Reframing the Lives of Gelasius II, Calixtus II and Honorius II in the Context of the 1130 Schism

Abstract

During the 1130 schism, the Anacletian Cardinal Pandulf wrote three Lives of Gelasius II, Calixtus II and Honorius II. Historiography has usually read these Lives literally, as biographies. However, if they are considered in the light of the context in which they were written, our working hypothesis is that Pandulf created these Lives in order to support Anacletus and delegitimate his enemies. They therefore function as propaganda rather than as biographies. In this article passages from each Life will be presented that are significant in reading these works from the point of view of an Anacletian supporter in the context of the schism.

At the death of Pope Honorius ii in 1130, a group of cardinals gathered at the monastery of San Gregorio al Celio to elect Gregory, cardinal-deacon of Sant'Angelo in Pescheria, who took the name Innocent ii.¹ However, the majority of the cardinals did not agree with the unusual electoral procedures adopted in this case and instead chose Peter Pierleoni, cardinal-priest of Santa Maria in Trastevere as the new pontiff, with the name Anacletus ii.² While the Roman family of the Frangipane backed Innocent ii, Anacletus ii was supported by his own household, the Pierleoni.

This double election resulted in a schism that lasted until 1138. This clash has been understood through different historiographical models. The first interpretation, in ‘Das Ende des Reformpapsttum’, was proposed by Hans-Walter Klewitz, who saw the 1130 schism as a fight between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Gregorians. The old Gregorians consisted of the older cardinals, who fought against the emperors during the Investiture Contest, while the new Gregorians consisted of younger cardinals much more oriented towards a renewed collaboration with the empire after the Concordat of Worms (1122).³

Building on this model, Franz-Josef Schmale saw the schism as a fight between two parties with different views of the Church – one more compromised with the secular powers, and the other more spiritual and supported by the new monastic orders, such as the Cistercians.⁴ Hayden V. White also read the 1130 schism as a reaction against the so-called Gregorian Reform, towards a more spiritual Church.⁵ This Klewitz-Schmale view has dominated the historiography, and it is still current today.⁶ However, this model has been questioned by several scholars, including Pier Fausto Palumbo, Mary Stroll, Glauco M. Cantarella and Ian S. Robinson. They have shown how the conflict was not determined by different ecclesiological views of the Reform but was a political clash between the Roman families of the Frangipane and Pierleoni for the control of the papacy, together with an internal split among the cardinals. The real novelty was the European impact of the new role of the papacy and its internationalisation.⁷

During the schism, each faction spread propaganda to support its own candidate. Among the Anacletians, there was Pandulf, cardinal-deacon of SS Cosma e Damiano. There is only a small amount of information about him. He arrived in Rome with his uncle Hugh of Alatri, cardinal-priest of XII Apostoli, and was appointed exorcist and lector by Gelasius ii. In 1120–1, he was promoted subdeacon by Calixtus ii. There are only a few hints at his activity as an Anacletian cardinal. He followed Anacletus ii on his two journeys to Benevent in 1131 and 1135–7 and was among the subscribers to some of the extant documents produced by the chancery – he may have also written some of them. After Anacletus’ death in 1138, he completely disappears.⁸

During the schism, he continued the Liber pontificalis and wrote three Lives, of Gelasius ii, Calixtus ii and Honorius ii. The attribution to him of a fourth Life, of Paschal ii, is tricky, and this article will not deal with it,⁹ focusing instead on the Lives of Gelasius, Calixtus and Honorius. Historiography has usually read these Lives literally, as biographies. However, if they are considered in light of the context in which they were written, the 1130 schism, and building on the works of Louis Duchesne and Ian S. Robinson, among others, our working hypothesis is that Pandulf created these Lives in order to support Anacletus and delegitimate his enemies. Historiography has already argued for the value of chronicles as narratives framed in light of the political and ecclesiastical aims of their authors, as shown by the works of Maurice Halbwachs, Michael T. Clanchy, Chris Given-Wilson and Paolo Cammarosano.¹⁰ Applying this view to these papal Lives allows them to be read as works of propaganda rather than simply as biographies.

This article considers some passages from each Life that are significant if these works are read from the point of view of an Anacletian supporter in light of the schism. It is worth remembering that the schism was ongoing when the Lives were produced, and its outcome was uncertain: everything was still fluid.

