No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A State Like Any Other? The Fourteenth-Century Papal Patrimony Through The Eyes of Roman Law Jurists
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
Extract
In the fourteenth century, and notably under Cardinal Albornoz, the papal patrimony began its uneven development into a form of early modern state. As Paolo Prodi has pointed out, these early stages, although interrupted by retrogression caused by the Great Schism, served as the foundations for the construction of the state of the Renaissance papacy. In reality, the popes exercised sovereignty in a state whose origin and nature were essentially temporal: to this extent their regnum was no different from those of secular monarchs. There was, however, a problem impeding the perception of the true nature of the growth of papal state power: a certain ambiguity hung over the papal lands in that the papacy justified its rule both by hierocratic arguments and by reference to grants of jurisdiction from emperors and kings. The spiritual office of the popes could obscure the fact of the kind of state of which they were the sovereign. In the works of the fourteenth-century Commentators on the Roman law, however, there gradually emerged a clear recognition of the direction which the papacy was taking: that the Patrimony of St Peter was no more and no less than a state created by human institution.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Studies in Church History Subsidia , Volume 9: The Church and Sovereignty c.590-1918 , 1991 , pp. 245 - 260
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1991
References
1 Prodi, Paolo, The Papal Prince. One Body and Two Souls: the Papal Monarchy in Early Modem Europe, Haskins, tr. S. (Cambridge, 1987), p. 9.Google Scholar
2 For the papal state see Wilks, Michael, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1963), esp. pp. 543–6.Google Scholar
3 Ibid., p. 266. See also Watt, J. A., ‘Spiritual and temporal powers’, in Burns, J. H., ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350-c.1450 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 367–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 See Maffei, D., La donazione di Costantino nei giuristi medievali, repr. (Milan, 1969), pp. 79–82Google Scholar, and Setz, W., Lorenzo Vallas Schrift gegen die Konstantinische Schenkung. De falso eredita et ementita Constantini donatione, zur Interpretation und Wirkungsgeschichte (Tübingen, 1975), p. xyf19Google Scholar.
5 See Jones, P.J., The Malatesta of Rimini and the Papal State. A Political History (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 43–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the position at the time of Charles IV.
6 Ad Cod. 7.37.3, n. 33 (Venice, 1585, anastatic repto. Bologna, 1979), fol. 109r: “Vnde ad omne dubium tollendum romani pontifices fecerunt per successores imperatores confirmari, ut patet d. [Daretum, D.63 c.30; and Ciem. 2.9.1].’
7 Additio ad Guilielmus Durantis, Speculum iuris, 2.2.3 (Frankfurt, 1592), p. 248: ‘Quia ecclesia dubitat de veten donatione, fecit sibi de novo donari per imperatorem Carolum.’ By then immediately referring to this donation as ‘recens’ Baldus made it clear that he meant Charles IV.
8 For Otto III’s famous diploma, see MGH. Const, I, no. 26, p. 56; and Laehr, G., Die Konstantinische Schenkung in der abendländischen Literatur des Mittehlters bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts(repr. Vaduz, 1965), pp. 41–4Google Scholar, for Gregory of Carina, and p. 67, for Wezel’s letter to Frederick I in 1152. See also Setz, , Lorenzo Vallas Schrift, pp. 22–4.Google Scholar
9 See Maffei, , La donazione, pp. 245–7Google Scholar, for Aegidius Bellemara, and pp. 263-7, for Raphael Fulgosius (ad Dig. Vet, Proem).
10 Ad Auth., ‘Quomodo oporteat episcopos’ (Coli. 1.6, praef. = Nov. 6, praef.), ad v. ‘Conferens generi’.
11 Ad Dig. 1.12.1,4, ad v.’Pertinere’.
12 Ad Cod. 7.39.6, n. 2 (Frankfurt, 1578), fol. 448r: ‘Et ideo signa subiectionis sue non possum prescribi, unde est contra illos, qui dicunt Romanam ecclesiam prescripsisse sibi donarionem factam ab imperatore Constantino, quod saltim subiectionis signa non pomerit prescribere, et sic nec iurisdicrionem Romani imperii, cui subiecrus est totus orbis.’
13 See Maffei, D.,La ‘Lectura super Digesto veteri’di Gino da Pistoia. Studio sui MSS Savigny 22 e Urb. Lat. 172 (Milan, 1963), p. 51Google Scholar, and La donazione, pp. 141-5.
