, making Bruno a Cardinal, but the names that include Bruno are the names of bishops, and there were sixteen more (or twenty-one, in a letter to the Archbishop of Salzburg) of them at the event. Bruno of Segni is just another Bishop, albeit the most prominent one after the suburbicarian Bishops. This would be in accord with the statement of Petrus Diaconus that there were three bishops in Terracina in addition to Odo, Bishop of Ostia, in the process of the election [Migne, Patrologiae 173, column 826]:
  Dominica itaque die [March 12, 1088], valde mane, omnes iterum in eadem ecclesia congregati, cum inter se pariter nonnulla de re huiuscemodi tractavissent, exurgentes tres cardinales episcopi, qui caput eiusdem concilii erant, Portuensis scilicet, Tusculanensis et Albanensis ambonem ascenderunt factoque silentio uno simul ore pronuntiant, Ottonem episcopum placere sibi in Romanum Pontificem eligendum.
  In fact, he was a direct suffragan of the Pope in the Roman province.
  
        There is no reference to the creation of a "Cardinal" Bruno of Segni, though Salvador Miranda inserts him as the one and only cardinal of Victor III in 1187 (which itself is untrue). This is because Victor III is said to have made Bruno of Segni his Chancellor and the Bibliothecarius S. R. E.   In JL 5345 [Ughelli, Italia Sacra I, 1182; Kehr, IP 8, p. 402 no. 2], however, when Bruno signs he provides the date notation: Dat.Capuae p.m.Signien. ep. Rom. vero eccl. bibl., without any reference to a cardinalate or chancellorship. Moreover, he is datary only in 1087 and there are exceedingly few surviving documents which he supervised. By July 1, 1089, Cardinal Giovanni Gaetani, Cardinal Deacon of S. Maria in Cosmedin, was Papal Chancellor. [JL 5401; Hüls, 232]; as Subdeacon, he had been Prosignator of Urban II [JL 5365 (August 23, 1088)]. And it is Cardinal Johannes who is Bibliothecarius under Paschal II [JL 5818 (February 4, 1100)]. The position of Bibliothecarius S. R. E. had been given by Pope Benedict IX in November, 1037, to the Bishops of Silva-Candida  perpetuo  [Ughelli-Colet Italia sacra I, p. 106C; JL 4110; Kehr IP II, p. 26 no. 4], but only Humbertus and Mainardus (who died after August 8, 1074) held the position, which then passed to others, despite the alleged grant in perpetuo.
       Otherwise in subscriptiones, Bruno of Segni never signs himself as a Cardinal (of course), though his name appears (quite properly and quite frequently) among the bishops, some of whom might well be Cardinals; it is the same with other archbishops and bishops who likewise were never cardinals. Indeed in a bull of March 14, 1096 [Migne, Patrologiae 151, columns 449-450], Bruno of Segni is listed distinctly separately from "nostris cardinalibus" and as "praesentibus Brunone Signiensi episcopo, et Ingelramno Suessionensis ecclesiae archidiacono...." Furthermore, Bruno's name in subscription lists is never found above those of the seven suburbicarian bishops, and sometimes far below them, even though he quickly became far senior in age and service to any of them; he obviously did not have the seniority of a cardinal. Neither is the title of cardinal mentioned in Bruno's notice in the "Liber de viris illustribus Casinensis coenobii" of Peter the Deacon [Migne, PL 173, 1040-1042]; Leo Marsicanus is mentioned.as a cardinal, and so is Desiderius, Roscemannus, Oderisius and others, either in the "Liber" or the "Chronicon".
        On June 16, 1106, Bruno, Bishop of Segni, was legatus ecclesiae Romanae (or Romanae Sedis vicarius) at a council at Poitiers [Martène-Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum 4 (Paris 1717), 127-132; Chronicon Malleacense; Suger, Vita Ludovici Crassi 9; Bouquet-Brial, Recueil des historiens des Gaules 14 (Paris 1806), p. 810].