The pope, the cardinals and the Roman aristocracy in Pandulf's Life of Gelasius II

‘All of them [the cardinals], in order to avoid the scandals which often take place during the elections due to our sins … gathered together.’¹¹

This is how Pandulf describes the gathering of the cardinals in Rome to elect the new pope Gelasius ii following the death of Paschal ii in January 1118.¹² Gelasius ii, the former chancellor John of Gaeta, seems to have been supported by various Roman families, such as the Pierleoni, Corsi, Boccapecora and Boboni, among others.¹³ Pandulf also tells us that the cardinal-bishop of Porto, Peter, was acting as the pope's vicar until the new election.¹⁴ The reference to usual scandals is very significant: to what was he referring? It is difficult to read this passage literally because the papal elections of his immediate predecessors, Urban ii and Paschal ii, did not lead to any particular objection aside from the clerics who were still rooting for Clement iii (Wibert, former archbishop of Ravenna), the pope elected in 1080 against Gregory vii with the support of the emperor Henry iv during the so-called Investiture Contest.¹⁵ The more closely contested election was that of Victor iii (abbot Desiderius of Montecassino) in 1086, more than thirty years before Gelasius ii, although this occurred in a very particular situation after the exile and death of Gregory vii in Salerno.¹⁶

Throughout the Life of Gelasius ii, Pandulf focuses on the city of Rome and on the Roman families rather than on the ongoing clash between the regnum and the sacerdotium. The scandals therefore seem to have belonged to this Roman context as well. If one reads the Life of Gelasius in light of the 1130 schism – which was already occurring when Pandulf wrote this piece of work – was the Anacletian cardinal referring to the situation following the double election of his time? Was this an attack against Innocent ii and his supporters? The scandalum during Gelasius’ election was caused by the Roman family of the Frangipane. And the Frangipane were the main supporters of Innocent in 1130.¹⁷

From the very beginning of Gelasius' Life, Pandulf seems to create the model for the perfect papal election. One of the topics stressed by the Anacletian is that of unanimitas, a criterion fully respected by the election of Gelasius, according to Pandulf's narrative.¹⁸ This clearly emerges from the list of electors included in the account, although it does present various issues. There is a problem of identification in the case of some of the cardinals who could not have actually participated in the election. Here are three examples: Pandulf includes in the list a certain Henry, cardinal-deacon of St Teodoro. However, according to Ulderico Přerovský, he was appointed as cardinal only in 1121.¹⁹ There is also Teobaldus Buccapecus, cardinal-priest of St Anastasia, who was promoted to that office only after 1121–2.²⁰ Last but not least, there is a cardinal-priest of SS Giovanni e Paolo: according to Rudolf Hüls, the only possible identification for this prelate is Niccolò, who held this office between 1112 and 1117, and in 1118, this title had already been given to Teobaldus.²¹

Furthermore, Pandulf tells us that there were eighteen cardinal-deacons and twenty-eight cardinal-priests. This latter number may be a further anachronism: Duchesne believed that the cardinal-priests numbered twenty-eight only during Calixtus' papacy.²²

Pandulf did not mention the names of all the cardinals; according to his list, there were nine cardinals (Peter cardinal-bishop of Porto, Boniface of San Marco, Desiderius of Santa Prassede, Peter cardinal-priest of Santa Susanna, Saxo cardinal-priest of Santo Stefano al Monte Celio, Sigizo cardinal-priest of San Sisto, Amicus cardinal-priest of SS Nereo and Achilleo, Gregory cardinal-deacon of Sant'Eustachio, Oderisius cardinal-deacon of Sant'Agata/later abbot of Montecassino as Oderisius ii) who then voted for Anacletus ii, while there were only three Innocentians (John of Crema cardinal-priest of San Crisogono, Conrad cardinal-priest of Santa Pudenziana/later cardinal-bishop of Sabina and Stephen cardinal-deacon of Santa Lucia in Orphea).²³ The Anacletian cardinal adopted a similar choice later on in this Life when listing the appointments of cardinals made by Gelasius; among these, he did not recall Romanus cardinal-deacon of St Maria in Portico, a future Innocentian.²⁴

