> On Sat, 25 May 1996, George Ferzoco wrote:
> > * Gregory VII, pope (1085)
> > - although the Reform of the late eleventh and early twelfth
> > centuries takes its name from him, in the realm of canon law it has been
> > demonstrated that he had almost no effect whatsoever
> With all due respect, I must disagree. The published materials on this
> topic are IMHO wanting-- something I hope to correct, at least in part, in
> my diss. on Poitiers.
> MFH
Dear Michael,
Your disagreement sounds most intriguing, and I -- we -- look
forward to the results of your research. May I say that I'm not a
canonist, but was taught by one -- John Gilchrist -- whose thesis I
presented above. For anyone interested in his interpretation, see his
collected articles in *Canon Law in the Age of Reform, 11th-12th
Centuries*, Aldershot, Variorum, 1993 (Collected Studies Series; CS 406).
See especially his introduction to the book, and his articles 'The
Reception of Pope Gregory VII into the Canon Law (1073-1141)' [originally
published in *Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte,
Kanonistische Abteilung* 59 (1973), 35-82] and 'The Reception of Pope
Gregory VII into the Canon Law (1073-1141), Part II' [originally published
in *Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische
Abteilung* 66 (1980), 192-229].
At the Ninth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Munich,
July 1992), 'Uta-Renate Blumenthal presented a paper rejecting [John
Gilchrist's] dismissal of Gregory VII as a canonist of no great impact upon
the canon law by using [his] own conclusion (Gregory's influence was
largely in terms of the widespread reception of the decrees of Autumn Synod
at Rome in 1078) as clear proof of his influence' (*Canon Law in the Age of
Reform*, p. xiii). Does Blumenthal's approach have an influence on yours?
I know that John welcomed critically based revisions of his own
revision; so best of luck with yours!
George
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|