¹ Vergil, Polydore, Anglica historia, A.D. 1485–1537 (ed. Hay, D., Camden Series 3.74; London 1950) 18. The passage quoted is identical in all three editions (1534, 1546, and 1555).Google Scholar

² Hall, Edward, Chronicle (ed Ellis, H.; London 1809) 431.Google Scholar

³ Vergil, , Angl. hist. (Basel 1534) 550.Google Scholar

⁴ Hall, , Chron. 407, 417.Google Scholar

⁵ Statutes of the Realm 3 (London 1817 = repr. 1963) 472–74, 658–59, 792.Google Scholar

⁶ According to Creighton, Mandell ( Dict. Nat. Biog. 8.947) it is not known when Hall entered parliament; he definitely sat in 1542, but Fixe, John records a speech of his in favor of the Six Articles given in 1539 during debate in the House of Commons; Acts and Monuments V (London 1838) 504–05.Google Scholar

⁷ The act also does away with the impediment of precontract when not carnally consummated. It is then rather unlikely that Hall was alleging the marriage agreement of Tudor, Henry and Elizabeth, as an impediment to Elizabeth's marriage with Richard in the last passage cited above. Richard, III seems to have declared Edward IV's marriage invalid precisely on the grounds of a precontract that had been consummated.Google Scholar

⁸ At the end of the act by way of afterthought it is added that the prohibitions of marriage within the degrees listed are to be understood of marriages that have been solemnized and consummated. That is to say, the impediment of affinity arises only in this way. The act of 1536, passed just a month after the execution of Boleyn, Anne, repeats the degrees but specifies that affinity results not only from marital but also from extramarital intercourse. It was no doubt chiefly on this basis that Henry's marriage to Anne was nullified.Google Scholar

⁹ Reformatio legum ecclesiaticarum, ex auctoritate primum regis Henrici VIII inchoata, deinde per regem Edouardum VI provecta adauctaque in hunc modum, atque nunc ad pleniorem ipsarum reformationem in lucem edita (ed. Foxe, John; London 1571) 23^r: ‘Hoc tamen in illis Levitici capitibus diligenter animadvertendum est, minime ibi omnes non legitimas personas nominatim explicari. Nam Spiritus Sanctus illas ibi personas evidenter et expresse posuit ex quibus similia spatia reliquorum graduum et differentiae inter se facile possint coniectari et inveniri.’ The authors clearly have in mind the ‘arbores consanguinitatis et affinitatis’ which accompanied the Corpus iuris canonici and many treatises on marriage.Google Scholar

¹⁰ One striking difference between these lists is that whereas the Prayer Book prohibitions extend only to the second degree of consanguinity in the direct line (son's daughter, daughter's daughter, etc.) and to the second degree touching the first in the collateral line (brother's daughter, sister's daughter, etc.), the Reformatio bans all persons in the direct line and all degrees touching the first in the collateral line: ‘Personae vero quas praetermittit Leviticus hae sunt: … avia et quae supra ea sunt directa via, quoniam omnes huiusmodi matrum loco nobis esse videntur; et ex altera parte, …proneptis et quaecunque infra sunt et ex illis procreantur, a quibus, quoniam filiarum similitudinem habeant, nos abstinere debemus; adiciuntur fratris filia, sororis filia, et quae recta linea descendendo ex eis procreantur’ (fol. 23^v).Google Scholar

¹¹ Third continuation of Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland (tr. Riley, H. T.; London 1854) 499. An act of parliament in 1474 (14 Edward, IV § 23) specifies that its provisions shall hold good even if Richard is divorced from Anne and then lawfully married to her and not married to another woman during her lifetime (Rotuli Parliamentorum 6.100–01). This condition has given rise to the supposition that Richard had not obtained a sufficient dispensation for the marriage; see, e.g., Gairdner, James, History of the Life and Reign of Richard the Third (Cambridge 1898) 23–24. Richard's wife, Neville, Anne, was his first cousin once removed; and the couple were also related in the third and fourth degrees of quasi-affinity, since Anne had been betrothed to Henry VI's son, Edward, Prince, who was Richard's second cousin once removed.Google Scholar

¹² Chron. Croyland cont. 3 (499–500 Riley). The original text of the whole incident, in the Historiae Croylandensis continuatio (ed. Fulman, W., Rerum anglicarum scriptores veteres 1; Oxford 1684) 572, is reproduced in the appendix, below.Google Scholar

