Desktop version

Home arrow History arrow Officers and accountability in medieval England : 1170-1300

Securing Accountability: liceat and expediat

The need for episcopal responsibility was a theme of longstanding importance in the Western Church beyond Isidore.[1] The generally disastrous social effects attributed to the ‘negligent bishop’ were identified as the tenth of the ‘twelve abuses of the age’, in an early eighth-century Irish text attributed to Cyprian.[2] [3] Abbatial responsibility had figured prominently in Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care,125 and Bernard of Clairvaux would transpose it to the Bishop of Rome himself.[4] ‘Gratian’s’ Decretum left the precise question of the accountable relationship between pope and bishops open to interpretation.

Even if episcopal responsibility was a longstanding desideratum, episcopal accountability to the papacy was a contested value that needed to be established. Lateran IV cap. 8 used Luke 16 as a proof text on the obligations of clerics and bishops to account for their offices, like the unjust steward in the parable. The ruling drew a comparison between bishops and mere estate managers, villici. In so doing, at the largest council of bishops and other prelates then ever held, Qualiter et quando definitively established as an axiom of episcopal accountability what was once a controversial equation of prelates and bailiffs. One hundred and fifty years earlier Luke 16 would have looked less like a proof of bishops’ liability to account and more like a disproof of such liability, for all bar the most committed to ideas of terrestrial accountability.[5] Then Gregory VII came under sustained criticism for seeking to ‘remove the anointed of the Lord like bailiffs by common lot as often as pleased’.128 There might be precedents that could be pointed to, but episcopal accountability to the papacy was not established as a unarguable norm.129 It looked distinctly unnatural to Wenrich of Trier. For Liemar of Bremen, accountability was something a potens expected of a pauper (see pp. 42—3). It was certainly infra dignitatem for a bishop; even a bailiff, Robert of Chilton might argue (pp. 26—9).130 Even worse, Qualiter et quando enabled inquisitions into prelates to be triggered by a clamor from anyone, regardless of their official status, even if mindful of their social standing.131 Yet, the proof texts that the Curia eventually settled on as scriptural models for inquisitio veritatis—Sodom and Gomorrah, Christ’s words himself in Luke, even Adam and Eve in Eden—were powerful totems for papal authority.132 This ‘theory in practice’ can be seen at the end of the twelfth century, set out by Celestine III in his preambles to the letters in Geoffrey of York’s case.133

The citation of Luke 16 specifically in this context is more apposite still. The parable of the unjust steward concerned menial administration. In Qualiter et quando Innocent both reminded prelates that they were mere villici and at the same time specified as a remedy only the loss of their administrative/temporal powers—at least initially.134 This was not a new moral. As Bernard of Clairvaux stressed to the Pope himself in the mid-twelfth century, the villa is to the villico, but he is not the dominus. So the Pope should go out into the field of the Lord, ‘not as a lord, but as a steward, to see and provide that you call to account where you should’.135 The corrective medicine prescribed under Innocent III was a treatment, not a purgative (perhaps he had learnt the but which in other Old English contexts can mean ‘overseer, officer’, as it does in Rectitudines singu- larum personarum. Cf. Die «Institutes of polity, civil and ecclesiastical»: ein Werk ErzbischofWulfstans von York, ed. and trans. (into German) Karl Jost, Schweizer Anglistische Arbeiten 47 (Berne, 1959), 62 (cap. 5) with the Rectitudines in F. Liebermann (ed.), Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, 3 vols. in 4 (Halle, 1903-16), i. 451 (§18).

