¹ The series (abbreviated below as o.s.) runs from 1295 to 1555 and consists of 91 volumes (based on Fink, K. A., Das Vatikanische Archiv, Rome, 1951, p. 51)Google Scholar. A complete inventory is to be found in Baumgarten, P. M., Untersuchungen und Urkunden über die Camera Collegii Cardinalium, Leipzig, 1898, pp. xvii–xxiiGoogle Scholar. Also in Inventario dell' Archivio Camerale in the Sala degli Indici of the Vatican Archives.

² The inventory of M. Lonigo printed by Gasparolo, F in Studi e documenti di storia e diritto, viii, 1887Google Scholar, lists another division register under the form ‘Eiusdem et Pauli 2 divisionum liber 1.’ ‘Eiusdem’ refers to Pius II in the entry before (p. 46) and not to Nicholas V, as given by Goller, E., ‘Untersuchungen über das Inventar des Finanzarchivs der Renaissancepapste’, in Miscellanea F. Ehrle, v (Studi e testi, 41), Rome, 1924, p. 241Google Scholar. This would appear then to have been a duplicate of the division register, listed in the inventory in the same form.

³ The early surviving division registers in the series, vols. 1A, 3, 4, 11, differ from those following in recording at length the cardinals' shares in the revenues of the papal states and the visitation tax. How far the cardinals in the fifteenth century still participated in these revenues is a question I hope to discuss on a later occasion; see Partner, P., The Papal State under Martin V, British School at Rome, 1958 pp. 138–40Google Scholar, where the question is raised and briefly discussed. A reference in OS. 65 to cardinals sharing in the revenues of a Dogana del Patrimonio (f. 134 v.) does not seem to have been noted before.

The remaining division registers, dealing almost exclusively with the service taxes, are: vols. 51 (1389–99), 54 (1399–1407), 61 (1413–20), 63A (1442–7), 65 (1428–37), 69 (1437–43), 80 (1460–70). A few general divisions from these volumes have been printed by Baumgarten, eg. docs. nos. 297b, 323.

⁴ A good selected list of works on the Obligationes et Solutiones series is given in Hoberg, H., Taxae pro Communibus Servitiis (Studi e testi, 144), Rome, 1949, p. ixGoogle Scholar, for general works on the service taxes and pp. xvii–xviii for documents published. The Bibliografia dell'Archivio Vaticano (3 vols. so far appeared, 1962, 1963 and 1965)Google Scholar lists further items, but is far from being exhaustive. The most important publications making use of OS. 80 since Hoberg are: L. M. Baath, Diplomatarium Svecanum, appendix, Acta pontificum svecica, acta cameralia, vol. ii, Stockholm, 1957Google Scholar, prints the Swedish entries; Lisowski, J., Polonica ex Libris ‘Obligationes et Solutiones,’ Elementa ad Fontium Editiones, i, Rome, 1960Google Scholar, prints the Polish entries; Lunt, W. E., Financial Relations of the Papacy with England, vol. ii, Mediaeval Academy of America, Cambridge (Mass.), 1962Google Scholar.

⁵ These go back at least as far as the bull Coelestis Altitudo of 1289 (Theiner, A., Codex diplomaticus dominii temporalis S. Sedis, Rome, 1861Google Scholar, doc. CCCCLXVIII). For the rules about divisions in general, see below and Baumgarten, pp. xxxiii ff: and Clergeac, A., La Curie et les bénéficiers consistoriaux, Paris, 1911Google Scholar, passim.

⁶ The provisions recorded in the register sometimes go back as far as the pontificate of Calixtus III, e.g. f. 35.

⁷ A detailed study of the individual entries would require comparison with the other contemporary volumes in the Obligationes et Solutiones series. These are: vol. 76, containing obligations to the College from 1447 to 1461; vol. 78, a volume of quittances to the College almost contemporary with the division register (1460–70) and therefore a good check on the figures there given; also vols. 82 and 83, provision registers starting from 1466 (more or less duplicate volumes), and again a useful check on the dates for promotions given in the division register from that date. Common service payments are also recorded in the Introitus et Exitus volumes and occasionally in the Mandati Camerali in the Archivio di Stato, Rome.