¹³ Chron. Croyland cont. 3 (510 Riley).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Kendall, P. M., Richard the Third (London 1956) 432.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Chron. Croyland cont. 3 (469 Riley). The note appears in the margin of Fulman's edition (557), and, as Riley indicates (vii), most probably comes from the MS.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Russell met with Burgundy in March, 1472; Rymer, T., Foedera 5.3 (The Hague 1741) 14.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Chron. Croyland cont. 4 (511, 514 Riley). The rest of this fragmentary continuation gives the partial record of a legal process at Croyland presided over by Russell, Bishop, beginning on April 22, 1496 (see p. 515), i.e., the day after the third continuation was begun.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Kingsford, C. L., Dict. Nat. Biog. 17. 442–43. The ascription of the last-named work to Russell, Bishop is based on the report of Bale, John, Scriptores illustres maioris Britanniae II (Basel 1559) 102, though Bale lists the Russell, John who wrote it not as the bishop but as an erudite gentleman who reportedly flourished in 1530. In his Index Britanniae scriptorum (ed. Poole, R. L. with Bateson, M.; Oxford 1902) 244, Bale gives the work as De potestate imperatoris et papae, which he says is ‘ex bibliotheca regis’; the editor says he is apparently referring to The Unioun Betuixt the Tua Realmes, Royal MS 18 A. lxxvi (Casley's Catalogue). In Scriptores Bale does say he saw the work in the king's library, but he also says that it was written in Latin.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Kingsford, loc. cit. ; cf. Emden, A. B., A Biographical Register of the Univesity of Oxford to A.D. 1500 3 (Oxford 1959) 1609–11.Google Scholar

²⁰ Innocent, III, X 2.13.13 (Litteras).Google Scholar

²¹ Aquinas, Thomas, In 4 Sent. 40.1.3.Google Scholar

²² Ibid. 41.1.2.3: ‘Facilius et olim et nunc dispensatio fit in remotis gradibus affinitatis quam in remotis gradibus consanguinitatis.’ Google Scholar

²³ Ibid. 39.1.3 ad 3. The same point is made in Richard, of Middleton, , In 4 Sent. 40.1.5. Bonaventure, too, holds that the Levitical degrees are binding by divine law; and though he goes on to say that Christ himself did not specify any degrees, he is not implying that the Levitical prohibitions were repealed in the New Law (In 4 Sent. 40.1.2–3).Google Scholar

²⁴ Scotus, John Duns, In 4 Sent. 40.1.2 (Opera omnia , Paris 1891–95) XIX 520–21.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid. 40.1.1 (519).Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. 40.1.2 (520–21).Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. 40.1 ad 1 (521).Google Scholar

²⁸ Augustine, , Gratian C.22 q.2 c.22 (Quaeritur cur patriarcha).Google Scholar

²⁹ Brixiensis, Bartholomeus, Gratian C. 30 q.3 c.2 (Pitacium) gl. ad v. sororis. In a later gloss (Gratian, C. 35 q.1 ad v. sororis) he seems to accept the idea that nieces were included under the prohibition against sisters, and when asked to explain how Abraham could marry Sarah, he says: ‘Dic quod Abraham legem praevenit, et ideo non commisit in legem.’ N.B. For the glosses of the Decretum and the Decretales, I follow the sixteenth-century printed text, which, however, is very unreliable.Google Scholar

³⁰ Innocent, III, X 4.19.8 (Gaudemus).Google Scholar

³¹ Bart. Brix. loc. cit. Google Scholar

³² Jerome, , Gratian C.32 q.5 c.11 (Si Paulus). Bartholomew glosses the ‘non potest’ here as ‘non congruit eius potentiae.’ Google Scholar

³³ Parmensis, Bernardus, X 2.13.13 (Litteras) gl. ad v. divina. In his gloss on Gaudemus (X 4.19.8 ad v. in secundo) he actually repeats the list of prohibited persons to illustrate precisely what relationships in the second degree are banned: ‘Secundus gradus erat prohibitus, sed non omnis; istae enim erant personae prohibitae in lege: mater, noverca, soror, neptis, amita et matertera, et uxor patrui et uxor fratris, filia, et privigna. De hoc dicitur supra, De restitutione spoliatorum, Litteras.’ Omitted here but contained in the Litteras list are ‘filia privigni vel privignae’ and ‘soror uxoris.’ The additio to the Litteras gloss gives another list in a quatrain of hexameters, and adds ‘nurus,’ which for some reason was omitted in Bernard's gloss (the latter list is almost identical with that in the gloss on Gratian C.35 q.1).Google Scholar