  • 128 Wenrich of Trier, Epistola, in MGH, LdL, i. 289, ll. 34-5.
  • 129 See Gelasius I, ‘Quid ergo isti’, on Rome’s power to punish bishops (496), Acta Romanorum Pontificum a S. Clemente I (An. c. 90) ad Coelestinum III (f 1198) (Rome, 1943), #188. Cf. Nicholas I, ‘Proposueramus quidem’ (865), #322.
  • 130 Cf. the stress placed by Gregory the Great on obedience in (especially but not only) monastic contexts: Carole Straw, Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection (Berkeley, Calif., 1988), 84-9. Good and bad flow up the chain, but the liability to account is extracted from inferiors by superiors, not vice versa. The stress caused in tensions between lay attempts to discipline criminous clerics was of course significant. For an earlier twelfth century dispute about lay versus clerical accountability, see the interesting dispute at Winchester about Roger of Salisbury’s arrest and the seizure of his castles by Stephen in 1139: William of Malmesbury, Historia novella, ed. Edmund King, trans. K. R. Potter, OMT (Oxford, 1998), 48-59, including Roger’s contemptuous rejection of the idea that he was a salaried serviens or minister of Stephen and hence accountable as such (56).
  • 131 On ‘Gratians and later assaults against the idea that only those of the same hierarchical level could accuse bishops, see Ronald Knox, ‘Accusing Higher Up’, ZRGKan. Abt. 77 (1991), 1-31.
  • 132 Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, 54-7. See further Summa 'omnis qui iuste iudicat sive Lipsiensis, ed. Rudolf Weigand, Peter Landau, Waltraud Kozur, et al., Monumenta iuris canonici, Ser. A: Corpus glossatorum 7 (Rome, 2007), i. 1 (preface). Further references (into the seventeenth century) in Pennington, Prince and the Law, 142-5, 162, 200, 228, 252, 264, 274.
  • 133 Thinking especially of ‘Mediator Dei et’ and ‘Cum sacrosancta Romana’, Howden, Chronica, iii. 279, 312.
  • 134 Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, 56, ‘quatenus si fuerit grauis excessus, etsi non degre- detur ab ordine, ab amministratione tamen amoueatur omnino’.
  • 135 Bernard, De consideratione, §§III.i.2 and II.vi.12, ‘non tamquam dominus, sed tamquam vil- licus, videre et procurare unde exigendus es rationem’.

lesson Gregory VII would not).[6] An example is provided by the 1232 inquisition into Heinrich I von Mullenark, Archbishop of Cologne. During that investigation Gregory IX had it proclaimed that the Archbishop was not to alienate any church property— jerking back his administrative leash.[7] Qualiter et quando's sanctions were produced by a calculus of risk and damage that had clear political preferences built into it.

How did the papacy get to the point where Luke 16 seemed to be a normal rather than abnormal rule with which to secure episcopal accountability? The case of prelates and bishops seems a particular, ecclesiastical instance of a wider twelfth-century phenomenon. That phenomenon was twelfth-century institutions’ general attempts to aggrandize their power and assert it as ‘public’, which produced a need for their officers’ conduct to be consonant with their aspirations or pretensions. For the Church, episcopal accountability emerged as a corollary of its pastoral interest in others. Hugh of Lincoln’s synodal statutes of1186 (by c.1192 in Roger of Howden’s account), described how Hugh, ‘while in his episcopal office, built up the people entrusted to him by his conduct and through the word of fatherly exhortation, and by the power of obedience ordered in his synods, both the whole clergy and the people subject to him, to observe these decretals inviolably’.[8] The Bishop of Lincoln’s synodal canons were the statutory expression of concern for those he was responsible for as a reflection of his concern for his own self and duties. Self-images and ideas of responsibility paved the way for practices of accountability.

The conditional algebra linking prelates’ spiritual accountability and the conduct they themselves required of others was a commonplace of the period.[9] Innocent III seems to have felt it particularly strongly.[10] A 1213 letter illustrates the point to an English addressee in an important idiom. Writing to Stephen Langton and other English bishops, the Pope warned

Brother bishops and archbishop, you should so strive to guard both yourselves and the

flocks which have been entrusted to you, by ripping out vice and planting down virtues, so that on the very last day of the exacting examination, before the awful judge,

‘who will render to each according to his works’, you may render a worthy account.[11]

