Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-txr5j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T21:06:50.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Case of Bernard of Osma:* Royal Influence and Papal Authority in the Diocese of Osma

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2016

Charles Duggan*
Affiliation:
King’s CollegeLondon
Get access

Extract

The election of Bishop Bernard of Osma, former prior of Osma, took place not later than 15 February 1174. But the validity of his election was subsequently challenged on grounds of simony, and he was deposed sometime after mid-July 1176. A decretal of Alexander III to Archbishop Cerebruno of Toledo, Consuluit nos, dealt in its opening section with the question of appeals where manifest crimes were involved, or frustratory tactics employed, and in its second part with the charges raised against the election of Bernard, quondam bishop of Osma. The letter was received into the canonical collections from 1179 onwards, and ultimately into the official Decretales of 1234. There is no ambiguity about the provenance of this letter.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1991 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

For Abbreviations and Sigla of Decretal Collections, with MS details of texts edited here, see pp. 93—6 below.

References

1 See nn. 42-6 below.

2 See Text II below.

3 See Text I below.

4 Jaffé 13728.

5 Frcf.FRTM 10.4. The ‘Frankfurt’ group is named after the modern location of the first known manuscript, but other members of the group are found in Paris, Troyes, and London. The work perhaps originated in Sens or Troyes, and later developments were completed in Rouen and possibly Lincoln; see Kuttner, S., ‘Collectio Francofortana’, ZSRG.K, 22 (1933), pp. 370–80Google Scholar; P. Landau, ‘Die Entstehung der systemarischen Dekretalensammlungen und die europäische Kanonistik des 12. Jahrhunderts’, ibid., 66 (1979), pp. 124ff. An analysis of the group is in an advanced stage of preparation by Professor Landau.

6 I Comp. 1.4(5] and 2 Comp. 1.3.2, in Antiquae collecliones decrelalium, ed. Antonio Agustín; analysed E. Friedberg, Quinqué compilationes antiquae; Alan 1.6.6, Fuld. 1.6.16: see Heckel, R. von, ‘Die Dekretalen-sammlungen des Gilbertus und Alanus nach den Weingartener Handschriften’, ZSRG.K, 29 (1940), pp. 116357, at pp. 231–2 and 335.Google Scholar

7 Frcf.R fol. 178va; Frcf. M fol. 19V; but cf. n. 17 below.

8 2 Comp. 1.2.4: Cum le audierimus, Jaffé 13568, WH 314, Clement III to Bishop Gilbert of Clermont, 1190.

9 Mansi (from Agustín edn), 22.482; PL (from Mansi) 201, col. 1375.

10 Whitelock, D., Brett, M., and Brooke, C. N. L., eds, Councils and Synods, with other Documents Relating to the English Church (Oxford, 1981), I. ii (1066-1204), p. 882.Google Scholar

11 RHGL 16(Paris, 1806), p. 645. Cf. Councils and Synods, I.ii, pp. 948, 958-9, and nn., on the Young King’s plea for free canonical elections: ‘strange music from the mouth of any Angevin’. The seven elections of 1173 were those of Richard of Dover to Canterbury, Richard of Ilchester to Winchester, Geoffrey Ridel to Ely, Robert Foliot to Hereford, Reginald Fitz-Jocelin to Bath, John Greenford to Chichester, and the King’s illegitimate son Geoffrey to Lincoln. With evident justice in some cases, the Young King’s letter further alleged that the persecutors of the martyr were being promoted to English bishoprics. All seven elections were challenged and examined by the Pope, but the elect were confirmed and consecrated in 1174, except for the illegitimate Geoffrey, whose confirmation was deferred on grounds of his birth and age, and in the event he was never consecrated to Lincoln; he became Archbishop of York after his father’s death, in the reign of Richard I. On the elections, see Foreville, R., L’Église el la royautéen Angleterre sous Henri II Planlagenel (Paris, 1943), pp. 377–84Google Scholar; for testimonials written in support of Richard of Ilchester and other elect in 1173-4, see Morey, A. and Brooke, C. N. L., eds, The Letters and Charters of Gilbert Foliot (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 291302Google Scholar, nos 220-6 and 228, and Millor, W. J. and Brooke, C. N. L., eds, Tlie Letters of John of Salisbury, 2 (1163-1180) (Oxford, 1979), pp. 761–85, nos 311—19Google Scholar; for Richard of Ilchester, see Duggan, C., ‘Richard of Ilchester, royal servant and bishop’, TRHS, ser. 5, 16 (1966), pp. 121, esp. pp. 1314Google Scholar, and ‘Bishop John and archdeacon Richard of Poitiers: their roles in the Becket dispute and its aftermath’, in Foreville, R., ed., Thomas Becket: actes du colloque internationale de Sédières, 1973 (Paris, 1975), pp. 7183Google Scholar, and Turner, R. V., The English Judiciary in the Age of Glanvill and Bracton, c. 1176-1230 (Cambridge, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim. Somewhat implausibly, Giraldus Cambrensis later recorded that Richard of Winchester blamed Richard of Canterbury for the loss of all that St Thomas the Martyr had gained, Ciraldi Cambrensis opera, ed. J. F. Dimock, RS, 21, 7 (1877), p. 70: ‘totum revera, quantum in ipso fuit, martyr obtinuit. Quia si successor eius decimam partem bonitatis et probitatis eius habuisseet, nullum ecclesia de articulis illis amisisset.’