        But Bruno renounced his episcopal throne and retired to Montecassino, where, however, he was elected Abbot in November of 1107, a position which he held until September of 1111, when the pleas of his former charges in Segni brought his return to the episcopal throne—an odd occurrence for a bishop simply to leave his see, unless his flock were extremely small or in the hands of schismatics. There is no account of whether he had a successor or a substitute at Segni while he was a monk at Montecassino. Bruno of Segni was present at the Lateran Synod of March 18-23, 1112 [JL p. 745], where his name occurs last among the bishops, well below the five cardinal-bishops whose names head the list: "B. Signiens. et alii fere centum episcopi" [Baronius-Theiner 18, sub anno 1112, no. 9, p. 227]. He appears still to be the Bishop of Segni. He was also present at the Lateran Council of March 6-11, 1116, and spoke on the fourth day [Baronius-Theiner 18, sub anno 1116, no. 3, p. 259; JL 761-762].
        Bruno of Segni is not present, however, at the Election of 1118, or at least there is no mention of him; Pandulphus Pisanus, who was a member of the papal court, provides a list of the cardinals who were present [Baronius-Theiner sub anno 1118, no. 4, p. 286; Muratori RIS III.1, 389; Watterich II, 94-95], but his name is not among them. Pandulphus mentions four of the six cardinal bishops as being present [Petrus of Porto, Crescentius of Sabina, Lambertus of Ostia, and Vitalis of Albano]; Cono of Palestrina is not mentioned [he was legate in Germany], nor is Johannes of Tusculum. If Bruno were a cardinal, he would have been the senior bishop and would have presided at the Election of 1118. If he was not "Cardinal Bishop" Bruno of Segni; it is quite understandable that he missed another papal election (even though the electors sent to Montecassino after the death of Pope Paschal for Cardinal Johannes Gaetani and awaited his arrival before beginning deliberations).
        Bruno died at Segni in 1125, according to Cardinal Baronius, and was buried in the Cathedral [Baronius-Theiner 18, sub anno 1125, no. 14, p. 376]. Pope Honorius III was of a different opinion however. He spent June through August, 1223, in Segni, and there he dedicated an altar on July 16: anno centestimo post obitum B. Brunonis episcopi et confessori Signiae dedicatum fuit altare ipsius Brunonis existens in ecclesia Signina ad honorem ejusdem Sancti, per manus supradicti Summi Pontificis.... [AA SS Julii Tomus IV, p. 476F; and cf. Potthast Regesta, pp. 608-612; Hüls, p. 129]. Bruno actually died in 1123.
        Bishop Bruno is enshrined in the Jesuit Acta Sanctorum in the 4th volume of July (Antwerp 1725), under July 18, at pp. 471-488 [article by J(oannes) B(aptista) S(ollerius), SJ], where it is pointed out (p. 471A) that the Canons of the Cathedral of Siena (of whom Bruno was one) used the title "cardinal". The right to the use of "cardinal" in  other churches, specifically, the Church of Ravenna, is acknowledged by a letter of Pope Urban IV of March 18, 1262 [Potthast 18251], in which he takes tha archidiaconum et canonicos dictos Cardinales Ravennatis ecclesiae under his protection.
        The editor of Eadmer in Patrologia Vol 159, col. 1, n. (b),  also rejects Bruno's cardinalate.  R. Gregoire, Bruno's most recent biographer, also rejects (p. 33) the cardinalate of Bruno of Segni. One would be well advised to remove this example as proof of Klaus Ganzer's thesis of the existence of "external cardinals".
  
