Pennington, Kenneth

English

The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 1977 Cum Causam Que: A Decretal of Innocent III Kenneth Pennington The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar  Part of the History of Christianity Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Kenneth Pennington, Cum Causam Que: A Decretal of Innocent III, 7 BULL. MEDIEVAL CANON L. 100 (1977). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact edinger@law.edu. BULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAWbar auf die Coll. Hibernensis zurtlckgehen (39.8; Wasserschleben 151). Der Mitteltell-(non semel - corrigent) konnte in einer w6rtlichen Entsprechung bislang nicht er-mittelt werden. 3.76 geht wiederum auf das sogenannte Poenitentiale Theodori zurtlck(2.6.5; Finsterwalder 320). Der von Hees als 3.77 gezAhlte Text ist ein Ausschnitt ausder Vita Papst Gregors 1. von Johannes Diaconus (2.53; PL 75.110D), geht also nichtdirekt auf das Register Gregors d. Gr. zurrick.Die von Hees angegebenen Parallelstellen lassen sich ohne weiteres noch erganzen.Wir verzichten auf diesen Nachtrag, weil er unmittelbar fdr die Texttradition derCollectio Farfensis keinen Nutzen bringt.Justus Liebig-Universitdt, THEO KOLZERGiessen.'Curn causam que': A decretal of Pope Innocent IIIThe canonists rarely added decretals to the margins of manuscripts whichcontained the compilationes antiquae, although the manuscripts' ample marginsattracted a variety of other additions. An exception to this generalization is theaddition of a previously unknovn decretal to Leningrad lat. F II vel. 1, under thetitle 'De sententia et re iudicata' in Compilatio tertia. The decretal describes acase which concerned ius patronatus, but it was added under this title becauseit complemented the legal point made in 'Cum Bertholdus', which is on the samefolio.1The manuscript originally belonged to the imperial abbey of St. Maximin inTrier,2 and although one might assume that the decretal was written into themargin because it was of local interest, the format of the decretal argues againstsuch an assumption. There is no inscription and either the scribe or a previouseditor eliminated part of the narratio and sanctio. The initials of the imperialchancellor and the bishop of Albano are changed to the anonymous 'n.' Thesechanges not only make it impossible to date the letter with certainty, but theyindicate that the letter was probably not copied from an original in a local archive,but most likely from another - now unknown - decretal collection.From the evidence that the letter still contains, it was written sometimebetween 1205 and 1224. The imperial chancellor mentioned in the beginning ofthe letter must be Conrad of Scharfenberg, who was bishop of Speyer from earlyin 1200 until his death in 1224. From 1212, he was also bishop of Metz. 3 Since1 On the Leningrad manuscript, see A. Vetulani, 'Trois manuscrits canoniques de laBibliothbque publique de Leningrad', Collectanea Stephan Kutiner II (SG 12; Bologna 1967)201-03. G. Fransen, 'Les diverses formes de la Compilatio prima', Scrinium Lovaniense:Mdlanges historiques tienne van Cauwenberg (Louvain 1961) 242, noted that several decretalswere added to the margins of manuscripts which contain 1 Comp.2 R. Laufner, 'Vom Bereich der Trierer Klosterbibliothek St. Maximin in Hochmittel-alter', Armaria Trevirensia (Trier 1960) 9-35. G. Kentenich, 'Zur Schicksal der Bibliothekder Bened. Abtei St. Maximin bei Trier', Trierisches Archiv 12 (1908) 90-1.3 C. Eubel, Hierarchia catholica medii aevi 1.337, 460 (wrongly 'Scharfeneck'). C. McCurryinforms me that the date when Conrad became bishop of Speyer lies between March 18 andApril 7, 1200.A DECRETAL OF INNOCENT IIIthe case concerned the diocese of Speyer, Conrad's episcopal court would havebeen the court of first instance. After Conrad's death, the imperial chancel-lorship - traditionally held by a bishop - was vacant until 1230, when Sieg-fried of Regensburg became chancellor. 4The papal auditor, Alatrino, had a long and distinguished career in the papalcuria under three popes - so long a career that Elze wondered whether theremight have been two auditors named Alatrino. He first appeared in 1205 as anauditor for Innocent III, and he is last mentioned in Gregory TX's register of1238.