Even Gerald of Wales’s ‘unlearned’ Hubert Walter had absorbed this idiom, an internalized sense of temporal responsibility achieved by envisaging an ultimate spiritual accountability. In a 1203/4 ordinance for Christ Church Canterbury, Walter, as Archbishop, set out rules and regulations for reducing priory staff and for appointing and dismissing them. His exordium describes how all should be attentive to the ‘day of the Lord which will come like a thief’ and which

should be especially attended to by those whom God has set and established over others, either with a share of responsibility or in fullness of power, so that they should strive to make provision for the sheep entrusted to them in such a way that on the day of their stewardship [in die villicationis sue] the strict judge need not repay them for their negligence or sloth but with a celestial reward for their earthly care and work.142

Accidentally or deliberately, here the key office (villicatio) from Luke 16’s scriptural proof has become the sign of accountability itself. In setting out which Canterbury offices are to be abolished, Walter repeatedly refers to requirements which the ‘common utility’ exacts of him and of all those at Canterbury. It is with reference to such utilitas that Walter holds Canterbury to account, a duty his own accountability (here, to God) pragmatically necessitates.

Such thinking reflects the establishment of a reciprocal connection between prelates’ assertion of power and their meriting of authority. This not quite per se to establish episcopal accountability as a norm. It was a small step to go on to do so though, and to apply some sanction on bishops if it was thought they were not behaving in a meritorious way. Ecclesiastical order, as Hubert Walter said, needed to be public and useful.143 Indeed these two aspects might well be synonymous, the useful being definably what was more in the public rather than private interest.144 (Celestine asked if Geoffrey of York was utilis, though Gerald of Wales thought prelates attended too much to the wrong sort of ‘useful’.) It was entirely fitting in this context that episcopal conduct that was both scandalous and public should be deemed intolerable. The idea of excessus as the transgression of official powers has been noted already. Its crucial role here as a premise for papal intervention has been demonstrated by Bruno Lemesle.145 Part of its resonance came from the expansiveness of its meaning (as perhaps with the modern totem of ‘accountability’) .The

to Stephen Langton; ‘In corrigendis excessibus’ alluding to Ezekiel 3: 18—20, 33: 6—8, to Peter des Roches c.27 October 1205 (Reg. Inn. III, viii. #147 (146); Innocent III English Calendar, #647); or indeed the opening of cap. 7 on the correction of excessus at Lateran IV (Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, 53—4).

  • 142 Canterbury, 1193—1205ed. C. R. Cheney and Eric John, EEA 3 (Oxford, 1986), #389 at 58—9 (March 1203-March 1204). See 1 Thess. 5: 2, 2 Peter 3: 10. The final clause enjoining obedience also invokes the accountability of Judgement Day.
  • 143 Cf. e.g. Alexander III, ‘Inter caetera sollicitudinis’, PL 200, col. 930 (Jaffe #12254, part included in X 1.17.3). Cf. also X 3.24.2, where Alexander III in ‘Fraternitatem tuam credimus’ warns the Bishop of Paris of the need to be a procurator not a dominus.
  • 144 For the malleable idea of utilitas in later medieval theology and political thought see M. S. Kempshall, The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought (Oxford, 1999) s.v.; in medieval rhetoric see Kempshall, Rhetoric and the Writing of History, 400—1500 (Manchester, 2011), s.v.; in the ius commune see Ennio Cortese, La norma giuridica: spunti teorici nel diritto comune classico, 2 vols. (Milan, 1962—4) i. 105, 128, 185-7, 264-9 and s.v. For Hostiensis see Pennington, Pope and Bishops, 108, and ‘A Quaestio of Henricus de Segusio and the Textual Tradition of his Summa super decretali- bus, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 16 (1986), 91—6.
  • 145 Lemesle, ‘Corriger les exces’.