  
• The French have constructed a marvellous story, which makes Goffridus (Gaufridus) de Credone or Vindocini, (Geoffroy de Vendôme) OSB,  a Cardinal Priest in the titulus of S. Prisca [according to Jacques Sirmond (Migne PL 157, 9-10); Frizoni; Duchesne, Cardinaux françois, 62-64; ; Abbé Roy, Nouvelle histoire des cardinaux françois (Paris 1785); L. T. Compain, Essai sur Geoffroi de Vendôme (Paris 1891); MGH Libelli de lite 2 (1892) 676-677].  Cardella, 203-204, say he was a cardinal from 1094-1130; cf. Mabillon Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti V, pp. 232 ff. p. 312 (Mabillon does not call him cardinal)]. Olduin [Ciacconius-Olduin, 898 ad fin.] says, "Nos Goffridum Cardinalem ultimo loco enumeravimus, quia non omnes Scriptores illum Cardinalem nominant."
        The story is (according to Geoffroy's own narrative) that, hearing that Pope Urban II was oppressed and forced into hiding by his enemies, Geoffroy hastened to Rome and devoted himself and his earthly goods to the rescue of the pontiff and to installing him in the Lateran.  In fact, however, Geoffroy had to go to Rome anyway; he was a newly elected abbot (August 21, 1093), and his abbey of SS. Trinité de Vendôme was an allodium of the Patrimony of S. Peter [U. Robert, Etude sur les actes du Pape Calixte II, clii, no. 319A]. It was the right of the Pope, his direct feudal lord, to invest him in his office. Goffridus was certainly already in Rome on March 14, 1094, when he obtained a privilegium from Urban II for his monastery [JL 5511]. The famous rescue of Urban II seems to have taken place around March 26, 1094 [JL p. 674]. For his services Goffridus was ordained a priest and made Abbot and Cardinal of S. Prisca (according to the story) in 1194 [JL, 5714; Goffridus Epistolae I. viii = Migne PL 157, columns 47-48]. But he was certainly back in France by June, 1194, when he attended a council held by Hughes, Archbishop of Lyon and Papal Legate, at the Abbey of S. Florentius on June 24 for the purpose of dealing with Count Fulques of Anjou. Cardinal Hughes even mentions, in last place among the attendees, "Gaufridus Abbas Vindociensis" [Gallia Christiana IV instrumenta p. 10]. He was present at the Council of Cleremont in 1095 [Ep. II. 29 = PL 157, columns 99-100; see Mabillon, Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti V, p. 357, for a list of notables in attendance; Goffridus is listed far down among the abbots, but is not called a cardinal, unlike Cardinal Richard of S. Victor in Marseille, who heads the list of abbots and is called a cardinal]. Geoffroy was also present at the Roman Synod of Paschal II on March 12, 1102; on the day before the Synod he had obtained yet another privilegium for his old abbey of SS. Trinitatis Vindociniensis [JL 5899]. He was present at the consecration of the altar of S. Maria de Ronceio with Pope Calixtus II on September 7, 1119. In 1122, he and Cardinal Petrus Petri Leonis were sent throughout Gaul to invite the appropriate persons to a council which Calixtus intended to hold in 1123. He wrote to Pope Honorius II from his monastery in France that he would have liked to come to Rome and stay there, but his infirmitas corporis negavit effectum [Ep. I. 14; PL 157 column 55]. He died in Anjou on March 26, 1132. His successor was Abbot Fromond, who was never a cardinal either.
        The events are perhaps somewhat true  [but cf. H. Meinert, "Die Fälschungen Gottrfrieds von Vendôme," Archiv für Urkundenforschung 10 (1928) 232-325],  but the fact is that Geoffroy was not a cardinal.  He never subscribed a papal document. The subscriptions, in fact, show that Cardinal Romanus was Cardinal Priest of S. Prisca from 1101 [JL 5870; M. Lupus, Codex diplomaticus Bergomatis, II (1784), 829] to 1114 [JL 6371 (February 25, 1114)]; Cardinal Romanus attended the Lateran Synod of March 18, 1112 [Cardella I.1, p. 247].  Romanus' successor was Cardinal Gerardus, who was present at the election of Pope Gelasius in 1118 (according to Pandulphus Pisanus). Cardinal Gregory was Gerardus' successor at S. Prisca [JL 6886 (January 3, 1121)], and he was followed by Cardinal Petrus in 1121 [JL 6940 (December 28, 1121)], who held the titulus until 1129. Petrus was followed by Cardinal Henricus (in the Anacletan obedience) in 1130 [Zenker, p 94, no. 62], or by Cardinal Gregorius (Innocentian obedience) [Zenker, p. 95 no. 63], who is attested from 1135-1137. Gregorius was followed by Cardinal Rainerius, between 1139 and 1146 [Zenker, p. 95, no. 64].   None of these Cardinal Priests of S. Prisca was Abbot of S. Trinité de Vendôme.   Abbot Geoffroy himself says that he was made a priest and abbot of S. Prisca: eo tempore {1094] presbyter ordinatus, investituram de ecclesia B. Priscae per manum domini Papae recepi, quem praedecessores nostri longe ante possiderant [Ep. I. 14; PL 157 column 55]. He obviously means his Benedictine predecessors who were abbots of S. Prisca [Kehr, IP 1, p. 117] (one of whom, Odericus (Odricus), had been abbot of the Monastery of SS. Trinitatis Vindocinensis ca.1060s-d. 1082), but who was not a cardinal and never subscribed).