- In September of 1219, Honorius III entrusted him with a legatine missionto the Emperor Frederick II, and from that time on, Alatrino served as an im-portant ambassador in the papal court, especially in imperial affairs. He wasengaged in legatine missions from 1219 to 1221; since Conrad died in 1224, it issomewhat unlikely that the letter dates from this period.Since the decretal was added to Compilatio tertia without an inscription andsince it was clearly meant to supplement 'Cum Bertholdus', it is likely that thescribe who wrote the letter in the margin of the manuscript assumed that it wasa decretal of Innocent III. The hand which wrote 'Cum causam que' is verysimilar to that of Compilatio tertia, and is contemporary with it. In sum, theevidence seems to point to the letter's being one of Innocent III.The church in dispute was located in Steinheim, a small town in the dioceseof Speyer. One of the litigants was a canon at Speyer, and the other was a priestfrom a small town near Steinheim, Marbach.6 The ranking prelate among thejudges to whom the case was first delegated was the abbot either of Lorschnearby, or of Lorch in Wilrttemberg.7Both 'Cum causam que' and 'Cum Bertholdus' dealt with the problem ofecclesiastical patronage and are of some interest for the point of law which eachmakes. In 'Cum Bertholdus', a lay knight, Bertholdus, granted an estate inpledge (pignus) to another knight, Peregrinus. Peregrinus died and was suc-ceeded by his nephew, Hartongus, who inherited the land. The church onthe property soon became vacant, and Hartongus presented a cleric to it. Berthol-dus objected that he had expressly retained the right of patronage to the churchin the pledge, and his claim was ultimately upheld.8The case in 'Cum causam que' is obscured by the deletion of part of thenarratio and by the terse and possibly telescoped presentation of the auditor'sdecision. The right of presentation to the church at Steinheim was included in acontract of 'obligatio' (presumably as a pledge) which had been made some timebefore the two clerics, 0. and C., were presented to the church. The presentationof 0. was confirmed; from the narrative of the decretal, he seems to have beenpresented by the debitor of the contract. Although the auditor's reasoning isnot absolutely clear, the following is the most likely interpretation: the creditor4 J. Huillard-Br6holles, Historia diplomatica Friderici secundi (Paris 1852) 1.cxx-cxxiii.5 On Alatrino's career, see R. Elze, 'Die pApstliche Kapelle im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert',ZRG Kan. Abt. 36 (1950) 179; R. Manselli, 'Federico II ed Alatrino, diplomatico pontificiodel secolo xiii', Sludi Romani 6 (1958) 649-58.6 For a map of the diocese of Speyer which shows both places, see LThK 1 9 (1937) 719-20.7 Ibid. 641, 648.8 3 Comp. 2.18.8 (X 2.27.18); P. Landau, lus patronatus: Stadien zur Enwicklung desPatronats im Dekretalenrecht nd der Kanonistik des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts (Koln-Wien1975) 162, 169.3ULLETIN OF MEDIEVAL CANON LAWhad the right of patronage included in the contract of obligation, even thoughthis right normally would pass to the creditor with the whole estate (cum uni-versitate). But the creditor did not have ius in re to the presentation (onlyius ad rem) until the debt became due.9 Therefore, the creditor could not use theright of patronage to present C. Finally, when C. appealed the decision of thebishop of Speyer, he did not carry through his appeal properly (legitime).'Cum causam que' is an illustration of the principle that ius patronatus couldbe excepted in a contract - a principle which first entered canonical thoughtthrough a decretal of Alexander III, 'Ex litteris'.10 The canonists developed thedoctrine that the sale, exchange, lease, gift, or infeudation of a property whichhad a church with patronage attached to it was always 'cum universitate', aconcept which they had borrowed from Roman law. Even though the canonistsdeveloped the terminology in the 1180's, 'Cum Bertholdus' is the only decretalin the Compilationes antiquae which has this phrase in it.Although Alexander's 'Ex litteris' demonstrated that a debtor must havean explicit exclusion entered in his contract to retain patronage, the canonistsbegan to see a crucial difference between the legal situation in 'Ex litteris' and'Cum Bertholdus'. They observed that, according to Roman law, when adebtor gave a thing in pledge (pignus), the creditor could not collect the fruitsof the thing which was pledged nor use the thing itself. Thus, a creditor whoaccepted an estate with a church as a pledge could not use the right of presenta-tion, and the right of patronage did not have to be reserved in the contract forthe debtor to maintain his right." When Bertholdus claimed that he had ex-pressly retained his right of patronage, he was, legally speaking, being redundant.'Cum causam que' is another example of this problem, and the lawyer-scribeprobably had this legal distinction in mind when he added 'Cum causam que'to the Leningrad manuscript.9 For a discussion of 'cum universitate', see Landau, Ius palronatus 108-15. For thedistinction between ius in re and