14 Ad Cod. Const:‘De novo Codice faciendo’(Paris, 1516; anastatic repro. Bologna, 1973), fol. ir, ‘Ar. ad questionem de facto.’
15 See Maffei, , La donazione, pp. 159–61.Google Scholar
16 Ad Dig. Vet., Proem, ed. Brandi, B. in his Notizie intomo a Guillelmus de Cunio (Rome, 1892), p. 107Google Scholar: ‘Item per deum sunt ambo constituta, imperium et sacerdocium, in Auth. “Quomodo oporteat episcopos” in prin. [Coll. 1.6 = Noi». 6]; ergo sunt et frater et soror. Quod ergo imperium dedit ecclesie, non videtur donare sed dotare; dotare autem tenetur [Dig. 26.7.12], ergo etc.’ But cf. Odofredus ad Dig. 1.12.1, n.1 (Lyons, 1550; anastatic repro., Bologna, 1967), fol. 27V, where he maintains that the emperor can revoke such a dowry.
17 Aurea practica libellorum (Cologne, 1575), rubr. 63, n. 134, p. 291, ‘Quia ex inspiratone seu disposinone divina facta fuit’: cited Maffei, La donazione,. 154.
18 See ibid., p. 170.
19 Ad Dig. Vet., Prima Const, super rubrica, n. 8 (Venice, 1585; anastatic repro. Bologna, 1974), fol 3v;andad Cod. 7.37.3, nn. 31-3 ibid., fol. 109r.
20 Ad Dig. Vet. Proem, Const. ‘Omnem’, n. 14 (Turin, 1577), fol. 3v; and ad Auth. 1.6 (= Nov. 6), ibid., fol. 10v.
21 Ad Dig. 49.15.24, n. 4, ibid., fol. 228r: ‘Quidam sunt populi, qui non obediunt principi, tamen asserunt se habere libertatem ab ipso ex contractu aliquo, ut provinde, que tenentur ab ecclesia Romana, que fuerunt donate ab Imperatore Constantino ecclesie Romane, posito pro constanti, quod donatio tenuerit, quodque revocari non possit, adhuc dico istos de populo Romano esse.’
22 Ad Cod. 10.32.61, n. 1, ibid., fol. 18v:’Facithec lex quod civitas perusina non subsit ecclesie nec imperio. Et si dicas quod quicquid non subest imperio est sub ecclesia, concedo, nisi civitas aliqua non subsit ecclesie ex privilegio concesso. Sed civitas perusina est huiusmodi; nam imperator donavit eam ecclesie … et ex privilegio ecclesia liberavit earn.’ See Baszkiewicz, , ‘Quelques remarques sur la conception de dominium mundi dans l’oeuvre de Bartolus’, in Bartolo da Sassoferrato—sludi e documenti per il VI centenario, 2 vols (Milan, 1962), 2, pp. 12–13Google Scholar. For literature on the origins and legal standing of Perugia’s claim see Canning, J., The Political Thought of Baldus de Ubaldis (Cambridge, 1987), p. 20, n. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 See Woolf, C. N. S., Bartolus of Sassoferrato—his Position in the Hislory of Medieval Political Thought (Cambridge, 1913), pp. 77–8, and 93.Google Scholar
24 Ibid., pp. 87-8.
25 Ad Dig. Vet., Proem, and ad Cod., Rubr. ‘De novo Codice componendo’.
26 See Setz, , Lorenzo Vallas Schrift, pp. 21–2.Google Scholar
27 Ad X.2.24.33, n.4 (Lyons, 1551), fol. 315r: ‘Nota quod iuramentum regis edam eo vivo non officit iuribus regni. In contrarium facit donatio Constanrini. Sed ibi Constanrinus non iuraverat non alienare, vel illud fuit miraculum propter defensionem fidei catholice. Imperatore autem moderni primo confirmant dona autfaoritate pape, postea prestam iuramentum, et hoc salvo iurant, ut hic continctur. Alii dicunt quod ecclesia usurpat, sed ista opinio non est bene catholica, quia suprema authoritas pape et catholice ecclesie ab omni lege et consoninone videtur excepta, nec papa intelligitur recipere iuramentum contra seipsum, supra [X.2.24.19; Dig. 33.8.6-4]. Questio ista nunquam fuit ita determinata quod partiales imperii non revocaverunt earn in dubium, quia imperium minuti non potest, nam eadem rarione per particulas posset totum dissolvi. Ista rado est nervus valde difficilis ad dissolvendum super quo fundat se Accursius in Autk, “Quomodo oporteat episcopos” [Coll. 1.6 = Nov. 6] in principio; et nemo unquam dicit quod Accursius ex hoc fuerit herericus. Edam videmus quod hodie est valde diminutum imperium; sed somnia sunt quicquid dici tur contra statum universalis ecclesie, a quo dependet imperium et torus universalis orbis.’