        Now Abbot Odericus, it is claimed, had obtained privileges from the popes in his time as well, one of which is mentioned in a letter of Pope Alexander II of July 1, 1066 [Mabillon, Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti IV (Lucca 1739), 692-693 and p. 620; Migne PL 146, column 1313, no. xxxiii, from the archive of the monastery at Vendôme; JL 4594; Métais, Cartulaire de l' Abbaye cardinale de la Trinité de Vendôme I (Paris 1893), clxxx, pp. 310-312]. The letter formalizes an agreement reached between Abbot Odericus and Archdeacon Heldiprandus, who was oeconomus coenobii Sancti Paulo, or (later in the document praedictus Heldiprandus archidiaconus ac Sancti Pauli rector cum monachorum Sancti Pauli generali capitulo consensu. The agreement transferred to the abbots of the monastery at Vendôme the church of S. Prisca on the Aventine, cum omnibus suis pertinentiis in perpetuum largiri ad utendum, fruendum, possidendumque dignitate cardinali..... "All the things pertaining to it", as the document makes clear, included the monastery. And the Abbot, Prior, and monks of S. Paulo fuori are not to bother the abbots of S. Trinité de Vendôme in their possession. Meinert pointed out that most, if not all, of the documents concerning S. Trinité de Vendôme attributed to Alexander II are forgeries [Compare the formula in Métais, Cartulaire de l' Abbaye cardinale de la Trinité de Vendôme II, ccclxvii, p. 116, which is without dignitate cardinali ]. Klaus Ganzer (pp. 26-27) is willing to consider this letter just quoted as authentic, but he points out that the abbots are not made cardinals tout court, but are given privileges and status (dignitas) as though they were cardinals. One must wonder, though, whether the phrase dignitate cardinali is not an interpolation. Indeed, the foundation documents of S. Trinité are exposed as forgeries by Jean de Launois, Ioannis Launoii Constantiensis Inquisitio in chartam fundationis et privilegia Vindocinensis monasterii (Paris 1661); and by Louis Halphen, "Étude critique sur les chartes de fondation et les principaux privilèges de la Trinité de Vendôme," Le Moyen-Age (Paris 1901), 69-112; a defense of sorts is attempted by Canon Métais, Cartulaire de l' Abbaye cardinale de la Trinité de Vendôme V (Paris 1904), pp. ix-xlv, especially xliii-xlv. He is answered, of course, by H. Meinert, "Die Fälschungen Gottrfrieds von Vendôme," Archiv für Urkundenforschung 10 (1928) 232-325. It may be pointed out that the confirmation of privileges by Paschal II, on March 11, 1103 (i.e. 1104) [Métais, Cartulaire II, ccccvii, pp. 162-166], makes no mention of the cardinalate or cardinalatial dignity. The confirmation of privileges granted by Calixtus II on October 8, 1119 [Métais, Cartulaire de l' Abbaye cardinale de la Trinité de Vendôme II, ccccxxxvi, pp. 211-213; JL 6747] says only ecclesiam Beatae-Priscae in monte Aventino sitam, quam cum universis pertinentiis suis praedicti domini nostri Alexandri papae concessione, praedecessores tui longo tempore possedisse noscuntur, tibi tuisque successoribus cum omni dignitate quae ad eandem ecclesiam pertinet confirmamus. There is no mention of the cardinalate or cardinalatial dignity. The claim does not reappear until Honorius III's bull of January 18, 1219, confirming all the previous charters [Métais, Cartulaire de l' Abbaye cardinale de la Trinité de Vendôme IV, dccclxxiv, pp. 31-32, known only from a notarized copy made at Vendôme in 1680]. Konrad Eubel reports that there was no known cardinal at S. Prisca between 1205 and 1305 [Conradus Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi I (Monasterii 1913), p. 45].