12 ibid., p. 59: the language of Gerald’s definition: ‘literatum et honestum eligit ecclesia ministerio’ agrees with that of Alexander III in Quia requisislis: ‘in personam honestam litteratam et idoneam unanimiter conveniatis, et earn in pastorem et episcopum concorditer eligatis, cuius providentia, etc’

13 Qua fronte, Jaffé 14312, WH 755: pd X 2.28.25; App. 31.2-3, and 43.3. The probable date of this letter (early 1176 to mid-1177 [1176-81]) is discussed in Duggan, C., ‘St Thomas of Canterbury and aspects of the Becket dispute in the decretal collections’, in Viola, C. E., ed., Mediaevalia Christiana XIe-XIIIe siècles: Hommage à Raymonde Foreville (Paris, 1989), pp. 121–2, no. 34.Google Scholar

14 In his unpublished notes, Holtzmann considered the possibility of an Irish context, but the meagre records of Irish bishoprics in the period give no support for this suggestion. Many papal letters to Ireland in the thirteenth century refer to royal intervention and licence to elect: see Sheehy, M. P., Pontificia Hibemica, 640-1261, 2 (Dublin, 1965)Google Scholar, passim.

15 Agustín, p. 19, n. b.

16 Walter was Bishop of Rochester, 1148—82.

17 -Both Winchester and Worcester were monastic cathedrals. Henry of Blois was Bishop of Winchester, 1129-71, followed by Richard of Ilchester 1174(el. 1173)to 1188. Alfred was Bishop of Worcester, 1158-60, followed by Roger, 1164 (el. 1163)10 1179.

18 Correctly: Frcf. FRM 2.5: Super eo quod interrogasti: Jaffé 8274, WH 1016, Innocent II to Bishop Henry of Winchester, 1139—41. Incorrecdy: Frcf. FTM (non leg. photogr. R) 2.4: Super eo quod asseris = part (b) of Consuiuil nos, Jaffé 13790, WH 191, Alexander III to the Archbishop of Bordeaux, 1159-81; by scribal error this item also appears as Innocent II to Henry of Winchester. Within two places of Quia requisisti;, a further scribal error is found in Frcf. FR 10.6, where the recipient is named bishop of Norwich instead of Worcester: Noslisicut, Jaffé 12753, WH 679, Alexander III to Roger of Worcester, 1173—5.

19 Frcf. 10.2—6.

20 Jaffé 12367, WH 226, summer 1174.

21 Jaffé 12632, WH 818,6 April 1164-5, the only non-English decretal in the sequence.

22 Jaffé 14312, WH 755,1176-9.

23 Jaffé 12753, WH 679, 1173-9: wrongly addressed to the bishop of Norwich in Frcf. RM (om. FT).

24 Frcf.M 10.5: Jaffé 11253, WH 772: 17 June 1161; see (Heslin), Anne Duggan, ‘The Coronation of die Young King in 1170’, SCH, 2 (1965), pp. 165–78.Google Scholar

25 Claustr. 181, fol. 63: Jaffé 14112 and 14110, WH 193, 1176-9: it is not clear whether the initial h. was intended for the king (? Henry) or the bishop (? h. misreading for b. = Bernard).

26 On the collections and their family relationships, see W. Holtzmann, ‘Über eine Ausgabe der päpstlichen Dekretalen des 12. Jahrhunderts’, Nachmhten Akad. Göttingen (1945), pp. 15—36. The latest lists of collections, with manuscript locations and relevant literature, are in Holtz-mann-Cheney, pp. xx-xxxi, and Chodorow-Duggan, pp. xix-xxxi; see also Sigla of Decretal Collections below.

