¹ Trexler, R. C., ‘Death and Testament in the Episcopal Constitutions of Florence (1327)’ Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron (DeKalb 1971) 29–74.Google Scholar

² On all the above, see ibid.Google Scholar

³ ‘Quamquam usurarii manifesti de usuris quas receperant, satisfieri expressa quantitate vel indistincte in ultima voluntate …’; C(orpus) I(uris) C(anonici) VI.5.5.2. Subsequent references to the Corpus give only the signature.Google Scholar

⁴ Commentarius libri VI. Bonifacii VIII (Mainz 1476), c. Quamquam § Indistincte.Google Scholar

⁵ Clem. 3.7.2.Google Scholar

⁶ See Petrucci's, F. paraphrasing of Boniface's commissio, Olim gravibus, in his Disputationes, Questiones, Consilia (Siena 1488), q.4, fifth contrary argument.Google Scholar

⁷ A(rchivio) A(rcivescovile) F(irenze), A-IV-10 Libro di Contratti, 1335, fol. 163^r-v ?.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid., fol. 53^v, 54^r.Google Scholar

⁹ See the consilium of Petrucci on whether a solvent convent of nuns could legally obtain money left to the poor of Christ; op. cit., q.282.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This trend is indicated, for example, for the Toulousain by Mundy, J. H., ‘Charity and Social Work in Toulouse, 1100 – 1250,’ Traditio 22 (1966) 207 ff. To my knowledge, there is no literature on Florentine wills of the Middle Ages.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹¹ This is my conclusion from an examination of the extant wills in the Notarial fondo of the A(rchivio) di S(tato) F(irenze). There are numerous wills of the late-dugento which spell out in the greatest detail each and every grant. Indistincte are for small amounts when they do appear. But from the early 1320s, sizable sums are being left in this form. By 1370 these indistinct grants were disappearing from wills. The motivation for this temporary efflorescence may be found in a tax loophole; see Trexler, op. cit. Google Scholar

¹² Innocent IV, Apparatus decretalium (Venice 1481); Hostiensis, Summa super decretalium (1479); Lectura sive apparatus domini Hostiensis super decretalium (Paris 1512).Google Scholar

¹³ ‘Sed et summus pontifex hoc ius renovare debet et illuminare’; Summa, de sep. § Vetus est questio. Hostiensis was speaking of the episcopal portion.Google Scholar

¹⁴ This is a literary commonplace, though as far as I know there is no secondary literature tracing parish fortunes on the basis of administrative documents. For a vivid account of the bitterness of the Ravennese secular clergy on this score (1250s), see Salimbene de Adam, Cronica (ed. Bernini, F.) II (Bari 1942) 57. Innocent wanted to counter the decline of parish finances by entitling the rector to a portion when any parochial service (not just testament and burial) was performed away from the parish; op. cit., de sep. c. Relatum § Medietatem.Google Scholar

¹⁵ X.3.28.1.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., X.3.26.10; Summa, de sep. § Et apud quam; § Et de quibus, with further text references to this word.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Funeralia and Mortuaria were often used interchangeably, but see Giovanni d'Andrea's paraphrase of Benedict XI's Inter cunctos in his gloss on the Clementines: Apparatus super libris clementinorum (Rome 1473), de sep. c. Dudum a Bonifacio, § Funeralibus; also ibid., c. Eos qui § Eis quibus. See as well John XXII's use of the word, given in Du Cange, Glossarium, ‘Funeralia.’Google Scholar

¹⁸ Giovanni d'Andrea, loc. cit.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Uguccio da Pisa (fl. 1180) had defined funeralia as: ‘[illa] quibus consueverunt ligari mortuum vel sudaria mortuorum dum trahebantur terre’; Guillaume de Montlazun, Apparatus super clementinas (Paris 1517), c. Dudum a Bonifacio § Item integre (fol. 108^v).Google Scholar

²⁰ Hostiensis, Lectura, de sep. c. Relatum est § Disponere. Giovanni d'Andrea lists the canonists pro and con: loc. cit., § Quarta. See also Hostiensis, Summa, de sep. § Et utrum canonica portio. Oldradus de Laude tells us that, on the eve of Super cathedram, the communis opinio limited the portion to the burial church; Consilia et questiones (Rome 1472), q.224, ‘Queritur.’Google Scholar