        But "cardinal" Odericus does not use the title cardinal or the customary greeting between two cardinals in writing to the Apostolic Legate in France, Cardinal Gerardus, Bishop of Ostia (1073-1077) in 1073; he is simply Odericus sanctae Trinitatis abbas [Mabillon V, p. 56; cf. Métais I, ccxxxv, pp. 368-369].  In April, 1075, Pope Gregory VII confirmed the grant of S. Prisca to the abbots [Métais, Cartulaire, cclii, pp. 398-402; JL 4992]: Concedimus etiam omnibus hujus loci abbatibus ecclesiam Beatae-Priscae cum dignitate cardinali, Sancti Spiritus judicio decernentes, et ut nulla deinceps ecclesiastica saecularisve persona praedictam Beatae-Priscae ecclesiam, seu ecclesiae dignitatem eis auferre qualibet occasione praesumat. Whether the phrase cum dignitate cardinali is original or interpolated is again the question; the document was written per manus Octaviani scrinarii et notarii Sacri Palatii in mense aprili, indictione XIV—a person otherwise unattested [cf. JL I, p. 594]. The confirmation of the privileges of S. Trinité granted by Urban II and addressed to Abbot Goffridus on March 14, 1093 [Métais II, cccxliv, pp. 74-77], does not mention the dignity of the cardinalate. Odericus' successors, Abbot David (who ruled for two years and two months, until August 6, 1085) and Abbot Berno [Mabillon V, pp. 186 and 232; he ruled until 1093], should have been "cardinals" just as Abbot Odericus and Abbot Geoffroy allegedly were, and yet they appear on no lists of cardinals. The cardinalate of the Abbots of Vendôme is certainly a fiction, and probably the "dignity of a cardinal" too.
        It is Abbot Geoffroy's admirers, misled by his forgeries, who have concluded that the Abbot of S. Prisca was actually a cardinal. But the monastery of S. Prisca was not the same as the titular Church, and, obviously, the Cardinal of S. Prisca was not necessarily the Abbot of S. Prisca (pace Kehr), as the careers of Cardinals Romanus and Gerardus clearly demonstrate. Geoffroy's alleged career as a cardinal does not square with the lists of subscriptions. Strangely (if he were a cardinal), there is no mention of him during Pope Gelasius' time in France in 1119, and no evidence that he participated in the Election of 1119. He did meet the new Pope Calixtus II, however, on September 7, 1119, when he was present at the dedication of an altar at S. Maria de Ronceio (Ronceray) in Angers [MGH Libelli de lite 2 (1892) 676-677; Recueil des historiens des Gaules XIV, p. 199-200]. Goffridus is listed last among the notables in attendance, far below several cardinals and after two archdeacons and a treasurer: Gaufredo Vindociensi abbate. Apparently the dignitas of a cardinal granted to Oderisius and his successors, if authentic, did not extend very far in practice. Ganzer would be well advised to remove this example as proof of his thesis of the existence of "external cardinals".   The term "cardinal", it appears, was appropriate for any ecclesiastical establishment which depended directly on the Papacy. There is even the case of  Facino dicto Cardinali, preposito ecclesie sancti Salvatoris de Lavania, Januensis diocesis,  whose eminence is accounted for when Pope Benedict mentions in his letter to Facinus  vacante siquidem nuper prepositura ecclesie sancti Salvatoris de Lavania, ad Romanam Ecclesiam nullo medio pertinentis, Januensis diocesis... [Registre de Benoit XI, no. 948, p. 567 (June 1, 1304)]. This is the sort of "cardinalate" that the Abbots of S. Trinité enjoyed, not the personal status of a Roman Cardinal Priest or Cardinal Deacon.
        Cardella [I.1, p. 197], contradicting himself, claims that the Cardinal of S. Prisca was Gregory of Pavia (Papiensis), from the time of Urban II to ca. 1122, which would overlap most of the time given to "Cardinal" Geoffroy de Vendome. Gregory of Pavia was certainly a cardinal. He was Apostolic legate at a synod in Milan on April 7, 1098 [Cappelletti, Le chiese d' Italia 11 (1856), p. 163; Kehr, IP 6. 1, p. 75 no. 4]. Cardella says he was at the Council of Guastella in 1106, but the subscriptions from that Council reveal that the Cardinal of S. Prisca was R(omanus), who was at S. Prisca by November 30, 1101, not Gregorius. Gregorius Papiensis was, however, present at a papal hearing at Tours on March 14, 1096 [Migne PL 151, column 449], but his church is not named. A year earlier, on March 10, 1095, a cardinal Gregorius diaconus Ticinensis (Pavia is on the River Ticino) took part in the dedication of the Church of the Monastery of Majoris Monasterii at Tours [Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules 14, pp. 99-100; MGH SS 26, 461]; he was certainly Gregorius Papiensis, and at the time it appears he was a Cardinal Deacon, not Cardinal Priest of S. Prisca.
  