⁸ I do not propose to discuss in detail the division of the servitia minuta. Only the share of the clerks of the College is regularly recorded in the register; see below.

⁹ On the consistorial records for the fifteenth century and later, see Fink, op. cit., p. 61, and above all Sussidi per la consultazione deLL' Archivio Vaticano, 1, Rome, 1926Google Scholar, Inventario del Fondo Concistoriale, pp. 203–19. On the volume of consistorial cedulae in the Vatican Library (Vat. Lat. 3478 for the years 1480–7), see Lang, A., Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte der Steuermark, Graz, 1903, pp. 93–108Google Scholar, and the extracts there printed.

¹⁰ Gottlob, A., Die Servitientaxe im 13 Jahrhundert, Stuttgart, 1903Google Scholar. The author tried to establish that the service taxes were an innovation of the pontificate of Alexander IV. Cf. Goller, E., Die Einnahmen der Apostolischen Kammer unter Johann XXII, Paderborn, 1910Google Scholar, with an introductory section on the service taxes.

¹¹ Cameron, A., The Apostolic Camera and Scottish Benefices, Oxford, 1934, p. xivGoogle Scholar.

¹² I hope to discuss the cardinal-promoters of the fifteenth century in greater detail on another occasion. By the end of the fifteenth century it seems that these promotions had become a near monopoly of mainly national ‘cardinal protectors’; on these see Wodka, J., Zur Geschichte der nationalen Protektorate der Kardinale, Leipzig, 1938Google Scholar.

¹³ On the development of the formal examination of candidates for major benefices, especially from the early sixteenth century, see Ritzier, R., ‘Die bischoflichen Informativprozess in den “Processus Consistoriales”,’ Römische Historische Mitteilungen, ii, 1957–1958, pp. 204–20Google Scholar. There is also an excellent summary account in Jadin, L., ‘Procés d'information des évêques et abbés des Pays-Bas, de Liège et de Franche-Comté d'après les archives de la Congregation Consistoriale,’ Bulletin de l'Institut historique belge de Rome, viii, 1928Google Scholar, introduction. These regular processes for examining the merits of candidates date in particular from the bull ‘Supernae dispositionis’ of 5 May 1514, though the origins can be traced much further back. It is not clear in fact if these regular procedures were not already observed in the late fifteenth century; see Clergeac, pp. 188–9.

¹⁴ On the propina see Lunt, pp. 297–8, and above all Clergeac, pp. 190–2, citing a decree on the rate of the propina in the Vatican Library, Barb. Lat. 2892. For the whole question of additional expenses involved in consistorial provisions, see Lunt, pp. 247–79, based largely on documents printed by Mayr-Aldwang, in MIOG, xvii, 1896, pp. 90 ff.Google Scholar, and von Hofmann, W., Forschungen zur Geschichte der Kurialen Behorden, Rome, 1914, ii, pp. 209–26Google Scholar. These documents are now in the Vatican Archives, Cam. Apost., Taxae 34. For composition with the Datary on these payments, see Clergeac, doc. XXIII, and Mayr-Aldwang, pp. 91–5.

¹⁵ For examples of provision motu proprio, see OS. 83, ff. 47 v., 48, 50, 50 v., 51 v., 59, 64 v., 66 v., 67 v., 70 v., 71 v. On f. 39 there is the formula ‘s.d.n. motu proprio et in suo consistorio secreto,’ and on the same folio ‘s.d.n per suam signaturam.’ On f. 4 is found the common form ‘motu proprio de consensu omnium r. cardinalium.’ It seems that many of the provisions motu proprio were for benefices ‘vacantes in Curia.’ The relation of the candidate was often performed too by the Vice-Chancellor.