connected idea of infamy was consequently an immensely useful way of literally publicizing such behaviour.146 Julien Thery suggests we should speak here of fama societies, as distinct from honour societies.147 The scandalizing of some ‘public’ became a determinant of investigation by the church into its erring agents. But the avoidance or removal of scandal was the principle thing. The inquisitorial technique formalized in Lateran IV cap. 8 enshrines this principle, saying inquisitions are to be undertaken except where great damage is done for the sake of a small gain.148 Addressing a scandalum should not exacerbate that same scandal. Such logic was more generally apparent in ecclesiastical governance. Two letters of Gregory IX can make the point. In 1237 the Pope sought to shore up the impoverished see of Dunblane but only if it could be rectified without grave scandal to the episcopate.149 The following year, Gregory likewise hazed his English legate, Cardinal Otto di Monteferrato, away from acting against pluralist clerks with powerful families, lest it disturb the kingdom and produced scandal.150 This was a politic accountability.

This concern with scandal and active investigation of it meshed with the emerging idea that ‘it is in the public interest that crimes should not go unpunished’ (rei publica interest, ne crimina remaneant impunitaa).151 This Roman law-influenced maxim was most influential through Innocent Ills decretals, Inauditum and Ut famae.152 Not coincidentally it occurs in the Gesta of Innocent—written by a curial

  • 146 See Bird, ‘Wheat and the Tares’; Stern, ‘Public Fame: A Useful Canon Law Borrowing’. Cf. on public belief, publica fama, Chris Wickham, ‘Fama and the Law’ and Courts and Conflict, passim.
  • 147 Thery, ‘«Exces» et «affaires d’enquete»’, i. 491.
  • 148 Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, 57.
  • 149 ‘Venerabilis frater noster’ (11 June 1237), Vetera monumenta hibernorum et scotorum. Historia illustrantia, ed. Augustin Theiner (Rome, 1864), #91; calendared in Reg. Greg. IX, ii. #3742. The relevant phrase is ‘si absque gravi scandalo fieri poterit’ (my emphasis).
  • 150 ‘Cum, sicut intelleximus’ (25 February 1238), Reg. vat., xviii. fo. 360v, calendared Reg. Greg. IX, ii. #4100.
  • 151 Richard M. Fraher’s articles provide key reference points: ‘Theoretical Justification’; Fraher, ‘Preventing Crime in the High Middle Ages: The Medieval Lawyers’ Search for Deterrence’, in James Ross Sweeney and Stanley Chodorow (eds.), Popes, Teachers, and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, (Ithaca, NY, 1989), 212—33; Fraher, ‘IV Laterans Revolution in Criminal Procedure: The Birth of Inquisitio, the End of Ordeals, and Innocent III’s Vision of Ecclesiastical Politics’, in Rosalio Iosepho Castillo Lara (ed.), Studia in honorem Eminentissimi Cardinalis Alphonsi M. Stickler (Rome, 1993), 97—111. Cf. however Gunter Jerouschek, ‘ “Ne crimina remaneant impunita”. Auf daft Verbrechen nicht ungestraft bleiben: Uberlegungen zur Begrundung offentlicher Strafverfolgung im Mittelalter’, ZRG Kan. Abt. 89 (2007), 323—37, arguing for the importance of Sichard of Cremona, Rufinus of Sorrento in developing this idea rather than Fraher’s Anglo-Norman canonist, Innocent III, or Innocent III’s legal advisers. The contributions of Rufinus and Abelard are stressed by Chiffoleau, ‘«Ecclesia de occultis non iudicat»?’, 379 n. 49. Lotte Kery noted Fulbert of Chartres’s linking of utilitas and public punishment of crimes. See ‘Ein neues Kapitel in der Geschichte des kirchlichen Strafrechts: Die Systematisierungsbemuhungen des Bernhard von Pavia (f1213)’, in Wolfgang P. Muller and Mary E. Sommar (eds.), Medieval Church Law and the Origins of the Western Legal Tradition: A Tribute to Kenneth Pennington (Washington DC, 2006), 229—51 at 247. Fulbert’s words are ‘Sed cum iuris sit ad utilitatem rei publicae cunctos punire maleficos’, Frederick Behrends (ed.), The Letters and Poems of Fulbert of Chartres, OMT (Oxford, 1976), #29 at 54, On this case see Edward Peters, ‘The Death of the Subdean: Ecclesiastical Order and Disorder in Eleventh-Century Francia’, in Bernard S. Bachrach and David Nicholas (eds.), Law, Custom, and the Social Fabric in Medieval Europe: Essays in Honor of Bryce Lyon, Studies in Medieval Culture 28 (Kalamazoo, Mich., 1990), 51—71, esp. 52—3 and n. 5.