²¹ X.3.28.9; Apparatus, de test. c. Requisisti § Communio; de sep. c. Certificari § Diver-sitatibus. The argument was based on one-quarter being a more common portion, especially in the canons Innocent thought most recent.Google Scholar

²² Summa, de sep. § Quis teneatur.Google Scholar

²³ They based this denial on a reading of the canons x.q.iii.cc.i, ii, iii. For Innocent's standard rebuttal, see Apparatus, de test. c. Requisisti § Communio.Google Scholar

²⁴ Summa, de sep. § Vetus est questio.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid.Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘Ex his satis patet quod quantumcumque sit episcopus dives alias canonicam tamen sibi antiquitus a sanctis patribus rationabiliter assignata amittere non debet’; ibid.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Appendix A II g.Google Scholar

²⁸ X.3.26.15; ‘nam et episcopus in ecclesia est …’; Hostiensis, Summa, de sep. § Et a quibus § Si enim; Innocent, Apparatus, de test. c. Requisisti § Communio; de sep. c. Relatum § Disponere.Google Scholar

²⁹ See Hostiensis' clear outline, which eliminates ‘onerose acquisitis temporaliter’ (i.e., income from land), or any income ratione altaris beyond ‘mortuaria’; Summa, de sep. § Et de quibus.Google Scholar

³⁰ ‘Vel dic quod minores ecclesie inter se divident, ut hic dicitur, sed episcopus postea partem suam ab utraque recipiet’; Apparatus, de sep. c. Relatum § Medietatem.Google Scholar

³¹ See Innocent's layout of this question, de sep. c. De hiis. The options available on this question are summed up by Hostiensis in his Lectura, de sep. c. De hiis (fol. 87^v).Google Scholar

³² ‘Illud autem diximus bene quod episcopus nomine ecclesiarum suarum potest agere ad predicta, sicut pro singulis utilitatibus agere potest, sed non pro sua parte’; Innocent, de sep. c. De hiis.Google Scholar

³³ In the case of fraud, the two decretals Officii and Requisisti (X.3.26.14,15) call for the bishop to claim his right from other ecclesiastical institutions, and not from the estate. ‘Fraus et dolus alicui patrocinari non debent’ (c. 14). ‘Privata dispositio testatoris non potest generalem constitutionem canonis immutare’ (c. 15).Google Scholar

³⁴ ‘Verius videtur et equus quod utraque de omnibus deducatur, sed episcopalis primo de universo …’; Summa, de sep. § Verius videtur.Google Scholar

³⁵ Lectura, de sep. c. Relatum est § Medietatem; thus two bishops would, in this scheme, take portions. Innocent found this ‘absurd’; Apparatus, de sep. c. Relatum § Medietatem.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., de sep. c. De hiis.Google Scholar

³⁷ Summa, de sep. § Et utrum canonica.Google Scholar

³⁸ ‘Nec videatur tibi absurdum si hec due quarte de universo detrahantur, primo episcopalis, secundo parrochialis de omnibus que remanent. Quia si proprius parrochianus in propria parrocchia eligeret sepulturam et iudicium anime ei insolidum relinqueret, episcopus et parrochialis sacerdos totum haberent. Et hoc de rigore iuris communis fieri deberet’; ibid., § Nec videatur.Google Scholar

³⁹ See the argument ‘propter immoderatam decimationem’ in Appendix A I i.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ‘Episcopus nec ecclesia potest … vendicare …; et hoc intelligitur esse verum cum fraus minime procuratur, quae, si detecta fuerit, patrocinari non debet’; Lectura, de test. c. Requisisti, at end. See ibid., § Obtinebit.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Hostiensis, Summa, de sep. § Vetus est questio.Google Scholar

⁴² A common example was when a privileged (injudiciable) order had cura animarum. Then, argued Hostiensis, the bishop definitely had communio through the populus; Lectura, de sep. c. In nostra presentia § Reliquit (fol. 89^v).Google Scholar