The list of alleged electors thus appears to have been exaggerated: he even mentions the presence of some archbishops (a presence already criticised by Duchesne) together with the Roman clergy and lay members of the Roman elites.²⁵ Pandulf seems to depict a canonical and legitimate election, in accordance with both the eighth-century electoral procedures (‘electio per clerum et populum’) and with his interpretation of the 1059 Decretum in electione pape, a decree issued by Nicholas ii during an emergency situation to justify the procedures followed in his election:²⁶

Without any further delay he was chosen and praised by everybody including the bishops, who have not got any power in the election of the Roman pontiff but to approve or disapprove [the elect].²⁷

This assertion does not match the electoral procedures foreseen by the Decretum, which gave a key role to the cardinal-bishops in the election: ‘At death of the Pontiff of the Universal Roman Church, firstly the cardinal-bishops ought to discuss very scrupulously [the papal election], next they summon the cardinal-clerics [priests and deacons].’²⁸

Where did Pandulf turn his view, then? Stroll has argued that Pandulf's source is a letter written by Peter, cardinal-bishop of Porto, to his fellow cardinal-bishops right after the election of Anacletus ii,²⁹ whom he supported: ‘Ultimately, neither you nor I have the right to elect [the pope] but we can only disapprove or approve whoever has been elected by our brethren.’³⁰ Peter of Porto charged his fellow bishops with having appointed the new pope by themselves, without consulting either him or the majority of the other cardinals – to whom the choice of the candidate was entrusted, according to him.³¹

The role of the cardinal-bishops in the papal election had been problematic since the second half of the eleventh century.³² A second version of the Decretum, probably written in the milieu backing Clement iii, had already widened the right of election to all cardinals without any distinction between bishops, priests and deacons.³³ Building on Duchesne and Robinson, it can be suggested that Pandulf was using and re-shaping a long-standing ecclesiological quarrel in order to attack Innocent's faction. The majority of the cardinal-bishops indeed voted for Innocent ii, while Peter of Porto and Egidius of Tusculum were the only ones to support Anacletus. On the other hand, Anacletus gained the majority of the vote from the cardinal-priests and deacons – and this is why both Pandulf and Peter of Porto stressed the role of unanimitas. One of the main reasons adopted by the Anacletians to justify their choice was that he had been appointed as pope by the maior pars (the majority of the cardinals). On the other hand, the Innocentians claimed that their candidate was chosen by the sanior et melior pars (the best and wisest part).³⁴ Gelasius’ election was once again written taking into account the 1130 schism.

This conflict is further evidence that there was no consensus in Rome on papal electoral procedures. Already in the eleventh century, there were different positions on the Decretum, which was defended by Peter Damian (cardinal-bishop of Ostia) but rejected by Deusdedit, cardinal-priest of St Pietro in Vincoli and author of a canonical collection written at the end of Gregory vii's papacy. An agreement was only reached in 1179 during the Third Lateran Council, when Alexander iii established that the new pope should be elected by two-thirds of all the cardinals, without any distinction among them. If one candidate asserted that he was the right pope without meeting these provisions, he and his supporters were automatically excommunicated.³⁵

One last element worth considering is the role of the laity in the election of Gelasius ii. Together with Henry v, Pandulf depicts the Frangipane family as the main enemy of Gelasius and of peace in the city of Rome.³⁶ Chris Wickham has shown how the Frangipane were among what he calls the new Roman aristocracy of the twelfth century, a group of families fighting over the control of the papal election, the office on which every appointment and concession depended.³⁷ The Frangipane were in control of an area between the Coloseum, the Circus Maximus and the church of Santa Maria Nova. The church of Pallara (today San Sebastiano al Palatino, the Cassinese dependency in Rome), where the cardinals, according to Pandulf, first gathered, was exactly in the middle of this area. Pandulf adds that this church was chosen because it was considered extremely safe.³⁸ However, right after the election of Gelasius, Pandulf describes the Frangipane's assault resulting in the kidnapping of both the pope and the cardinals, who were rescued by other Roman families, such as the Pierleoni and the Normanni. The account is preceded by Pandulf's tirade against the wickedness of the Frangipane, where Leo Frangipane was even described as a dragon due to his violent behaviour.

