Leyser describes Gregory’s view of temporal power as “rugged and dissonant” and this can be best seen in the many differing letters Gregory writes to many different people with completely different ideals and personalities. An example of one of these would be Gregory’s letter to Anselm, bishop-elect of Lucca, pointing out clearly, concisely though cordially that he should not receive investiture from King Henry IV until said king had made his peace with the pope. This contrasts completely with the coaxing, almost bribing letter to Bishop William of Pavia urging him to support the knight Erlembad. A more famous example of Gregory’s writing would be his letter to the Bishop of Metz in which he defends his condemnation of Henry IV and this shows the way that Gregory dealt with over-ambitious imperial kings. His normally constrained approach to temporal power is replaced with an unusually scathing discourse, remarking upon the unsatisfactory freedom Henry IV achieved when he tried to “shake his neck from the power of the divine Peter.” Gregory believed firmly in iustitia – the right order in the world and that this clashed entirely with the “wretched and illusory” freedom as displayed by Henry IV. Henry is portrayed by Gregory as a hypocrite, “with us” [the Church] in body, but “against us [the Church] in mind and spirit.” The integral part of the argument that Gregory’s view of temporal power was “rugged and dissonant” is his bitter condemnation of the beginnings of kingships described in this letter. He declares that the forerunners of kings of being “ignorant of God” and of “rapes, treachery and murder”, and compares their power with that of the “devil, the prince of the world.” The inconsistency between this letter and the others sent by Gregory is that in those others he states carefully that royal power originated from God. Even in a letter to William I of England he states that “God…distributed apostolic and royal dignities, both higher than any other in the world.” Another indication of his general view of temporal power is his statement in a letter to Countess Adelheid of Turin that “honour and power were granted to you by God.”
Gregory proved his reputed skill as a political operator with his frequent dealings with the newly formed states in and surrounding Italy. His letters to the knight, Erlembad, a figure already briefly mentioned, are a far cry from his tirade against Henry. They are the idea of foedus amacitiae, that “priestly and temporal power should be conjoined” and place less emphasis on the ascendancy of spiritual power over temporal power than previously. The ideal of foedus amicitiae was propagated by Peter Damian and was partly inherited from the disputes between Henry III and Pope Leo IX. Certain historians have tried to stand their ground over their opinion of Gregory’s views by claiming that royal power could be divine in its origin but unjust in its will, much like the devil’s power, although this position seems rather forced. Taking into account the evidence I believe that Leyser’s conclusion, that Gregory “drew a distinction between good and evil rulers rather than the nature of authority common to them” is the most sensible.
Reuter’s reconsideration of the “Reichskirchensystem”, which concludes that it did not exist as a system, sits uncomfortably with the idea that Gregory’s view of temporal power was consistent. Despite the fact that kings exercised significant personal power in the nomination of bishops and abbots of royal monasteries, various factors, such as the poor communications and lack of written government meant that the Salians and Ottonians were working with the church on a very personal level, certainly governed by practical issues. These disunities within temporal power, taking account both the vast differences between the newborn Italian Kingdoms and the Imperial “Old Guard”, and the internal disunities within each meant that temporal power itself was definitely “rugged and inconsistent”. Ergo it is difficult to see how Gregory could have had a consistent view of it. In this atmosphere of papal revolution where being a survivor was a prerequisite Gregory could not afford to hold such a view. Specific personalities required him to use his skilled political hand appropriately, adapting it where need must. Therefore he needed an attitude towards temporal power that was elastic enough to be changed whenever the occasion arose.