⁴³ He was basically opposed to the idea that a parish rector should have a right the ordinary did not have (i.e., to receive money from an exempt order). He seized on a passage in X.3.26.14, which allowed a bishop to demand a full portion from monasteries where fraud was proved, ‘salvis indulgentiis Romani Pontificis, que quibusdam regularibus sunt concesse,’ and then pointed out that indulgences were conceded only to separate entities, and not to whole orders. For the unfolding of his argument, cf. Summa, de sep. § Et a quibus.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Here is the formulation of the Abbas Antiquus (fl. 1261 – 1275): ‘Quid de episcopo? Dic, si est exemptum monasterium, nihil habebit. Si non est exemptum, habebit, dum tamen sit in sua diocesi constitutum …’; Commentarius in libris decretalium (Venice 1588), de sep. c. De hiis (fol. 111^v). To Giovanni d'Andrea in the 1320s, judiciability is the main question, and only secondarily whether the bishop ‘communicat sua spiritualia’: ‘Talis portio datur sibi iure dominii sive cuiuscumque preheminencie et ordinarie potestatis …’; Appendix A II e.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ A mid-trecento canonist summed up this episcopal misfortune neatly: ‘episcopus de mortuariis seu relictis raro vel numquam haberet, nisi ubi parochianus in parochia sepeliretur’; Francesco degli Atti, Tractatus de quarta in Tractatus universalis iuris XV part 2 (Venice 1584) 193 ^rb (erroneously attributed to Lapo da Castiglionchio; for identification, see Appendix B).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ X.3.28.4.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ X.3.26.20.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ X.3.26.15; X.5.40.31.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The rector had no right to money left inter pauperes, said Innocent, since it was unconnected to the merces lost ratione sepulturae; Apparatus, de sep. c. Relatum § Medietatem. The bishop should have no such right because it was made ratione personae and because of the prohibition of defalcating legacies to pious causes; ibid., De hiis § Fecisse. There is no hint here of considering the bishop as father and administrator of the poor and their goods, an idea which, as we will see, had a promising future ahead of it in the fourteenth and fifteenth century; see below 423–437.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See above 403.Google Scholar

⁵¹ X.3.26.14.Google Scholar

⁵² Apparatus, de test. c. Officii § Ceteris; N.B. that the intent of the testator recedes before the forum externum of visible signs. For another example of ‘fraus intelligatur esse probata’ by act, see VI.1.7.2. The examples of fraud given above reflect a particular view of the populanus in his populus which was anachronistic in the highly mobile Europe of the fourteenth century: on the one side Gemeinschaftskult requiring corpse and estate in the cultic center; on the other, mobile, supranational investment of estate for the salvation of one's soul.Google Scholar

⁵³ ‘§ Huiusmodi. Hic incipit prima pars quoad titulum, ex qua multe questiones oriuntur, quia in ea tractatur de lana et caseo ad quam inviant prelati’; Paolo de’ Liazzari, Lectura super clementinas, Collegio di Spagna (Bologna), MS 87, fol. 262^r.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See n. 17. Guillaume de Montlazun (ca. 1319) gives this definition of funeralia as used in Super cathedram: ‘Hodie potius cum filo sumitur et inde dicuntur funeralia in bona illa que obveniunt ecclesiis et ministris'; Apparatus, c. Dudum a Bonifacio § Item integre (fol. 108^v).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ A classic treatment of the term ‘donatio’ is given by Durand, G., Repertorium juris (1479). See the entries ‘Donatio’ and ‘Legatum.’Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See below, n. 76.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ The exact publication date is unknown. The earliest known dated MS of the Clementines with the gloss of Giovanni d'Andrea was written in July, 1324; Denifle, H., Die Entstehung der Universitäten des Mittelalters (Berlin 1885) 44, n. 915. I have assumed the date assigned by S. Kuttner, ‘The Apostillae of Johannes Andreae on the Clementines,’ in Études d'histoire du droit canonique dédiées à Gabriel Le Bras I (Paris 1965) 196, n.8.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Petrucci, Disputationes, q. 4., third argument.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Referred to by name; ibid.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Guillaume de Montlazun paraphrases the pope in this fashion: ‘Et reiteravit conditor huius constitutionis totiens hec verba generalia et universalia propter multifarias cavillosas subtilitates quas aliqui reperiebant super canonica huius rectoribus defraudenda et quasi ad nichilum, redigenda quas omnes intendit ista constitutio excludere’; Apparatus, loc. cit. Google Scholar

⁶¹ ‘Et papa dixit: Illam decretalem fecimus ad instantiam fratris Mathei et domini Portuensis. Et quamvis multum in ea clericos gravaverimus, maledicti fratres ultra decretalem non cessant eos contra et ultra eam indecenter aggravare’; Finke, H., Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII. (Münster 1902) xliii.Google Scholar