When Gelasius was able to come back to Rome after his escape to Gaeta because of the approach of Henry v in March 1118, Pandulf tells us that the pope celebrated a mass in the church of Santa Maria in Secundicerio (also known as Santa Maria Egiziaca), at the invitation of the cardinal of Santa Maria in Prassede. This church was close to the houses of the Normanni and Corsi families, Gelasius’ allies, but also to Frangipane territory, and the Frangipane assaulted the pope once again.³⁹ Were they so naïve that they twice gathered in dangerous areas of Rome? Or had some changes taken place among the Roman families?

Wickham has argued that these episodes may have been constructed by Pandulf.⁴⁰ There might be some seeds of truth in this because lay families often interfered with papal elections (as in 1124 and in 1130), and changes of alliance among Roman families were frequent. The Normanni, depicted as supporting Gelasius ii,⁴¹ backed Maginulf/Sylvester iv against Paschal ii in 1105, according to the Annales Romani, and Gelasius had been Paschal's chancellor. On the other hand, Pandulf tends to divide Roman families into rigid blocks, for or against a pope, without taking into account the fluidity of the situation.⁴²

Reading this Life in light of the 1130 schism might help us to understand it. The Frangipane were the main supporters of Innocent ii and had a change of heart only later, after the flight of Innocent from Rome. Pandulf might thus criticise Innocent's supporters, depicting them as kidnappers of popes and close to the so-called antipopes. A similar hostility towards this family is present in the Life of Honorius ii as well.

Reframing Calixtus II's election in 1119

In March 1118, following the arrival of Henry v, Gelasius ii fled Rome and went to Gaeta, where he was consecrated pope. Meanwhile, the emperor appointed the archbishop of Braga, Maurice ‘Bourdin’, as Pope Gregory viii with the support of some of the Roman urban clergy and some lay families, such as the Frangipane. Gelasius ii briefly returned to Rome, but he could not control the city and was forced to leave again, accompanied by some cardinals. He died in Cluny at the end of January 1119, where, a few days later, Archbishop Guy of Vienne was elected pope as Calixtus ii.⁴³

In the Life of Calixtus, Pandulf once again depicted the events as the perfect election in an account far less complicated that of the appointment of Gelasius ii. According to his narrative, the election met all the exceptions considered in the 1059 Decretum. This decree acknowledged at least two main dispensations. First, the cardinals had the right to choose a candidate who was not a member of the Roman clergy. Second, if it was impossible to elect the pope in Rome,⁴⁴ the cardinals could appoint the new pontiff anywhere else, as happened in 1058 with the election in Florence of Nicholas ii who issued that very same Decretum. ⁴⁵ These exceptions could have been justified, invoking the principle of necessitas, by the emergency situation in 1119 when the election took place.⁴⁶

Pandulf also stressed that the election took place after the burial of Gelasius ii and highlights that Calixtus ii was elected and approved by all the cardinals, the whole clergy and the lay elites.⁴⁷ As in Gelasius’ case, Pandulf portrayed a legitimate and canonical election following both the procedures of the 1059 Decretum and also the old eighth-century papal dispositions that entrusted the appointment of the new pontiff to the whole Roman clergy and not only to the cardinals. These norms, of 769, also established that after the election, all the people of Rome (optimates and populus) should praise the newly elected pope as dominus omnium (‘lord of everyone’).⁴⁸ The Lives of the popes included in the original Liber pontificalis confirmed this double recognition (election/acclamation) by clerus et populus. ⁴⁹

However, according to other sources and as shown by Stroll, not all the cardinals followed Gelasius to Cluny. There are two different lists of electors. In the Life of Gelasius ii, Pandulf includes John of Crema of San Crisogono, Guido of Santa Balbina, Peter Pierleoni of SS Cosma and Damiano (the future Anacletus ii), Gregory of Sant'Angelo (the future Innocent ii), Roscimannus of San Giorgio in Velabro, Chrysogonus of San Nicola in Carcere Tulliano and the laymen Peter Latro and John Bellus, brethren of the Roman prefect Peter, among the people who went to Cluny with the pontiff.⁵⁰ A Cluniac charter issued by Gelasius ii in December 1118 mentions other names, such as Lambert, bishop of Ostia (the future Honorius ii), Conrad of Santa Pudenziana and Boso of Santa Anastasia.⁵¹ The presence of Lambert at Cluny is particularly significant because of the role entrusted to the bishop of Ostia. This bishop was the most important officiant during the ceremony of consecration of the new pontiff, a role highlighted by Pandulf himself later on.⁵²