I owe the latter reference to Bernard Gowers.

152 Inauditum hactenus speciem, (Reg. Inn. III, i. #546 (549); Potthast #591), to Emeric of Hungary (4 February 1199); Ut famae tuae (X 5.39.35; 3 Comp. 5.21.8; Reg. Inn. III, vi. 181 (183); Potthast

insider—and specifically in the context of the numerous prelates the Pope removed from office.153 Richard Fraher noted an Anglo-Norman canonist linking res publica and public prosecution in the 1190s, and other earlier parallels have been noted (Augustine provides a still earlier one).154 Pennington doubts Fraher’s canonist was any direct influence on Innocent III.155 The question of ‘originality’ is one issue; more relevant here is the linking of the idea with practices. The Anglo-Norman canonist’s formulation may then be especially interesting. Autonomously of papal reflection, it seemed a good idea in Anglo-Norman circles to link the prosecution of crime with some idea of public interest, and therefore of regnal activity. Pennington has stressed the importance of linking a Romanizing idea of ‘public interest’ with a duty of prosecution, and that particular terms connoted an especial public duty to do so (such as the use of the ‘public’ term crimen).156 But it does not seem to have been necessary that the idea had to be formulated in a ‘maxim [that] is the product of a skillful blend of Roman law and the common presumptions of the age’.157 It is obviously clear that it should be the stronger for having been. But it seems simpler to assume a social-political need was groping for some pithy, compelling formulation, than that the discovery of a Romanizing formulation met a hitherto unperceived need. Well after the 1215 promulgation of Qualiter et quando it is possible to find instances where the principle of ne crimina is cited but the resonant, public, term of crimen has slipped away. At the August 1231 Council of St Quentin, lest maleficia (not crimina) remaneant impunita is cited as justification for ensuring that crimes committed in one diocese should not be evaded by an offender jumping into another.158 #2038) to Andreas, Archbishop of Lund (10 December, 1203). The Roman borrowing is from the Digest’s reference to the Lex aquila at 9.2.51. See Kenneth Pennington, ‘Innocent III and the Ius Commune’, in Richard Helmholz, Paul Mikat, Jorg Muller, and Michael Stolleis (eds.), Grundlagen des Rechts: Festschrift fur Peter Landau zum 65. Geburtstag, Rechts- und staatswissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen der Gorres-Gesellschaft 91 (Paderborn, 2000), 349—66. I use Pennington’s online version of this at http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Medieval%20Papacy/InnocentIuscom.htm, accessed February 2014.

  • 153 ‘Hic, ad reformationem et correctionem excessuum vigilanter intendens, visitatores prudentes per diversas provincias delegabat, per quos faciebat diligenter inquiri de statu et conversatione, non solum Ecclesiarum, sed etiam praelatorum; et, quos inveniebat culpabiles, a suis praelationibus proti- nus removebat, nolens crimina relinquere impunita. Quot [corr.] enim praelatos a suis dignitatibus deposuerit, enarrare quis posset?’, PL 214, col. clxxii.
  • 154 Fraher, ‘Theoretical Justification’, 590. This Summa Lnduent sancti has been part edited by Fraher for the ‘Monumenta iuris canonici, Ser. A: Corpus glossatorum’. The Stephan Kuttner Institute of Medieval Canon Law plans to complete the edition. Augustine: De civitate dei, §19.6, and see p. 258 for Augustine.
  • 155 See his 2009 online paper, ‘Prosecution of Clerics in Medieval Canon Law’, the relevant webpage of which is http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/KansasFourthLateran/KansasFourthLateran. html, accessed February 2014; Jerouschek, ‘ “Ne crimina remaneant impunita” ’.
  • 156 Pennington, ‘Innocent III and the Ius commune’, at nn. 20—3 in the online version.
  • 157 Pennington, ‘Prosecution of Clerics in Medieval Canon Law’ at http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/ KansasFourthLateran/KansasFourthLateran.html.
  • 158 Archives administratives de la ville de Reims, collection de pieces inedites, archives administratives, ed. Pierre Varin, 8 vols. (Paris, 1839—53), i.2. #118 at 556 = Les Actes de la province ecclesiastique de Reims, ed. T. Gousset, 4 vols. (Reims 1842—4), ii. 357—63 at 361. See also maleficia used thus in the key 1231 text Parens scientiarum regulating the University of Paris, specifically regarding the Bishop’s disciplinary powers over students, CUP, i. #79 at 138.