¹⁶ Lunt, p. 258 ff., on Which most of the following is based. In 1482 Sixtus IV established the college of sollicitatores litterarum apostolicarum, one of the functions of which was to supervise, at fixed rates, the preparation of bulls of consistorial provision (see Hofmann, i, p. 134 ff.). The bull is printed in full in Schlecht, J., Andrea Zamometic und der Basler Konzilsversuch von 1482, Paderborn, 1903, pp. 125–37Google Scholar of the documents section.

¹⁷ Printed in Baumgarten, pp. lxxxviiii–xcii.

¹⁸ Statutes printed in Eubel, C., Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi, Münster, 1901, ii, pp. 66–7Google Scholar. The ‘reformationes et additiones officii camerariatus’ (in Eubel, ii, pp. 67–8, from the present Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancellarii 1) refer to four divisions a year, but the statutes of 1514 (Eubel, iii, pp. 93–6) repeat the provisions of 1466. After further fluctuations, a decree of 1546 (cited in Clergeac) fixed four annual divisions at Christmas, Easter, The Nativity of St. John the Baptist and All Saints Day.

¹⁹ OS. 65, ff. 201–15 and 69, ff. 55 v.-71 v.; see also Baumgarten, doc. 300.

²⁰ Eubel, ii, pp. 7–9. For new cardinals created during the period of the division register, see Eubel, ii, pp. 13–16.

²¹ For this official, in charge of the business of the Chamber of the College, see Baumgarten, p. xliii ff.; and for a list of camerarii for the period of the division register, Eubel, ii, p. 69 and the extracts there printed from Vat. Arch. Arm. XXXI, 52, for the exact dates of appointments. The office was an annual one and as the statutes of 1466 say was to be exercised ‘per omnes et singulos reverendissimos dominos cardinales vicissim.’

²² Baumgarten, p. lviii ff. No list of the clerks of the College for the late fifteenth century exists, but some can be picked out from Eubel's notes. For the sixteenth century Eubel, iii, gives fuller details (pp. 96–100). The clerks for the period 1460–70 were Nicolo di Bonaparte, until 1468 when he became a clerk of the Apostolic Camera, Gabriel Rovira, and from 1468 Jeronimus Junius.

To the right of the table of general divisions are given the receipts of the clerks of the College as recorded in the register. According to the statutes of 1437 and 1466 they were entitled to 1 florin in every 100 received by the Cardinals and our figures show that this rule was generally adhered to. Attendance in consistory was a necessary qualification for a share in the service taxes for the clerks as for the cardinals.

²³ Baumgarten, p. clxiiii ff., and see below.

²⁴ The statutes of 1514 also mention a computista or exactor ‘qui exigat iura tarn currentia quam praeterita sacri collegii teneatque unum librum, in quo describat omnia nomina debitorum et res ac negotia sacri collegii date et recepti.’ One volume of ‘debitores s. collegii’ survives (OS. 81, 1471–1511) and, if this is the kind of volume referred to, this official may have existed earlier. The College perhaps had its own notary or scriptor, but I have been unable to identify any for the period 1460–70.

²⁵ For the location of the Camera of the College and its archives see Baumgarten, p. xiii, and now the important article of Ritzler, R., ‘Per la storia dell'Archivio del Sacro Collegio,’ in Mélanges Tisserant, (Studi e Testi, 235) Rome, 1964, v, pp. 299–338Google Scholar. The archives of the college were not properly established as an institution until Urban VIII.

²⁶ Eubel, iii, p. 95.