It is true that, according to a further exception foreseen by the Decretum, the new pope could have been chosen only by the cardinals who were at hand at that moment.⁵³ However, this might not have been enough for Pandulf. Right after the choice of Guy of Vienne, the Anacletian recounts a mission to obtain the confirmation of the newly elected pope from the cardinals in Rome.⁵⁴ According to the Historia Compostelana (a history of the Iberian archdiocese of Santiago de Compostela written by different authors in the first half of the twelfth century), this mission was entrusted to Peter of Porto, but his presence in Cluny has been questioned by both Hüls and Zelina Zafarana.⁵⁵ It is worth stressing that while Pandulf's account meets the exception foreseen by the Decretum, the Historia Compostelana and Orderic Vitalis's Historia Ecclesiastica described a different election, in accordance with the preferable procedures included in the 1059 decree, especially the main role accorded the cardinal-bishops in the papal election.⁵⁶

The letter sent in 1119 by the Roman clergy to confirm Calixtus’ election is still extant, together with the subscriptions of the clerics. Among the names cited, there are only five (or six) cardinals, including Peter of Porto, but most of the senders were archpriests, abbots, priors and some exorcists, all members of the Roman urban clergy.⁵⁷ As argued by Tommaso di Carpegna, this local clergy was different and progressively separated from the Curia, which was mainly composed of cardinals. If one considers all the cardinals mentioned so far and the ones who were undertaking legatine missions (such as Cuno of Preneste in Germany), for the majority of them their position is not known.⁵⁸ The election of Calixtus may not have been as unanimous as Pandulf wanted to represent.

Once again, is it possible to read Pandulf's representation of Calixtus’ election in the context of the 1130 schism? Might his emphasis on unanimitas and the high number of cardinals present at the election mean that a restricted group of electors did not have the legitimacy to choose the new pontiff? Only six cardinals had elected Innocent ii, and that choice was without unanimity as well. Moreover, they did not ask for the approbation of the remaining cardinals, as occurred in 1119. Pandulf might indicate, then, that the remaining cardinals were ‘forced’ to elect Anacletus ii, as he was the only legitimate pope. Quoting Jochen Johrendt, the Anacletian cardinal blamed Innocent and his supporters for the schism, so much so that it would become an ‘Innocentian schism’.⁵⁹

According to Gelasius’ Life, the presence of Gregory of Sant'Angelo in Cluny might be a direct attack on Innocent ii himself. He was present at a canonical and legitimate election, but then, during his own election, he deliberately did not follow the correct procedures.⁶⁰ Even a small detail, such as the election taking place after the burial of Gelasius ii, might be further proof of Pandulf's careful reconstruction of Calixtus' election.⁶¹ A similar remark can be found in Gelasius’ Life. Pandulf described the election as the result of negotiations taking place sometime after the death of Paschal ii between Peter of Porto and the remaining cardinals, priests and deacons, according to his ecclesiological view of the election.⁶²

In the letter to his brethren the same cardinal-bishop of Porto accused the Innocentians of having elected the new pope while Honorius ii was still alive.⁶³ This charge was nothing new in cases of contested election. The election taking place after the death and burial of the old pontiff was part of the Roman ecclesiological tradition, as attested by Gregory vii's accounts of his 1073 election. While in the first version included in a letter sent to Wibert of Ravenna in April 1073, Gregory vii claimed that he had been appointed by the populus of Rome during the burial rites of Alexander ii, he later changed his version in the prologue to his Registrum. This time, he stated that he was elected by clerus et populus after the proper burial of his predecessor.⁶⁴ Pandulf may have condemned the Innocentians with the same accusation. His Life of Honorius ii ends with the description of the pope's irregular burial.⁶⁵ It is worth stressing that Innocent ii was the first to be elected in the 1130 double election.