27 Jaffé 14112 and 14110.both sa 1159—81.

28 See Text II below, with apparatus of manuscript locations and select textual variants.

29 Many collections (including I Comp. and X) read this sentence also as relating to a manifest matter—si vero id manifestum est—a reading which is in turn discussed by some glossators. But manifestum non est occurs in the earliest collections, and seems the more likely form.

30 See Text II below: passages b-b, c-c, and d-d, and relevant apparatus.

31 Ibid., passage c-c and apparatus: Eber., 1 Alc, Claustr., Wig. 5.7, Cott., Pet.

32 Agustín, ed., p. 279 n.(g) at a Bernardo Exon.: ‘Ab Ernardo quondam Certomensi, concil. alias Ceromensi, sic in priori edit, concil. a Bernardo, in poster. Ego mendosa esse omnia suspicor, et scribendum: a Bernardo Oxomen. Est autem Exonia in Britannia, Oxoma in Hispania: Exonensi, unus Tarraconensis non recte; n.(k) at Archidiacono Exonen.: Exon. tres. Tarracon. Sevien. concil. Exom. Archid. vetus Gregor. Obsom. Archid. alter vetus. Exonien. Cont. et alii: scribo Oxoniensi; n.(gg) at sine deminulione [sic]: Ecclesiae Ceromensi sine, concil. ecclesiae Exon. duo Tarr. et Barcin. Exon. ecclesiae sine, tertius Tarrac. Exom. vetus Gregor. Obsom. alter vetus. Exonien. Cont. et alii: scribo, ecclesiae Oxomiensisine, est autem Oxoma subfoletano Antistite, cui hoc rescriptum mittitur.’

33 X 5.3.11: ed. p. 752: [a Bernardo quondam Oxoniensi (l’or. Exoniensi) episcopo] … Oxo-mensis (van. Exonensis, Seviensi) archidiacono … ecclesiae Oxomensi (varr. Exonensi, Exonien., Cremonensi).

34 González, J., El reino de Castilla en la época de Alfonso VIII, 3 vols (Madrid, 1960), 2, pp. 462–3Google Scholar, no. 280, 23 May 1177, and 2, pp. 474-5, no. 289.

35 The general problem was noted long ago by Maitland, F. W., Roman Canon Law in the Church of England (London, 1898), pp. 122–3Google Scholar: ‘to the decretists the whereabouts of diese places was less than nothing. They might be in Spain; they might be in Hungary; they might be nowhere.’ See also Holtzmann, ‘Über eine Ausgabe’, p. 30.

36 Innotuit nobis, Clement III to Bishop Martin of Osma. Jaffé 16597 + 16621, WH 566, 18 June 1190; addressed to Exeter in Monacensis 80 and Halensis 17: see Holtzmann-Cheney, pp. 230 and 236.

37 Relatum est, Alexander III to the Bishop of Huesca and the Prior of Neustra Señora del Pilar in Zaragoza, Jaffé 14041, WH 862, 1167-70; cf. Sang. 8.5 fol. 85vb: Idem exon. episcopo el priori sancte Marie Augustinì.

38 Super auoddam, Clement HI to the Bishop of Huesca, Jaffé 16606, WH 1019, 11 February 1188; addressed to the Bishop of Ely in Monacensis 4: see Holtzmann—Cheney, p. 225.

39 Morey, A., Bartholomew of Exeter Bishop and Canonist (Cambridge, 1937), pp. 813.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., p. 45.

41 Claustr. 181: cf. n. 25 above.

42 González, 2, pp. 326-7, no. 197, a royal confirmation in favour of Toledo; cf. J. Loperráez Corvalán, Descripción Histórica del Obispado de Osma con el catálogo de sus prelados, 3 vols (Madrid, 1788: repr. Madrid, 1978): 1, p. 148 and n. 2: Ego Bernardas Episcopus electus Oxomens. confirmo.

43 Ibid., pp. 148-9 and p. 149, n. 1: Ego Bemardus Episcopus Oxomens. confirmo.

44 González, 2, pp. 347—9, no. 211, a royal confirmation of die possessions of the church of Osma; cf. Loperráez Corvalán, 3: Colección Diplomática, pp. 36—8.no. 27.

45 Hernández, F.J., ed., Los cartularios de Toledo: catálogo documentai Monumenta Ecclesiae Toletanae Histórica, Series 1: Regesta et Inventaria Historica, 1 (Madrid, 1985), pp. 165–6Google Scholar. no. 171: Alfonso and Eleanor grant the monastery of Covarrubias and all its lands and possessions to the cathedral of Toledo and Archbishop Cerebruno, in reparation for violation of the cathedral.