²⁷ See, for example, the accounts of individual cardinals with the Medici as revealed by De Roover, R., The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank, Harvard, 1963, pp. 204 ff.Google Scholar, 215. On Cardinal Bainbridge and his relations with bankers in the early sixteenth century, see Chambers, D. S.Cardinal Bainbridge in the Court of Rome, Oxford, 1965, p. 129Google Scholar: ‘Like many other cardinals, it seems that Bainbridge ran his economy largely on credit.’ Clergeac, p. 30, gives a few instances of cardinals assigning their share from the service taxes to bankers to pay off their debts, e.g. Pietro Barbo to Antonio della Casa v. doc. no. viii printed in the Appendix. Eubel, ii, note 458, gives an example from 1483; ‘Et die Dominica proxime praecedenti mandavit mihi Jeronimo (clericus s. collegii) idem dominus Andegavensis, quod omnes cedulas divisionum suarum deberem dare societati de Martellis, quae suae dominationi servivit de certis quantitate pecuniarum.’ Also ibid, note 455, where the cardinal of Aragon, leaving on a legation, instructs the clerk of the College ‘ut cedulas suarum divisionem dare societati olim de Rabatis et nunc de Martellis in deductionem suorum debitorum.’

²⁸ Cf. von Hofmann, ii, p. 23, 28. The intervention of the bankers is often clearer in the earlier division registers, which are generally fuller in marginal entries and comments. See, for example, the extracts from OS. 61 printed in Baumgarten.

²⁹ On Thomas, see Pastor, L., Storia dei Papi (Italian transl. Mercati, A.), ii, pp. 53, 215–17, 349, 367Google Scholar, and Pius II's Commentaries, transl. Grag, F. A. and Gabel, L. C. (complete version), Northampton, Mass., 1937 ff., pp. 523–42Google Scholar, 195. Zippel, G., Le Vite di Paolo II etc, Città di Castello, 1904, p. 139Google Scholar n. 1, gives full references to the crusading registers in the Archivio de Stato, Rome for payments made to Thomas and his brothers by the pope.

The division register records on f. 101 v. “Item flor. XVIII pro rata de flor. CCCL dati d., despoto Amoree et C clericus collegii divisiis inter XXV (18 × 25 = 450). On f. 72 “flor. XXXIII sol. IIII d. VII pro rata contingente uniusquisque istorum dominorum cardinalium de flor. VIICL quos habuit dominus despotus de banco de Medicis inter XXII cardinales divisis” (32 × 22 = 720 i.e. + the rest = 750).

³⁰ Baumgarten, p. xxxiiii ff.

³¹ See the statutes of 1466: ‘quod legati de latere in eorum absentia de communibus et minutiisservitiis nullo modo participent.’

³² From Vat. Arch. Arm. XXXI, 52. Extracts from the same document are printed in G. Bourgin, ‘Les cardinaux français et le diaire caméral de 1439–86, Mélanges d'arch. et d'hist., xxiv, 1904, pp. 277–318Google Scholar.

³³ Clergeac, p. 126.

³⁴ Eubel, ii, notes 253 and 255.

³⁵ Eubel, ii, notes 203 and 251. Many of the consistorial provisions recorded in the register were made at places where Pius II was staying for similar reasons, e.g. Tivoli and Petriolo. Pius II's Commentaries, pp. 392–405, 671.

³⁶ Eubel, ii, note 246, an exception for three cardinals created 15 Nov. 1467 ‘non obstante stilo et consuetudine s. collegii de non participando nisi a die aperitio oris.’ For this ceremony in general, see Mollat, G., ‘Contribution à l'histoire du Sacré Collège de Clément V à Eugène IV,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, xlvi–vii, 1951–1952, pp. 44–5Google Scholar.

³⁷ See Cameron, pp. l–li, for some interesting remarks on the subject. For the special case of Nicholas de Cusa (see eg. f. 95), the entry in the division register is now printed and discussed in Meuthen, E., Die letzten Jahre des Nikolaus von Kues, Köln, 1958, doc. LXXXV, pp. 289–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ f. 122, note at the foot; ‘pecunie de post mortem d. de Columpna et Ruteni usque ad hanc divisionem inclusive fuerunt date per me Gabrielem Rovira et cedulae eorum Rmo. dno. Niceno exequtori testamentorum eorundem.’ Cf. f. 131, a long note on the division of the proceeds of card. Aquiligiensis shared out between 16 cardinals (named) each receiving 32 fl. 8 sol. 10d. and on a sum of money given ‘executoribus ipsius domini Aquilegensis.’ And on f. 179 a note: ‘Dominus N. (Nicholas de Bonaparte ?) habuit omnes cedulas mortuorum usque in hanc divisions incluse.’