There are other accounts of the election of Calixtus ii that are worth mentioning because they depict a different scenario than that described by Pandulf. The first version is included in the Historia Compostelana. This describes a certain degree of conflict between Guy of Vienne and Pontius, the abbot of Cluny. The Cluniac raised some doubts about the canonicity of the election because the choice was not valid if not approved by cardinals and clergy in Rome.⁶⁶ The source then mentions Peter of Porto's journey to Rome, as mentioned above. Some scholars, such as Stroll, have argued that Pontius may have been one of the candidates for the papacy.⁶⁷ Others read this as an attempt by him to play a major role in the very same election and in the choice of the appointee: the election indeed took place at Cluny.⁶⁸ Moreover, the Historia Compostelana mentions the presence of equites (knights or armed supporters) among the followers of Guy of Vienne.⁶⁹ The reference to possible disputes between them and the Romans may have been evidence of a certain degree of lay interference in this election.⁷⁰

The account in the Historia Compostelana is reasonably reliable. The clergy of Compostela was very close to Calixtus ii: on the one hand, the newly elected pope was a relative of Raymond of Burgundy, count of Galicia (†1107), and of Henry of Burgundy, count of Portugal (†1112); therefore, he was a kinsman of the rulers of the area surrounding Compostela. On the other hand, Calixtus would grant Diego Gelmírez the title of archbishop of Compostela. This account may also have benefitted from the information gathered through the strict relations between Compostela and Cluny, especially through the figure of Dalmatius Geret, Pontius’ plenipotentiary in the Iberian Peninsula, and the abbot of the Iberian Cluniac priory of Carrión. The rumours of some disagreement between Calixtus and Pontius seem to be confirmed by future events. In 1122, Calixtus accepted (or forced) the resignation of the abbot and, while Pontius undertook a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, the pontiff ordered the Cluniacs to elect a new abbot.⁷¹

The importance of laity for the definitive affirmation of Calixtus ii is also highlighted by a very peculiar source, the Annales Romani. Unlike the account of the triumphal arrival in Rome described by Pandulf,⁷² the Annales portrayed Calixtus in a bad light. The source relates that the pope was able to control Rome only thanks to the corruption perpetrated by Peter of Leo, the father of the future Anacletus ii, who bought the fidelity of Maurice ‘Bourdin’/Gregory viii's supporters who were controlling St Peter's. It may be that all these lay interferences were not mentioned by Pandulf because they undermined his attempt to portray the perfect election and also cast a poor light on Anacletus’ family.⁷³

Last but not least, it is worth stressing that the election of Calixtus played a major role in Pandulf's Life to the detriment of other achievements of this papacy, such as the capture of Gregory viii in Sutri (April 1121), which was crucial for Calixtus ii. The pope sent a letter to the bishops of Gaul to inform them of the event.⁷⁴ Moreover, the victory over the antipope was part of some frescos portraying the triumph of the legitimate popes over their rivals.⁷⁵ Second, the Concordat of Worms, which ended the Investiture Contest, is only hinted at here. The agreement and its negotiations should have played a major part, as in many other contemporary and later sources. Third, the First Lateran Council, where Worms was approved along with other dispositions such as the public damnatio memoriae of Gregory viii, is not even mentioned.⁷⁶ All these absences are quite suspicious if Pandulf was merely writing a biography of this pope.

The appointment of Honorius II in 1124: an irregular election?

Pandulf wrote one last Life, of Honorius ii, dated no later than the spring of 1138.⁷⁷ It is worth stressing that the schism was not over; it would end only with the death of Anacletus ii and the failed attempt of Victor iv to succeed him.⁷⁸ This biography should be considered a work of Anacletian propaganda; most of the topics considered in the Lives of Gelasius ii and Calixtus ii were also used here. However, in the case of Honorius’ Life, the arguments adopted are stronger and more polemical: perhaps a consequence of the ongoing struggle. The length and the detailed description of the 1124 election – a further example of a contested papal election – might exemplify this attitude. Pandulf's account is the only almost contemporary source for this election: there is no description of the event among Honorius’ letters.⁷⁹

Firstly, it is possible to acknowledge a change in how Honorius is treated. While in previous Lives, Lambert appeared as cardinal-bishop of Ostia and is mentioned in a neutral tone,⁸⁰ in this source Pandulf attacks him. Firstly, he compared him to a pig and an ox, ‘using the classical topos that outward appearance reveals the hidden inner character’, as pointed out by Carmela Vircillo Franklin.⁸¹ Then Pandulf claimed that he was able to cheat Pope Paschal ii when he was appointed cardinal-bishop: ‘Because he sometimes seemed to be rigid in justice, he was received by Pope Paschal and promoted to be bishop of [Ostia-]Velletri, since he seemed a bishop by his manner.’⁸²

