The individual parts of the story told in this book are well known to specialists in various fields of history and law. Yet the story as a whole is singularly unfamiliar and conflicts with conventional preconceptions in many ways." So Professor Harold Berman of the Harvard Law School, the author of Law and Revolution, informs his readers on page 538 of his study. One can hardly question the accuracy of the first sentence: the individual parts are indeed well known. One may well dispute the accuracy of the second, however, for the synthesis is neither particularly startling nor particularly effective. The thesis of Professor Berman's study is familiar, but a summary is in order. In the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, the Western (Roman Catholic) Church underwent revolutionary change. Those who captured the positions of leadership insisted on a clearer separation or at least a clearer analytical understanding of the difference between spiritual or clerical competence, on the one hand, and temporal and secular competence on the other. Because the leaders who carried through this revolution captured the papacy, it is correct to speak of these events as the Papal Revolution or even as the Hildebrandine or Gregorian Revolution, after the German pope who led it. The symbolic and jurisdictional aspects of the revolutionaries' program required, among other things, that no lay person should invest a bishop with the signs of his spiritual authority, namely the ring and the staff. Thus, it is also legitimate, if a bit pale, to call the strenuous and prolonged clash between the revolutionaries and their enemies the "Investiture Controversy." Fundamentally, in any case, what occurred was a definitional revolution. The church was redefined as the body of clergy; it was no longer the Christian people. Indeed, the very concept of "lay person" first developed in the wake of this strife. This definitional transformation was accompanied by rancorous debate and war, especially in Germany, because the dominant lay people