Formulae can be useful because they amplify the resonance of what one wanted to say anyway. On 7 July 1215, ignorant of what had been signed at Runnymede on 15 June, Innocent III berated Langton and the other English prelates for insufficient support of the papal mandate of 19 March in favour of John against the barons. Here Innocent invoked the Pseudo-Isidorian critique of passive connivance in wrongdoing whereby ‘the suspicion of hidden complicity cannot be avoided by someone [i.e. the prelates] who recoils from obstructing flagrant wrongs’ (quia non caret scrupulo societatis occulte qui manifesto facinori desinit obviare).[12]

There are, furthermore, instances where the content of rei publica interest, ne crimina remaneant impunita was articulated without its form. Alexander III provides an instance. In April 1177 Roger Archbishop of York wrote to Bishop Roger of Worcester. The Archbishop ordered Roger to despoil Master Hugh of Southwell of the churches of Epperton and Shelford on account of Hugh’s use of forged papal letters to the Archbishop. The letter’s core is the mandate from Alexander III to do so, on the basis that ‘it is therefore required of us to punish such a serious misdeed most gravely, so that others should dread to attempt similar things, having the example of this punishment’ (igitur decet nos tam gravem excessum durius vindicare, ut alii exemplo pene illius similia attemptare formident).[13]

The development of these norms provided prelates with the felt reason for imposing order on and exact accountability from their subordinates and their flocks. That at once explains not just where the demand for inquisitorial procedure came from, but also in part why the imposition of it by superiors was conceded. The right to exact such powers empowered all prelates, given both that they always had lesser clergy beneath them and the rise in the powers of pastoral care. The quid pro quo was that everyone had some superior who could exact accountability back. The logic of this meant in the case of the Bishop of Rome that his answerability and authority would again become a question of increasing controversy as the thirteenth century wore on. But even if the supply and demand for mechanisms of prelates’ accountability can be explained like this, it risked that hierarchy itself, since how was the papacy to haul bishops and archbishops over the coals without undermining the integrity of the ecclesiastical hierarchy as a whole?