⁶² ‘Predicta commissio recitat quod non levis opinionis doctores dixerunt quartam debere ecclesie parochiali de omnibus relictis a suis parochianis etiam si sepulti fuerunt apud illam.’ ‘Dicit demum illa commissio quod ex qualitate personarum et quantitate relictorum et ex preteritis presumi potest fraus, maxime quia quando non tenebantur ad quartam sepulturas precipue dictorum totis iuribus procurabant, et ut dicit ex hiis iura, quandoque presumunt fraudem et faciunt coniecturas, supposita vero fraude obstat quod debetur’; Giovanni d'Andrea, Apparatus … Clem. c. Dudum a Bonifacio § Quarta.Google Scholar

⁶³ ‘Sed declarat predicta commissio … inhibere heredibus vel per fideicommissum gravatum ne illam solvent fratribus, precipue cum illos suspectos habere possint’; ibid. The view that the rector asked for his quarter from the friars and not from the heir was, according to Petrucci, ‘contra illam commissionem’; Disputationes, q. 4, sixth counter argument. Petrucci gives at this point a lengthy quote from Cino da Postoia on the same subject. Its conclusion: ‘Quod Bonifacius in dubio presumpsit fraudem’; ibid.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ ‘Nam illi quidem olim volentes defraudere ecclesiam parrochialem relinquebant fratribus in singulari, id est in eorum commoditate singulares ut emerent sibi vestes, libros vel aliquid, ut patet in suprascripta commissione Bonifacii § Ad hoc; et ideo Bonifacius declaravit quod de talibus relictis solvatur quarta …’; Petrucci, Disputationes, q. 4, fifth counter argument. See also Giovanni d'Andrea, Apparatus … Clem. loc. cit. § Indirecte. Bequeathing to relatives in religion represented, it might be added here, a normal type of fraud practiced on communal tax-authorities. These bequests passed as pious, but a religious relative was a shelter for tax-free property.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ ‘Multum est consideranda mens et ratio legislatoris et ubi possit colligi mens et ratio que est idem, ab ea est concludendum … Ubi vero non potest de mente apparere, habet locum ratio’; Cino da Pistoia writing ca. 1322, quoted in Petrucci, Disputationes, q. 4, sixth counter argument.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Oldradus de Laude, Consilia et questiones (Rome 1472), q. 224 (de intellectu c. Super cathedram de sepulturis et de significatione huius dictionis libera etc.). Incip. ‘Gravamina.’Google Scholar

⁶⁷ A standard form for gravamina.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ ‘Que ipsis fratribus inter vivos amore dei dantur, donantur seu offerentur’; ibid., n. 11 (this reference and the following refer to the numbered Gravamina). Few canonists would have defended this practice, since the term ‘donation’ was used.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ On the ability of the secular clergy to narrow real, while preserving legal, free choice, see Trexler, op. cit. Google Scholar

⁷⁰ ‘Et populum et fratres diutius expectare et oblationes omnes recipiunt …’; ‘Et sic corpus nudatum fratribus derelinquunt’; n. 1. Thereagainst the Gloss: Giovanni d'Andrea cites approvingly Jean Le Moine to the effect that if custom prescribed that a body before being buried elsewhere first be carried to the parish church, this should continue to be observed. Even without custom, the gloss argues, this should be done ‘ut sic haberet missam in propria ecclesia et sic recipiat ibi ultimum vale a suo curato. … Nec istud electioni sepulture repugnat sed concordat’; § Integre. Again: ‘Ita quod non diminuetur propter obventiones quas habet parrochialis sacerdos in missa funeris dicta apud suam ecclesiam priusquam funus portaretur ad fratres'; ibid.Google Scholar

⁷¹ The objection of the seculars had reasonable motivation: formal processions gained alms for the mendicants and of course directed the faithful toward their church.Google Scholar

⁷² ‘Etiam antequam corpora … permittant ecclesiastice sepulture … compellunt dictos heredes ad solvendum integraliter quartam predictam vel ad satisdandum … et compellunt ipsos heredes ad exhibendum publice eis testamenta integre defunctorum’; n. 9. Gloss: While Giovanni did not defend this practice, he pointed out one motivation for such action. The bull might say that the friars were to be ‘coerced’ to pay the portion, ‘sed propter exemptiones ipsorum non habet clerus a quo iusticiam consequi possit etc., de hoc summe conqueritur’; § Coherceri.Google Scholar