³⁴ Innocent, III, X 3.35.6 (Cum ad monasterium): ‘Abdicatio proprietatis sicut et custodia castitatis adeo est annexa regulae monachali ut contra eam nec summus pontifex possit licentiam indulgere.’ Google Scholar

³⁵ Bern. Parm., X 3.35.6 gl. ad v. Abdicatio proprietatis: ‘Puto verum esse quod papa in his duobus licentiam indulgere non potest, ut littera ista dicit, etiamsi vellet; nam contra votum castitatis dispensare non potest, quia nullum invenitur aeque bonum in quo possit commutatio fieri,’ etc.Google Scholar

³⁶ Thomas, , In 4 Sent. 38.1.4.1 ad 3: ‘Et ideo alii dicunt probabilius, si communis utilitas totius ecclesiae aut unius regni vel provinciae exposceret, posse convenienter et in voto continentiae et in voto religionis dispensare, quantumcunque esset solemnizatum.’ Google Scholar

³⁷ Thomas, , Sum. theol. 2–2.88.11.Google Scholar

³⁸ Andreae, Joannes, Novella commentaria X 3.35.6 § 29 (Venice 1581 = repr. Turin 1963) III 179^v: ‘Ponderabitur in hoc casu illius monacelli continentia et contemplatio, et credetur Deus tam crudelis esse quod nolit per sui vicarii dispensationem tantae christianitatis multitudini providere? Certe dicendum est papam dispensare posse.’ Joannes, is following Innocent IV's commentary on the same decretal (Venice 1578) 178 §4: ‘An hic ita diliges contemplationem huius monachi et continentiam hominis unius, et ita reputabis Deum crudelem, quod noluit per provisionem vicarii sui huic christianitati provideri?’ Google Scholar

³⁹ J. And Nov. VI 5.13.51 = Questiones mercuriales de regulis iuris reg. 51 (Semel Deo) §6b (Venice 1581) VII 88^r; cf. Nov. X 3.35.6 §§28–29.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Innocent, III, X 1.6.20 (Innotuit).Google Scholar

⁴¹ J. And Nov. VI 5.13.51 (Semel Deo) §1 (VII 87^v): ‘Quando ecclesia dispensat in voto non dispensat in praecepto iuris naturalis vel divini, sed determinat id quod cadebat sub obligatione deliberationis humanae, quae non potuit omnia circumspicere—sicut etiam dispensare contra legem humanam non est tollere legem, sed ordinare ex causa ne liget eo casu quo dispensatur, et sic non est contra.’ Google Scholar