Then the Anacletian begins the description of the election of the successor of Calixtus ii. The cardinals, together with Peter of Leo and Leo Frangipane, agree to wait three days before beginning the rite of papal election.⁸³ This is a reference to the ancient procedure per clerum et populum, already mentioned by Gregory vii in his first report of his own election in 1073.⁸⁴ Right from the beginning, Pandulf highlights the duplicity of Leo Frangipane, who was apparently supporting cardinal Saxo of Santo Stefano in Monte Celio, the candidate of the populus of Rome (and future chancellor of Anacletus ii), while secretly working to elect Lambert:

Leo Frangipane's reason for making this decision was so that, within the period he had been given, he could make up his mind rather more calmly about what he had been thinking about Lambert for quite a long time. The whole populus was asking him for Saxo, Cardinal of Santo Stefano, as their future Pope; and, to make it easier for him to deceive [them], Leo Frangipane pretended [to ask the same thing].⁸⁵

Moreover, the source recalls the reluctance of the cardinals to gather because they feared that what had happened with Gelasius ii and Cencius Frangipane would happen again. Only a ploy by Leo Frangipane broke through the situation. He convinced the prelates accompanying each cardinal to dress them with the cappa rubea underneath their dark cloaks, making them believe they would be elected pope: ‘Late that same day, however, Leo sent messengers separately to each of the cardinals’ chaplains, warning them in advance that they should be walking in front of their cardinal, without his knowledge, wearing a red cope underneath a black cloak.’⁸⁶

Once gathered, the cardinals, including Lambert, elected Teobaldus cardinal-priest of Santa Anastasia as Pope Celestine ii, dressing him with the cappa rubea (immantatio). The tone of the Vita suddenly changes with a remark from Pandulf: ‘Sed patitur Caelestis, ego nescio cur, aliquando quae nollet’ (‘but God now and then allows things he would not want [to happen]. I do not know why').⁸⁷ While Lambert was singing the Te Deum together with the assembly, the masnada (a kind of militia entrusted by Calixtus ii to Cencius Frangipane, as highlighted by Pandulf), led by Robert Frangipane, broke through the gathering, assaulting Celestine and electing Lambert as pope. Pandulf establishes a parallel with what had happened to Gelasius in 1118.⁸⁸ According to the Anacletian cardinal, the laity performed all the rites up to the point that Lambert was enthroned upside down, in contrast to Celestine's appointment, where the cardinals were the main characters.⁸⁹ Vircillo Franklin calls this a pantomime of a papal election.⁹⁰

The Anacletian cardinal therefore regards Honorius’ election as highly irregular. However, the author was not able completely to hide a certain level of support for the new pope. In addition to the Frangipane, the Life recalls the participation of Gregory Astaldi (a member of the Roman Astaldi family, which Wickham ascribes to the new urban elites)⁹¹ and of Uguccio Pierleoni, the son of Peter of Leo, who, on the contrary, is portrayed as agreeing to the election only because he is forced to do so by the masnada.⁹² The Pierleoni, especially through the behaviour of the head of their family, are depicted as ‘victims’ of the violence of the Frangipane, who would become the main supporters of Innocent ii in 1130.

A new gathering took place on Tiber Island, a territory belonging to the suburbicarian diocese of Porto and controlled by the Pierleoni, who were thus deeply involved in the negotiations around the election of the new pope, contrary to what the historiography has always believed.⁹³ During this meeting, the cardinal-bishop of Porto, Peter, asked Honorius ii to resign from the papacy. Pandulf mentions only one further cardinal, Peter of Pisa, cardinal-priest of Santa Susanna, who kept supporting Honorius ii, but his behaviour is almost justified by the writer, who asserts that Peter had second thoughts almost immediately.⁹⁴ It is worth remembering that Peter of Pisa would be one of the electors of Anacletus ii.⁹⁵

Further evidence of particular attention to the future Anacletian cardinals can also be seen in the passage of the Life where Pandulf describes the appointment of new cardinals created by Honorius ii. Although the author recalls the choice of only two future electors of Anacletus ii (Gregory of Santa Balbina and Matthew of Sant'Adriano) and three Innocentians (Peter of Santa Anastasia, Conrad of Santa Sabina, whom Pandulf wrongly calls Comes, and Guido of Santa Maria in via Lata), he omits the names of the newly appointed cardinal-bishops (Matthew of Albano and John of Ostia) who voted for Innocent ii in 1130.⁹⁶