The register also includes three sections headed ‘De Emolumento sigilli’ giving the receipts from the seal of the College and their distribution. The totals are ff. 184 v.-185 v.: Summe sigilli 150 fl.; ff. 207–208 v., Summe sigilli 159 fl.; f. 226, 21 cardinals each receiving 6 fl. 9 sol. 6d.

³⁹ Gottlob, A., Aus der Camera Apostolica des XV Jahrhunderts, Innsbruck, 1889Google Scholar, remains the fundamental general guide, but a modern work is badly needed. There has been nothing comparable in papal historiography to the fresh work on the history of the later medieval English Exchequer, although the materials are not less plentiful. A late fifteenth century ‘budget’ of papal revenues is published in Gottlob, pp. 253–5, from the Carte Strozziane, Florence. This and the budget of 1480–1 printed by Bauer, C. in Archivio della Società romana di storia patria, 1, 1927, pp. 319–400Google Scholar are discussed by Partner, P. in Italian Renaissance Studies, ed. Jacob, E. F., London, 1960, pp. 256–78Google Scholar, where a budget for 1525 from Vat. Arch. Arm. XXXVII, 27, is printed in extract.

For reference to sixteenth century ‘budgets,’ see Delumeau, J., Vie économique et sociale de Rome, etc., Paris, 2 vols., 1957–1959Google Scholar, especially the list ‘Sources manuscrites’ at the end of vol. ii. Also valuable comments in Garocci, G., Lo Stato della Chiesa nella seconda metà del sec. XVI, Milano, 1961Google Scholar, and Monaco, M., La situazione della Reverenda Camera Apostolica nell'anno 1525, Rome, 1960Google Scholar.

I have found an unpublished summary papal ‘budget’ of 1500 in Vat. Arch. Arm. XXXIV, 11, ff. 233–7, entitled ‘Information super Thesauriam generali S. D. N.’

For valuable information and documents for the papal budget under Sixtus IV, see Müntz, E., Les arts à la com des Papes pendant le XV^e et XVI^e siècle, Paris, 1878–1882, vol. iii, pp. 60–5Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ The papal part of the service taxes came, from the late fifteenth century, to be assigned to various officials of the Curia, notably the colleges of offices from Sixtus IV onwards. Clergeac, pp. 119 ff., largely with reference to a MS. in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris lat. 12576.

It is not entirely clear if the spiritual revenues assigned to creditors of the papal Camera under Innocent VIII included the service taxes or not See document in Clergeac, no. XV. And also Müntz, E., Les arts à la cour des Papes Innocent VIII, Alexandre VI, Pie III, Paris, 1898, pp. 41–2Google Scholar, from Vat. Arch. Diversa Cameralia 1491–2, vol. 48, ff. 138 v. 140 v. Further documents on these assignments exist in other sources, e.g. OS. 79A (an out of series volume of miscellaneous cameral material).

⁴¹ Compare the figures in Lunt, pp. 305–433, admittedly not perhaps typical, for receipts from the two taxes. Work is being done by Emile Brouette on the Belgian entries from the ‘Libri Annatarum’ from Eugenius IV to Alexander VI, following that by Baix, F.. La Chambre Apostolique et les ‘Libri annatarum’ de Martin V, Brussels-Rome, 1947Google Scholar. One volume for the later period has so far been published (Analecta Vaticano-Belgica, vol. xxiv 1963Google Scholar) and when the series is complete it will be a useful means of comparison with the findings of U. Berlière on the common services.