  
• Joannes, Cardinal Deacon of S. Adriano [Ciacconius-Olduin, 897; Cardella, 203]. Ciaconius refers to a diploma of Urban II, issued at Salerno, in behalf of SSma Trinita de Cava [cf. Kehr, IP VIII, 317-324, several of which are forgeries, including nos. †11, and †12— in which a Joannes S.R.E. diac. card. is listed]. Or is this a paleographical confusion of a title of Joannes Gaetanus abbas S. Andreae, Cardinal Deacon of S. Maria in Cosmedin?   A Petrus of S. Adriano (Archpriest of S. Agnese), a cardinal of the schism of Archbishop Wibert of Ravenna, signed a bull of the antipope "Clement III" in 1099 [Hüls, p. 219].
  
  
• Joannes, Cardinal Deacon of (S. Maria in Domnica ?) [Ciacconius-Olduin, 895, no. xxxi; repeated by Cardella, 198]

Election

Before his death on July 29, 1099, Pope Urban had designated Cardinal Rainerius da Bieda to be his successor [Ekkehard of Aura, in Watterich I, 619; Holder, Designation, 56]:

Sed antequam ex hac vita migraret, spiritu instructus divino, Rainerum cardinalem de sancto Clemente, sanctae conversationis et boni testimonii abbatem, nobilem Romanum, designavit in regimen Apostolicum eligendum; quem etiam revelationibus aliis insuper denotatum, iniversa Romana ecclesia pastorem sibi consecrat, licet invitum, Paschalem appellans eum.

After the burial of Urban II, the Cardinals, Bishops, leaders of the city of Rome, the primiscrinarii and the scribae Regionarii met in the Church of S. Clemente, which was Cardinal Rainerius' titulus. Discussions took place on a number of issues, and then they began to discuss Cardinal Rainerius himself. He was greatly distressed when he realized what was happening, and he fled the scene and hid (quod compertum viro bono displicuit, volensque vitare fugit latuitque : Pandulphus Pisanus: Muratori, RIS 3. 1, p. 355 column 2). But the electors were determined, and he was not able to hide himself for very long. He was discovered, brought to the meeting, and lectured by the Patres to conform himself to the Will of God and accept his election: in te solo totius Ecclesiae quievit examinatio. He finally accepted, announced his name change, and was thrice acclaimed: Paschalem Papam Sanctus Petrus elegit.

He was then invested with the red cope (pulvinar, chlamys) and the tiara, and, accompanied by the crowd, conducted in procession to the Lateran Basilica.

Paschal himself mentions in a letter to Hughes of Cluny that he was elected on the 16th day after Urban's death, August 13, 1099 [Migne PL 163, p. 31 no. 1; Watterich II, p. 17]. Next day, Sunday August 14, he was consecrated bishop and crowned at the Vatican Basilica.

Coronation

A description of the Coronation of Pope Paschal II is provided by Pandulphus Pisanus (or Peter) [Watterich II, p. 2; Muratori, RIS 3. 1, p. 355; Baronius-Theiner 18, sub anno 1100, no. 6, p. 106]:

Die altero [August 14, 1099], mensis †sexti† XIV, die primo [Sunday], consecrandus in pontificem consecraturique pontifices cum frequentia populi plebisque basilicam beati Petri adeunt. Quorum nomina sunt haec: Oddo Ostiensis, Mauricius Portuensis, Gualterius Albanensis, †Bovo† Lavicanus, Milo Praenestinus, Offo Nepesinus. Et inter missarum solempnia loco et termino quo decuit manum sibi imponunt, primus in consecratione Oddo Ostiensis, qui ad hoc utitur pallio, et benedixit et linivit eum chrismate catholice. Igitur a catholicis et orthodoxis episcopis in pontificem consecratus, translato in se pallio, expletisque quae restabant misarum solemnibus, cum plenitudine laudum, cum ingenti applausu populi plebisque, cum alacritate Patrum ac Cleri Domnus Pascalis Papa secundus coronatus in Urbem rediit, convaluitque Ecclesia.

The ceremonies were presided over by four Cardinal Bishops: Odo of Ostia, Maurice of Porto, Walter of Albano, and Milo of Palestrina, assisted by the suffragan bishops of Labicano and Nepi. Odo of Châtillon, O. Clun. was the senior Cardinal Bishop, and took the lead in the ceremonies. It was his right as Bishop of Ostia to consecrate the Pope as bishop. No doubt some Cardinal Deacon read the Epistle in Greek and another the Gospel in Latin.

Bibliography

John Paul Adams, CSUN
john.p.adams@csun.edu