⁷³ ‘De relictis ante infirmitatem de qua decessit qui sepultura me legit, quarta non debetur ab ipsis, cum fratribus de ipsis quartam exigere molliuntur’; n. 5. In other words, bequests made in testaments (relicta) corpore sano were considered by Oldrado not subject to the quarter. Thereagainst Gloss: If a testator pays a ‘legatum’ inter vivos, a quarter is owed on it, ‘quia videtur solvere ut legatum’; § Datis (on the authority of the commissio). In other words, ‘relinquid’ equals an apportionable quantity.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ ‘Curati quantumcunque sit eis per testatores relictum, nullatenus computato vel compensato quod eis relictum est volunt integram quartam’; n. 6. The gloss does not touch on this point.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ ‘Cum ibidem solummodo statuatur de relictis ipsis fratribus ad usus eorum. Relicta autem ad cultum divinum ipsis fratribus ad usum eorum relicta nullatenus dici possunt’; n. 10. Again the gloss is silent.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ‘Et etiam de hiis que propinqui et amici qui veniunt ad honerandum defunctum de bursa sua offerunt super altare vel ad missas privatas’; n. 7. Oldrado insisted also that no quarter was owed ‘de obligationibus que fiunt in anniversario …’; loc. cit., § Circa septimum. Thereagainst Gloss: A legacy or donation does not have to be mentioned in the testament to be subject to a quarter (‘de hoc in testamento mentione non facta’); § Indirecte.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ ‘De relictis bona fide non pro sepultura sed ratione parentele vel amicicie aut excepti beneficii cuiuslibet singuli fratris’; n. 4. Thereagainst Gloss: It takes over the opinion of the commissio that ‘quartam deberi de hiis que testatores relinquunt … in testamento mentione non facta … singularibus fratribus ad eorum commoditates, puta emptiones librorum vel vestium addens rationem’; § Indirecte. Zabarellis took this as evidence that Giovanni d'Andrea favored apportioning grants to single brothers; Super clementinas (Venice 1481), De sep. c. Super cathedram § Verum.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ ‘De relictis ipsis fratribus per illos qui apud eos non sepeliuntur prelati et rectores de talibus relictis quartam exigere molliuntur’; n. 3. Gloss: Giovanni d'Andrea cites the commissio favoring a general quarter (see 410), but attaches himself to those favoring a limited quarter (among recent canonists Jean Le Moine and Guido da Baysio); Apparat … Clem. loc. cit., § Quarta; cf. the same author's In tertium decretalium librum novella commentaria (Venice 1581), de sep. c. Nos instituta § Sui judicii, n. 10 (fol. 124^rb) and ibid., c. Certificari, q. 10 (fol. 128^va).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ ‘… ex virtute alicuius dispositionis extreme propter generalia nimis et effusa verba posita in § Huiusmodi …’; Oldrado, Consilia, loc. cit., § Circa decimum. The date of this consilium is uncertain. The gloss of Giovanni d'Andrea is referred to. The wording and argumentation at one point are almost identical to a consilium of the same author written in 1328; cf. ‘res legatas et modos legandi …’ etc., ibid., § Quarta, to ‘quia hec verba res legatas respiciunt et modos legandi …’ etc.; Petrucci, Disputationes, q. 154 (including the consilium of Oldrado), dated ind. XI, 7 March, anno 12. = 1328 (not 1318 as in the incunabulum). Which of these was written first remains a puzzle. Oldrado died in 1335; von Schulte, J. F., Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart II (Stuttgart 1877) 223.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ I hope to be able to plot this decline in a statistical fashion at a future date. At this point I share the impression gained by Nelson, op. cit. 117. In any case, it must be supposed that episcopal reception of incerta declined, since papal collectors were licensed to absolve the estates of living merchants from incerta, and this activity was pursued as a regular part of the collector's activity in his province. This would have cut into episcopal imbursements. Evidence of this for the collector in Tuscany dates from 1348; A(rchivio) S(egreto) V(aticano), Collectores 245, fol. 119^v. The normal composition involved payment of a sum to the collector with an oath to disburse an equal amount to the poor, followed by clearance of the estate; for examples in Tuscany, see ibid., 246, fol. 76^v-78^r (1350–1353).Google Scholar