28 See Maffei, La donazione, pp. 190,254.
29 Ad Proem, ad v. ‘Expedita’ (Pavia, 1495), foL 2v: ‘Istam questionem determinaverunt antiqui tangendo illam questionem de donadone facta ecclesie que potius fuit divinitatis quam humanitatis, et dixerunt quoad expropriaoonem territorii, dignitatis vel iurisdicdonis non valere nec possibile esse; commoda tamen et utile dominium concedi posse salva semper ab imperio recognidone ac fide. Quod enim impera tor seipsum mudlet, id est membra imperii a se amputrt, dicere esset species fatuitads… et ideo si donado Constandni non processisset a fide cattolica sicut processif sed a mero iure imperialis officii non potuisset caput imperii, id est Romam, a ceteris membris mutilan, quia capitis truncado non est pars quota sed tota.’
30 Baldus, Cons., 1.359 (Brescia, 1490), foL 109V (= Cons., 3.159, Venice, 1575): “Quicquid dicatur de donatione Constanrini que fuit miraculosa, si similes donationes fierent a regibus non [non ed. 1575; ideo ed. 1490] ligarent successores quibus regni tutela non dilapidado est commissi.’
31 Addillo ad Guilielmus Durantis, Speculum iuris, 2.2.3 (Frankfurt, 1592) p. 248: ‘Solurio. Contra imperatorem, qui pretendit ex instiamone divina iurisdictionem temporalem, non potest prescribi ab ecclesia: bene habet decimas ex institurione divina, sed temporalem iurisdictionem ex instiamone et providentia humana.’ For Baldus’s ideas concerning the divine source of imperial and papal jurisdiction see Canning, , Political Thought, pp. 24–32.Google Scholar
32 See Canning, , Political Thought, pp. 26–8.Google Scholar
33 Ad Dig. 49.15.24, n. 4 (Turin, 1577), fol. 228r: ‘Ecclesia Romana exercet Ulis [illas ed. cit. et ed. Basle, 1589] in terris iurisdictionem, que erat imperii [imperii ed. Milan, 1491; imperio ed. cit. et ed. Basle, 1580] Romani et istud fatentur; non ergo desinunt esse de populo Romano, sed administrado istarum provinciarum est alteri concessa.’
34 Cons. 2.37 (Brescia, 1490), fol. IIV (= Cons. 4.40, Venice, 1575): ‘[Imperator] non habet ubique imperatoriam administrationem, nam divisum habet imperium cum apostolico, ita quod terre ecclesie Romane non subsunt imperatori immediate nec mediate.’
35 See Canning, , Political Thought, pp. 59—60.Google Scholar
36 Ad Dig. Vet. Prima Const, super rubrica, nn. 8-9 (Venice, 1585; anastatic repro. Bologna, 1974), fol. 3v: ‘Audivi tamen a fide dignis quod in scriptis authenticis habetur quod tempore dicte donationis audita fuit vox de celo: hodie venenum aspidum seminatum est in ecclesia dei.’
37 Ad Cod. Const., ‘De novo Codice componendo’ ([Lyons, 1498]), fol. iv.
38 See Dig. 1.1.5 itself: ‘Ex hoc iure gentium introducta bella, discrete gentes, regna condita, dominia distincta…’ (Venice, 1497); and Baldus, , ad Dig. 1.1.5 ([Lyons], 1498)Google Scholar, fol. 7r. For the connection between ius gentium and reason see Baldus ad Dig. 1.1.1,4, ibid., fol. 5v.