  • [1] Jean Gaudemet, ‘Charisme et droit: le domaine de l’eveque’, ZRG Kan. Abt. 74 (1988), 44—70;Steffen Patzold, Episcopus: Wissen uber Bischofe im Frankenreich des spiiten 8. bisfruhen 10. Jahrhunderts,Mittelalter-Forschungen 25 (Ostfildern, 2008); Donald Edward Heintschel, The Mediaeval Concept ofan Ecclesiastical Office: An Analytical Study of the Concept of an Ecclesiastical Office in the Major Sourcesand Printed Commentaries from 1140—1300 (Washington, 1956). For representations of bishops seeEric Palazzo, LEveque et son image: LUllustration du pontifical au Moyen Age (Turnhout, 1999).
  • [2] Ed. in Siegmund Hellmann, ‘Pseudo-Cyprianus, Dexiiabusivissaeculi Texte und Untersuchungenzur Geschichte der altechristlichen Literatur 34 (Leipzig, 1910), 1—60 at 53—6. For episcopi negligentes inninth-century Francia see de Jong, Penitential State, 114—15, 183.
  • [3] For discussion of some relevant Benedictine aspects see pp. 203, 217. For a twelfth-centuryapplication ‘de incuria praelatorum’, see Bernard of Clairvaux, Apologia ad Guillelmum Abbatem, inS. Bernardi opera, iii. 103 (§XI.27). Jean Gaudemet in ‘Patristique et pastorale’ argued that Gregorywas particularly important to Gratian in producing Decretum, D. 21—101 on episcopal conduct.
  • [4] 126 Bernard, De consideratione. See esp. the emphasis on stewardship versus lordship at §III.i.2.
  • [5] It is interesting to find in Wulfstan of York’s Institutes of Polity a reference to bishops as beadles(bydelas) which the Toronto Old English Dictionary translates here as ‘preacher, minister of the Gospel’,
  • [6] Cf. Tillmann, Innocent III, ‘willingly practiced mildness where he hoped to attain his end without severity’, ‘Innocent’s reforms do not aim at subverting existing conditions, but they do try to obviate the dangers resulting from them and to diminish their bad consequences’, (respectively 208, 211).
  • [7] ‘Cum olim in’, clearly indicates the canonical inquisitorial process following Lateran IV,Epistolae saeculi xiii e regestis pontificum Romanorum, ed. C. Rodenberg, MGH Epistolae, 3 vols.(Berlin, 1883-94), i. #529 (28 May 1233). See also i. ##459, 472, 520, 523, 530, 532, 540, 579, 637,ii. #50; Reg. Greg. IX, i. ##748, 828, 1214, 1233, 1347, 1355, 1362, 1366, 1371, 1378, 1380, 1381,1384, 1419, 1847; Chronica regia Coloniensis (Annales maximi Colonienses), cum continuationibus inmonasterio s. Pantaleonis scriptis, ed. G. Waitz, MGH, SRG 18 (Hannover, 1880), 263, 264, 272.Comment: Michael Matscha, Heinrich I. von Mullenark, Erzbischof von Koln (1225—1238), Studienzur Kolner Kirchengeschichte 25 (Siegburg, 1992), 153-73; Pixton, German Episcopacy, 390-1.
  • [8] Howden, Gesta regis Henrici secundi, i. 357.
  • [9] e.g. numerous biblical episodes in the later thirteenth-century bible moralisee BL AdditionalMS 18719 are interpreted as lessons for prelates and stress this theme. Thus on fo. 296v Paul’s accountof a man taken up into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12: 2) signifies that prelates who rule and teach othersshould surpass them in their conduct so as to be easier models for imitation.
  • [10] 140 Expressed powerfully in Innocent III’s ‘salt’ sermon on the consecration of pontiffs, PL 217,Sermones de diversis, #4, cols. 666-72; more routinely, ‘Querelam Thome militis’, Innocent III EnglishCalendar, #954 at 266 (3 March 1214).
  • [11] ‘Ei qui non’ (6 July 1213), Innocent IIIEnglish Letters, #54 at 153 (Potthast #4777), alludingto Romans 2: 6. Cf. Innocent III English Letters, #56 at 156 (15 July 1213), ‘Quartodecimo die Iulii’
  • [12] Decretum, D. 83.3, 86.3, C. 2.7.55; InnocentIIIEnglish Letters, #80 (7 July 1215) to Peter desRoches at 207; also Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, cap. 71 at 115.
  • [13] York, 1154-1181, EEA 20, #110A at 125. The incipit for Alexander’s letter is Ex constantirelatione. For a similar idea see Innocent’s ‘In corrigendis excessibus’ to Peter des Roches c.27 October1205 (Reg. Inn. Ill, viii. #147 (146); Innocent III English Calendar, #647); Further, Charles Duggan,‘Decretals of Alexander III to England’, Decretals and the Creation of‘New Law’ in the Twelfth Century,no. III, #404.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >

Related topics