¹³¹ Trexler, op. cit., n. 78.Google Scholar

¹³² ‘Quia multi seculares dubitarent dare episcopo, ne forte sibi retineret, aut consanguineis daret’; the theologian Chiaro da Firenze (fl. ca. 1250) in BAV, MS vat. lat. 1237, fol. 223^v-224^r. After having noted the opinion of Hostiensis that episcopal control of incerta was the only way of avoiding fraud by executors, Piero degli Ubaldi (after 1407) commented: ‘Sed certe eodem modo posset haec fraus a diocesano committi’; Tractatus universalis iuris XV part 2, c. 215^va-b. See Nelson, , op. cit. 111f. for a list of literary accusations.Google Scholar

¹³³ Whether economic or moral in motivation, the procedure was implicitly fraudulent. And in times of stress (e.g., the Black Death or following the war with the papacy 1376–1378), testamental admission of usury flared up again in the midst of long-range decline. For this process after the papal war, see ASF, Pupilli, regs. 1 and 2.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ See above 423.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ ‘Legare pauperibus hospitalis certi, quod legare ipsi hospitali, et valet hoc scire, ut detur canonica talium relictorum; dato quod non debeatur de relicto pauperibus …, cum tamen debeatur de relictis piis locis …, faciat quia de relicto Mendicantibus debetur canonica, ut in Clementinis, de sepulturis, Dudum, qui tamen sunt in altissima paupertate …’; In tertium decretalium … commentaria, c. 165^vb.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ ‘Dici possit quod universitas pauperum gerit vicem certe persone, et ita valet sic si institueret collegium licitum’; Novella super sexto libro decretalium (Pavia 1484), de testamentis.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Atti, For, see Tractatus, XV part 2, c. 193^r-v; Piero ibid., cc. 204^vb, 208^ra.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Atti, For, ibid., c. 194^r; Piero ibid., cc. 208^rb-211^ra.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Atti, c. 194^r.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ ‘Inter dominum cardinalem [sc. Francesco degli Atti] et dominum Galitium intervenerunt verba in scriptis non congruentia iuri’; Baldus, op. cit., c. 55^v, § Deinde quaeritur.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ ‘Illa que clare sunt a sanctis patribus diffinita … querunt, et inveniunt consultationis, forte propter bonum salarium quod offerunt’; Atti, c. 193^r. On Baldus' reputation for great wealth, see von Schulte, Geschichte II 276.Google Scholar

¹⁴² ‘Quemadmodum enim episcopus non debet habere quartam de eo quod relinquitur universitati scholarium, vel collegio mercatorum, ita eodem modo non debet habere si relinquitur collegio fraternitatum verberatorum, vel battentium’; paraphrased by Baldus, loc. cit. Google Scholar

¹⁴³ ‘Nullo iure cavetur, quod tenerentur ad charitativum subsidium; ergo apparet evidenter, quod non subsunt episcopo quoad legem diocesanam, et per consequens nec quoad quartam.’ That this was Baldus' own opinion can be gathered from the subsequent: ‘Tamen finaliter in hac quaestione non concludo, quia pendet de facto; sed qui intelliget, intelligat, quia ex praedictis apparet veritas'; ibid.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ ‘Nec tamen est negandum quin id, quod praedictis fraternitatibus relinquitur, debeat expendi in opera pietatis, quia hac intentione relinquitur, et testatores non debent decipi qui de istis bene praesumpserunt …; et de isto bene potest se intromittere episcopus cognoscendo, non sibi imbursando …’; ibid.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ ‘Eorum collegium est non privilegiatum, cum non sit ecclesia, vel collegium pauperum’; ibid., c. 44^v, § Vicesimoprimo. It was not the indirect, but the direct disposition of the testator or his executor which counted. Baldus used the case of an indistinct grant, part of which was dispensed by the executor to a widow. The widow then turned around and donated this sum to a hospital. Can the bishop apportion the grant? No, ‘quia non habet immediatam causam a testatore, sed confluxit ad ipsum per personam liberam ab hac quarta. … Quod est liberum in persona immediata est liberum in persona mediata’; ibid., c. 56^r, § Sed ponamus.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ For example, when he explained the arguments for returning extortions either to the place where extorted, or in the domicile of the executor, he failed to cite the common argument that the poor were one universitas, and consequently the male ablata could be distributed anywhere; ibid., c. 44^v, § Decimotertio.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ ‘Sed quando inter collegium et locum nulla est coniunctio, ibi collegium per se diceretur, et ita est in istis fraternitatibus; quia nulla coniunctio spiritualis est, et ibi possunt libere discedere a loco, vel eorum corpore, et ideo quia possunt per se considerari, et non respectu loci, relictum istud iudicatur factum personis, et non loco pio …’; ibid., c. 55^v, § Deinde quaeritur.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ ‘Praeterea pauperes in genere habent instar collegii, et per consequens instar personae, ut. ff. de fideius. 1. mortuo. Istud dicit Johannes Andreae quod habent instar collegii, sed hac lege non probatur. Nam si esset tanquam collegium, non posset distribui ut certis, quin distribueretur ut universis, quod est falsum’; ibid., c. 43^r, § Op. gl.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ ‘Ubique loco inter christianos ubi sunt pauperes est pauperum universitas’; see this usage in the distribution of incerta in the diocese of Florence in AAF, A-IV-10, Libro di Contratti, 1335, fol. 33^r (11 April 1336) and fol. 63^rv (20 June 1336).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ For a summation, see Piero degli Ubaldi in Tractatus, XV part 2. cc. 204^vb-208^rb.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Thus we see that not only were bishops seeking to expand their rights vis-à-vis ‘secular’ entities, but previously subject entities were escaping this established authority by use of the concept of poverty. For a hospitaler's argument, see Baldus, op. cit., c. 55^v, § Sed quid.Google Scholar