⁴² A few comparisons may here be made with the totals in the earlier division registers. In the earliest of all, OS. 1A, as examined by Baethgen, F., ‘Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der papstliche Hof- und Finanzverwaltung unter Bonifaz VIII,’ QFIA, xx, 1928/1929, pp. 114–95Google Scholar, following on the work of Kirsch and Baumgarten, the estimated revenue from the service taxes was 25,616 florins in 1299 and 14,492 in 1302.

For the pontificate of Eugenius IV, I estimate average annual receipts in the three division registers at about 18,000 florins (a total of roughly 280,000 florins for the pontificate in eighty-nine recorded divisions over sixteen years). Calculated from OS. 65, 69, 63A.

⁴³ Korzeniowski, J., Excerpta ex libris Archivi Consistorialis, Cracow, 1890, p. 43Google Scholar, from what is now Fondo Concistoriale, Acta Vicecancellarii 1.

⁴⁴ Vat. Arch., Fondo Sacro Collegio dei Cardinali, Libri Cedularum et Rotulorum, I, the first in a series that seems to constitute a continuation of the fifteenth century division registers, but this volume concerns the receipts of only one cardinal. For this series v. Fink, p. 64, and Ritzier in Mélanges Tisserant.

Fieschi's accounts show wide variations, e.g. 1,489 ducats in 1517 and only 407 in the following year. Information from a forthcoming article by D. S. Chambers, ‘The Economic Predicament of Renaissance Cardinals,’ where the receipts of Fieschi are tabulated in an Appendix. In some accounts of Cardinal Giulio de Medici for 1521–2, his average receipts from the service taxes were quoted as about 700 ducats a year. Archivio di Stato, Florence, Carte Strozziane, Prima Serie X, f. 299, cited by Chambers. (See Postscript below, p. 96).

⁴⁵ Under Eugenius IV, Cardinal Domenico Capranica's receipts from 1437 to 1447 averaged about 1,214 florins per year (counting florins only), with receipts above 2,000 in 1438 and 1439, years of frequent divisions and few participants. For some sixteenth-century figures of variations in cardinals' revenues from the service taxes, see Clergeac, p. 130, dealing with the divisions of 1541 and 1542.

⁴⁶ Chamber's article on the promotions of 1517 as an explanation of the fall in Fieschi's receipts. The large increases in the numbers of the College in the later fifteenth century date from Sixtus IV.

⁴⁷ Mannucci, U., ‘Le capitolazioni del Conclave di Sisto IV, 1471,’ Römische Quartalschrift, xxix, 1915, pp. 73–90Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ J. Burckardi etc., Liber notarum etc., ed. E. Celani, Città di Castello, 1906, vol. i, p. 31.

⁴⁹ Vat. Arch. Arm. XI, 88, f. 6; Sanuto, M., Diarii, Venice, 1879–1903, xxxiii, 440Google Scholar. Both references from the article by Chambers, where further estimates are given.

⁵⁰ For a useful collection of references to these, see the works of Rodocanachi, E., La première Renaissance: Rome au temps de Jules II et Léon X, Paris, 1912Google Scholar. The Chapter on ‘Luxes et richesses des cardinaux’ gives a documented statement of what may be termed the traditional view of the scale of cardinals' revenues. Also idem, Histoire de Rome: Le pontificat de Léon X, 1513–21 [Paris], 1928, especially p. 170ff. The material evidence of palaces, artistic patronage, 15, tombs, etc. is not of course to be overlooked in any balanced estimate, but admittedly this evidence is not easy to assess.

⁵¹ See Chambers' article and his book on Cardinal Bainbridge, where he estimates his income at about 8,000 to 9,000 ducats.

For wide variations in income, see the contributions of the cardinals to a crusading tax of Alexander VI, supposedly based on a tenth of their income, as related by Burchard. The totals are tabulated by Delumeau, , op. cit., vol. i, pp. 451–2Google Scholar, but must obviously be treated with the utmost caution.