39 Ad Cod. Const., ‘De novo Codice componendo’, ([Lyons, 1498]), fol. iv: ‘Constat enim quod secundum naturalem rarionem et secundum ius gentium provinde eliguht sibi regem, ut [Dig. 1.1.5]. Et ideo quod est a principio approbatum istud censetur de iure gentium. Sed per provincias et per civitates istud fuit semper approbatum et presritum iuramentum fidelitatis ipsi pape; ergo tales provinde et civitates subsunt domino pape de iure gentium secundum naturalem rarionem. Et istam partem teneo et confirmo, quia posito quod donatio non tenuisset ecclesia tamen prescripsisset non obstante [Cod. 4.21.20], quia subditus non pre-scribit ut ibi, sed ecclesia est par imperio.’
40 See Canning, , Political Thought, pp. 82–3.Google Scholar
41 See, for instante, Ermini, G., ‘Caratteri della sovranità temporale dei papi nei secoli XIII e XIV’, ZSRGX, 27 (1938), pp. 332–3, 343Google Scholar; Partner, P., The Lands of St Peter. The Papal State in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance (London, 1972), pp. 235–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jones, , Malatesta of Rimini, P. 4.Google Scholar
42 See p. 254.
43 See Canning, , Political Thought, pp. 43–4.Google Scholar
44 Ad Dig. Vet., Proem, ad v. ‘Quoniam’ ([Lyons], 1498), fol. iv: ‘Prescriptio pape enervat perpetuo ius imperatoris… Et licet inferior non possit prescribere regalia contra superiorem, ut [Cod. 7.39.6], tamen papa potest prescribere regalia contra imperatorem et subditos quia est capax supreme potestatis, sicut unus rex potest prescribere contra alium regalia regis.’
45 Ad Feud. 2.53, (Pavia, 1495), fols 74r-v: ‘Respondeo omnes sunt subiecti [i.e. imperatori] de iure, et merito; sed non omnes sunt subiecti de consuetudine; et peccant sicut Francigene et multi alii reges.’
46 See Ermini, , ‘Caratteri della sovranità’, pp. 345–7Google Scholar; and Partner, P., The Papal State under Martin V. The Administration and Government of the Temporal Power in the Early Fifteenth Century (London, 1958), p. 14.Google Scholar
47 Ad X.2.1.12 (Lyons, 1551), fol. 189v: ‘In summa quicquid potest rex in suo regno, potest papa in ecclesiastica monarchia, et sicut olim omnia a manu regis gubernabantur, ut [Dig. 1.2.2,1], ita et quicquid regi placet legis habet vigorem.’
48 Ad Dig. Vet. Proem, ad v. ‘Quoniam’ ([Lyons], 1498), fol. iv: “Subdiri ergo habent parere donatario nisi quatenus seve et tyrannice uteretur iurisdicrione, ut infra [Dig. 1.1.3; Dig. 1.2.2,3], et quod notatur [Dig. 49.15.24] per Bartolum, nam si dominus non impendit subditis officii debitum subdiri non tenentur ei ad servitutem, infra [Dig. 1.4.1] in verbo “ei et in eum”, et nota [Dig. 1.6.2], “dominorum”, scilicet quamdiu non servatur quod debetur.’
49 Cons., 3.274 (Brescia, 1491), fol. 82r (= Cons., 1.324, Venice, 1575): ‘Papa enim debet esse conservator papaus regni et corone, quia tenetur honorem corone illesum servare et edam si iuraret contrarium non valet iuramentum. Idem in seculari, quia honor corone non est alienabilis nec alteri concessibilis nec alteri transmutabilis, licet sit communicabilis.’
50 Ad Dig. Vet., Proem, ad v. ‘Quoniam’ ([Lyons], 1498), fol. iv.
51 Defensor pacts, ed. Scholz, R. (Hanover, 1933), 11, xviii, 7, p. 381Google Scholar: ‘Cum quarundam eciam provinciarum seculari dominio’.
52 See Woolf, , Bartolas, pp. 80–5Google Scholar, and Canning, , Political thought, pp. 132–4Google Scholar. See also Ermini, G., ‘Diritto romano comune e diritti particolari nelle terre della chiesa’, Ius romanum medii aevi, 5, 2C (Milan, 1975), p. 44.Google Scholar
53 Canning, , Political Thought, p. 133.Google Scholar
54 Ad X.2.18.7, n. 1 (Lyons, 1551), fol. 349r: ‘Iurisdictio temporalis est omnino divisa a iurisdicrione ecclesie, nisi in terris ecclesie.’
55 See Prodi, , Papal Prince, p. 29.Google Scholar