¹⁵² ‘Aut consideramus istud hospitale respectu loci, et non est locus sacer, nec est spiritualis, vel ecclesiastica domus, nec est sub patrocinio episcopi, imo est sub libera potestate domini …; aut istud legatum consideratur respectu pauperum in se, et sic respectu personarum, et tunc episcopus non potest habere canonicam’; ibid., cc. 55^v, 56^r, § Sed contra.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ ‘Quare enim aliud in confratribus, quam in pauperibus? Responsio quia pauperes habent quandam coniunctionem cum episcopo, et pertinent ad eius specialem protectionem. Item quia pauperes sunt in hospitali, et hospitale est in pauperibus per inseparabilem significationem, sicut ascriptitii sunt in gleba, unde unum sine alio non potest considerari’; ibid., c. 55^v, § Sed quid.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ ‘Paupertas probatur ab effectu. Item probatur ex loci qualitate, quia moratur in hospitali; item probatur ex corporis debilitate, quia est infirmus et non potest quaerere sibi victum’; ibid., c. 53^r, § Deinde.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ ‘Rursus notandum est secundum Johannem Andreae quod quarta debetur nedum de predictis, sed etiam de relictis pauperibus hospitalis alicuius, vel alterius pii loci’; Tractatus, XV part 2, c. 193^vb.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ CIC, C.1.3.48.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ In primam codicem partem … Commentaria (Venice 1585), c. 23^v, 1. Si quis ad declinandam.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ ‘Expedit pauperibus ecclesiam reparari, in quibus oblationes recipiuntur ad pauperum alimoniam’; as Ubaldi explains, this argument comes from the Decretum; Tractatus, XV part 2, c. 216^va.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ ‘Sed hec distinctio est falsa, quia legando pauperibus in genere videtur legare hospitali, quod est in illa civitate, ubi testator habet domicilium. Casus est in lege Si quis ad declinandam’; ibid., c. 213^va.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Elsewhere I have noted the corporative and formal understanding of poverty so well exemplified here. But evidence both legal and testamental suggests that trecento contemporaries were anxious about a corporative, rather than a strictly economic, understanding of poverty. Witness the distinction made between miserable and poor persons, the recurrent testamental demand that goods for the poor be given to the ‘truly poor,’ and the understanding of generic poor-grants as left to specific individuals. Rather than to say, with Nelson, that the ‘poor’ came generally to be identified by lawyers as ecclesiastical, especially monastic, foundations (op. cit., 110), I would point to the tensions in the law between corporative and individual conceptions, and suggest that in fourteenth-century jurisprudence neither regular nor secular clergy were understood in grants or restitutions to ‘the poor,’ but usually individuals, and, if corporations, to ‘pious places’ such as hospitals, fraternities, leprosaria, and the like. ^a MS per.Google Scholar

^b MS potest.Google Scholar

^c Blank in MS. Google Scholar

^d MS nec.Google Scholar

^e MS per camion antiquos.Google Scholar

^f MS quandoque certificari.Google Scholar

^g MS Rean.Google Scholar

^h Sic.Google Scholar

¹ Blank in MS. Google Scholar

^a Sic.Google Scholar

^b Sic.Google Scholar

^c Sic.Google Scholar

^a Insertions based on identical wording in the final paragraph.Google Scholar