Pandulf perseveres in portraying the Frangipane in a bad light. During the night (a literary topos because it was the time of deception), together with Haimeric, the chancellor of the Roman Church, they bribed the prefect of Rome, Peter (a member of the Corsi family⁹⁷), and Peter of Leo with the promise of future territorial gains; conversely, the remaining, reluctant, cardinals were promised that they would keep their honores. ⁹⁸ Only after this episode was Honorius ii finally recognised as pope, a choice that set the tone for the rest of the Life:

During the night Leo Frangipane and the chancellor Haimeric, first of all drew aside separately from the cardinals, and harnessed him, so to speak, to their plans, the prefect Peter, once he had been given the very strong fortress of Saint Peter of Formello, together with its treasures, then Peter of Leo, [who was given] Terracina with the remarkable, good stone fortifications … That same night they surrendered themselves and bound themselves by oath (even though not long afterwards during the day, he lost what he had received during the night because of the sinners’ cunning). They decided only this about the cardinals who had sold themselves that, provided they swore an oath, they could remain forever in their offices, at least in the ones they were holding. They swore and were paid … What more [can I say]? Whether they were willing or not, he was confirmed by everybody and extolled as Pope.⁹⁹

In this case, Haimeric, a future Innocentian, is described in a neutral way and not as the Deus ex machina of the papal elections of 1124 and 1130 as portrayed in the historiography.¹⁰⁰ Pandulf was not restrained when talking about the future supporters of Innocent ii. Could it be that Haimeric did not play such a decisive role in the 1130 schism?¹⁰¹ Or maybe this argument had lost some of its strength by this point in the schism?

The Life of Honorius ii and, in particular, the section concerning his election, thus emerges as a propaganda work. Most of the elements included in the Lives of Gelasius and Calixtus (such as the role of the cardinals and the way in which the Frangipane are portrayed) are adopted and developed here. The Anacletian cardinal also resorts to new arguments, such as an attack on Lambert/Honorius ii, instead of an emphasis on the role played by Haimeric. The Life is constructed in the light of the 1130 schism.

This article has argued that the Lives of Gelasius ii, Calixtus ii and Honorius ii should be read together in light of the 1130 schism, its development and Pandulf's support for Anacletus ii. They are therefore not merely historical accounts of the events between 1118 and the death of Honorius in 1130. A similar strategy would be adopted in Boso's version of the Liber pontificalis written in 1150s/1160s, as noticed by Susan Twyman.¹⁰²

It is worth highlighting the preponderance attributed by Pandulf to the accounts of the papal elections in all three Lives to the detriment of other events. The elections of Gelasius ii and Calixtus ii are carefully constructed to represent the perfect appointment of the new pontiffs. Since the procedures foreseen by the 1059 Decretum were not shared by all – one might even think that consent was the really decisive element in the election of a pope rather than the canonicity of the electoral procedure – Pandulf mixed elements from various methods of electing a pope (as testified by the presence of the cardinals, the clergy and the people of Rome) so that the appointments of neither Gelasius nor Calixtus could be criticised on procedural grounds. On the contrary, the choice of Honorius ii is represented as an irregular election performed by the laity and approved by most of the cardinals who would elect Innocent ii.

Pandulf's ecclesiological view on the role of the cardinal-bishops should be read as an attack on Innocent ii. Since they only had power to approve or disapprove a candidate, their vote was not enough to elect a pope, as occurred with Innocent, who enjoyed the majority support among them. Innocent's election was thus, according to Pandulf, not valid.

The figure of Peter of Porto, an expert on canon law, exemplifies this. According to Pandulf's works, while the cardinal-bishop played the major role in the two canonical elections of Gelasius and Calixtus, when an irregular election took place, he opposed it. The future Anacletian was always on the canonical side, as he would be in 1130, implicitly entailing a new meaning for melior pars. Was the real melior pars supporting Anacletus ii too?

Finally, the Anacletian's consistently hostile portrayal of the Frangipane, Innocent's main supporters, and the omission of any possible events which may have cast any shadow over the behaviour of the Pierleoni, Anacletus’ ‘family’, are crucial to Pandulf's attempt to create propaganda to use during the 1130 schism. Whoever supported Innocent ii was always on the wrong side.