46 González, 2, pp. 432-3, no. 262, at Belrod.

47 Ibid., 2, pp. 462-4, nos 280 and 281.

48 Gams, P. B., Series episcoporum ecclesiae Catholicae (Regensburg, 1873-86: repr.’ Graz, 1957), p. 56Google Scholar: ‘Bernard OSB 1174-post 9.Viii.1185’. But cf. Loperrácz Corvalán, i, p. 148:’post hunc (scilicet Johannem) fuit Episcopus Bernardus, Prior Oxomensis tempore Regis Aldephonsi, et consecratus a d. Celebrano Toletano Archiepiscopo, et Episcopis Soscelmo Seguntino et Gonzalvo Segoviensi; iste fuit simoniacus, et ideo fuit depositus per Alexandrum Papam, et factus fuit Prior Oxomensis. Vixit autem in Episcopato duobus annis’ (cited by Holtzmann); and Zamora, F., Diccioniario de Historia Eclesiástica de España, 3 (Madrid, 1973), p. 1848Google Scholar: ‘Bernardo OSB: 1174-76, depuesto accusando de simonia’. Both Loperráez Corvalán and Zamora give Michael’s dates as 1177—85; but cf. citation in Loperráez Corvalán, i, p. 161: ‘Post hunc (de D. Bernardo) fuit Michael Episcopus… Rexit Ecclesia VII. annos.’

49 Mansi, 22.216 and 466; cf. Paris, BN, MS lat. 14938, fol. 266ra-b (text very close to Mansi, 22.466), list of prelates attending the council: ‘Provinciae toletane: Cclebrinus toletanus archiepiscopus. raimundus palenrinus episcopus. Gonsalbus Sogobiensis. Michael olxumensis. Oderricus sequentinus.’ The dates given for Gonzalo of Segovia by Gams (Series episcoporum, p. 70) and Hernando, J. Garcia (Diccionario de Historia Eclesiástica de España, 4 [1975], p. 2400Google Scholar) can be improved: both cite 1170 as the last known date for Guillermo, Gonzalo’s predecessor, and 1177 as the earliest known date for Gonzalo, leaving a seven-year gap. But Gonzalo was already bishop by early 1173: he confirmed a concession by Alfonso VIII and Eleanor to the church of Toledo and its archbishop, Cerebruno, at Toledo on 30 March 1173.a licence for work on the completion of the building (Hernández, pp. 156-7, no. 162); and he was one of Bernard of Osma’s consecrators in 1174 (Loperráez Corvalán, 1, p. 161).

50 Loperráez Corvalán, 3, p. 3: Coleccion Diplomática, pp. 38-40, no. 28 (15 July).

51 Hernández, pp. 53—4, no. 50,1 September 1145.

52 González, i, pp. 170—1 et passim.

53 Hernández, pp. 173-4, no. 180.

54 González, 2, pp. 505-7, no. 307; Hernández, pp. 176-7, no. 184.

55 González, 2, pp. 542—3.no. 324, and pp. 603—4, no. 355; Hernández, pp. 178-9, no. 186, and pp. 182-3, no. 191.

56 González, 2, pp. 635-8, no. 368, at Burgos.

57 González, 3, pp. 341-7, no. 769, at pp. 345-6; Hernández, pp. 258-61, no. 282, at p. 260.

58 González, 1, pp. 144,185-90, et passim; cf. 2, pp. 253—4.no. 148,17 September 1170: grant by Alfonso and Eleanor to Bishop John of Osma in favour of the church of Osma. Alfonso’s language in 1204 implies an earlier date than 1174, which presumably resolves a problem raised by DrLinehan, in ‘The synod of Segovia (1166)’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, 10 (1980), p. 38, n. 30Google Scholar: ‘the reference in the king’s will…serves to highlight our ignorance of the ecclesiastical history of the 1160s since bishop Juan of Osma is thought to have ruled his diocese undisturbed from 1148 to 1173.’ The will in fact refers to Bernard’s election.

59 González, 3, pp. 740-1, no. 1011.

60 On the subject of forgeries in the collections, cf.Duggan, C., ‘Improba pestis falsitatis: Forgeries and the problem of forgery in twelfth-century decretal collections’, in Fuhrmann, H., ed., Fälschungen im Miltelalter: Intemationaler Kongress der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, München 1986 (Hanover, 1988), 2, pp. 319–61Google Scholar; cf. esp. pp. 328-9, no. 3.

61 Chororow-Duggan, pp. 169—71.no. 96.

62 Tann. 4.6.4, p. 656a; Sang, 5.5.8, fol. 52va-b.

63 Estensis 6.9.2: Duggan, ‘Improba pestis falsitatis’, pp. 355-6, no. 18.

64 See n. 25 above.

65 See nn. 46-8 above.