ius ad rem petendam, see Landau, op. cit. 164-70.10 1 Comp. 3.33.9 (X 3.38.7); Landau, Ius palronatus 111-14, 203-05, 209.11 The canonistic discussion of this point centered around 'Cum Bertholdus'; e.g. JohannesTeutonicus to 3 Comp. 2.18.8 (X 2.27.18) v. uero pairono, Admont 22, fol. 188v: 'Hoc in-telligi consueuit in eo casu quando debitor excepit ius patronatus, ut supra de iure patron.Ex litteris, alioquin transiret cuin uniuersitate ut ibi dicitur, et ff. de contrahend. empt.In modicis; sic supra eodein c.i. Sic et fundo uendito accedunt seruitutes et alia iura, ut ff.de contrahend. empt. Si aque ductus et 1. sequenti et 1. Dolia, et est simile ff. de fundo dotal.l.i. Set certe alia ratio est in emptore uel feudatario qui directum uel utile dominium habetin re, et aliud in creditore, quia si ius presentandi consistit in fructu, eo ipso quod creditoruteretur tali iure, deberet exhonerari quantitas debiti... Item nee aiiis iuribus utiturcreditor nisi hoc conuenerit... Item quia soluto debito esset priuandus ecclesia quod estcontra id xvi.q.vii. Inuentum. Item quia creditor peccat utendo pignore ... Licet enim inuenditione siue infeudatione omnia iura transeant ... non tamen in obligatione'. InnocentIV and Hostiensis repeat the core of Johannes's arguments in their commentaries, butBernardus Parmensis in his ordinary gloss to the Decretals either was ill-served by themanuscript tradition or confused the issue. Johannes Andrea commented: 'glossator uerosic loquitur in parte quae sequitur, quod quid sentiat non apparet'.A LIBER SEXTUS FROM THE BONIFACIAN LIBRARYTextLeningrad lat. F II vel. 1, fol. 59rCum causam que inter 0. canonicum Spirensem et C. presbyterum de MarbachSpirensis diocesis super ecclesia de Stenheim uertitur, olim ad nos ab audientiauenerabilis fratris n. imperialis aule cancellarij, non ex delegatione nostra cog-noscentis de ipsa, per appellationem delatam, dilectis filijs abbati de Lozche etconiudicibus eius fine debito commisissemus terminandam etc. et infra. Cumquesuper hiis coram eisdem iudicibus a partibus fuisset diutius litigatum et postproductionem et publicationem testium hic inde conclusum, ipsi causam ipsamde utriusque partis assensu ad nos remiserunt instructam, quam dilecto filioAlatrino subdiacono et capellano nostro commisimus audiendam. Qui partibusin sua presentia constitutis, auditis hinc inde propositis et rationibus diligenterinspectis, turn quia ius patronatus expresse deductum in obligationis contractum,turn quia ius tale iam debet dici cum uniuersitate ad creditorem transire, cur< tamen> creditor ius in re non dicatur habere, ac sic nec tamquam uerus nectamquam putatiuus presentaret patronus, licet memoratus presbyter a sententiadiocesiani episcopi qui eius institutionem cassauerat appellasset, turn etiam quianon fuerat legitime prosecutus <appellationem>, de mandato nostro, habitoconsilio uenerabilis fratris n. Albanensis episcopi et aliorum prudentum uirorum,institutionem factam de presbytero antedicto sententialiter irritauit, presenta-tionem prenominati 0. si alias ydoneus sit approbando. Volentes igitur que percapellanum predictum sententialiter sunt diffinita firmitatem debitam optinere,discretioni uestre per apostolice sedis mandatum <precipimus> quatinus earnexecutioni mandetis.a Contradictores etc.qua ea executioni mandantes cod.Syracuse University. KENNETH PENNINGTONA Liber Sextus from the Bonifacian library:Vatican Borghese 7The well-documented library of Pope Boniface VIII 1 naturally contained fivecopies of the Liber Sextus, his own contribution to the Corpus iuris canonici.By means of a dictio probatoria, in this case those few words of the text whichbegan the second folio recto, it can be proven that one of those copies, inventoriedat Perugia in 1311 and again at Avignon in 1411, survives as no. 7 in the FondoBorghese of the Vatican Library. The positive tracing of this manuscript to aprovenance 666 years old is a demonstration of the usefulness of the probatoriaas a research instrument. In this particular case, the combination of data con-tained in the medieval inventories with a close examination of the codex itselfleads to the tentative identification of Borghese 7 as the original exemplar of theLiber Sextus.1 Four library inventories and related sources are to be found in F. Ehrle, Historia biblio-thecae romanorum pontificum turn bonifatianae lur avenionensis I (Rome 1890) and A. Pelzer,Addenda et emendanda ad Francisci Ehrle historiae . . . tomum I (Vatican City 1947).

Cum Causam Que: A Decretal of Innocent III

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1644&amp;context=scholar

Cum Causam Que: A Decretal of Innocent III

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

bepress Legal Repository