⁴² J. And Nov. X 3.8.4 (Proposuit) §15 (III 50^v).Google Scholar

⁴³ Hostiensis, , Commentaria X 3.8.4 §12 (Venice 1581) III 35. He gives the example of tithes as an Old Testament law that can be dispensed from. And he sums up thus: ‘Hoc solum tene: quod in omnibus potest dispensare, dummodo non sit contra fidem, et dummodo per dispensationem suam evidenter non nutriatur mortale peccatum, nec inducat subversionem fidei nec periculum animarum … Ergo contra legem canonicam potest dispensare indistincte; et contra divinam ubi sibi non est prohibitum dispensare, nec peccatum mortale est evidenter.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁴ ‘Quod videtur esse contra ius naturale, per quod doli capax obligare se potest Deo et diabolo.’ Cf. Innocent, IV, loc. cit.: ‘Quod est contra ius naturale, quia sicut puer, ex quo doli capax est, potest se diabolo obligare, eodem modo et Deo.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁵ J. And Nov. X 3.35.6 §29; cf. Augustine, , Gratian C.24 q.1 c.6 (Quodcunque).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ J. And Nov. X 2.13.13 (Litteras) §20 (II 84^r).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. §23: ‘Ibi, “collateralibus”: aequali linea, quia in inaequali non contrahunt; unde filii duorum fratrum contrahunt, sed patruus cum nepte non; et sic servant Iudaei.’ See Nov. X 3.8.4 (Proposuit) §14 (III 50^v), where he makes a similar distinction. Bernard says in his gloss on Proposuit that some hold that the pope does not dispense in the second degree, but this, he says, is not true; he does dispense in the second degree, ‘quod intelligo de collaterali.’ Joannes' qualification of ‘aequali linea’ here therefore refers not to what is prohibited in divine law, as in the passage just cited, but to the actual practice of the pope. He proceeds at once to the discussion of the pope's powers of dispensation that was cited above (at n.42), but he does not take up the question of the Levitical degrees here. Cf. also Nov. X 4.17.13 (Per venerabilem) §8 (IV 58^v): ‘Nam secundum divinam et humanam legem filii duorum fratrum licite contrahunt.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid. X 2.13.13 §23. The Philip mentioned here is probably the master of that name who taught in the school of Padua in the first third of the thirteenth century. See Kuttner, S., ‘Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 281–82 n.16.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid. X 4.17.13. (Per venerabilem) §30 (IV 60^r): ‘Dic opinionem glossae veram in prole genita ex coitu non matrimoniali saltern ex affectu vel consensu. Cum enim papa non possit facere vel supplere matrimonialem consensum ubi non fuit, ergo nec talem prolem legitimare poterit nisi quoad suum forum, nisi locus esset de temporali iurisdictione ecclesiae.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid. Before the last sentence cited, the printed text adds the words ‘omne dedi,’ which are not found in the MSS (e.g. Vat. lat. 2232 fol. 175^v). Joannes next takes up the question of the offspring of a cleric in major orders or a religious: ‘De prole vero genita ex coniugio constituti in sacris vel professi videtur, cum illud lex canonis dirimat, papa illam possit legitimare, ut est dictum, nisi dicas quod ius naturale ex voto impedit contrahere, licet ius canonicum contractum dirimat.’ Google Scholar

⁵¹ It was in this passage that the concept of sanatio in radice was first hit upon, although the name came later; cf. Van de Wiel, C., ‘La légitimation par rescrit et l'évolution de la sanatio in radice chez les décrétalistes jusqu'en 1650,’ Revue de droit canonique 9 (1959) 53–54.Google Scholar

⁵² Cajetan, , In Sum. theol. 2–2.154.9 §5 (Leonine, ed. of Thomas's Opera omnia) X(Rome 1899) 239.Google Scholar

⁵³ de Ancharano, Petrus, Consilia sive iuris responsa 409 §4 (Venice 1568) 217bis ^r (=218^r).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid. 373 (Pavia 1496) 165^v: ‘Utrum papa possit dispensare quod uxorem patrui defuncti possit nepos, id est, filius fratris, accipere in uxorem; fuit quaestio in filio regis Angliae, etc.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Sandeo, Felino, Commentarii X 1.2.7 (Quae in ecclesiarum) §19 (Venice 1584) I 118.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ J. And Nov. VI 5.13.50 (Actus legitimi) VII 3^v-4^r .Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Felino, , op. cit. §20. He also cites cons. 401 (= 409) of Petrus, (§21) and the Per venerabilem of Andreae, Joannes (§§21, 24) (cols. 119–20).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Pet. de Anch. Cons. 373 §1 (1568) 198^v-199^r. In the Lectura super arboribus consanguinitatis et affinitatis , Andreae, Joannes says at the place referred to by Petrus, : ‘Prohibitio partim procedit ex iure divino et partim ex positivo; unde in secundo gradu aequalis lineae collaterales contrahere possunt iure divino sed non positivo’ (Nuremberg c.1476; Hain 1025). Over thirty editions of this work were printed without date in the fifteenth century, besides the eight dated versions produced before 1485.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Pet. de Anch. Cons. 373 §5 (199^r).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Durantis, Guilielmus, Speculum iuris [sic] 1.1 §De dispensatione 7 (‘Nunc breviter’) §4 (Frankfurt 1592) I 77.Google Scholar

⁶¹ In Pitacium (Gratian C.30 q.3 c.2) Zachary, Pope says we are ordered by the Lord to abstain ‘a propria consanguinitate,’ and cites only the verses forbidding unions with father (as he reads it), mother, and sister (the correctors note that in the original letter all the degrees of Lev. 18 are named); and Innocent, III in Litteras (X 2.13.13) speaks only of ‘the degrees of consanguinity forbidden by divine law.’ Google Scholar

⁶² Pet. de Anch. Cons. 373 §§7–8(199^v).Google Scholar

⁶³ Brydges, E., Collins's Peerage of England (London 1812) I 223.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ John, XXIII, Oblate nobis , 17 Kal. Sept. 1410 (Lateran Regesta 146.1^v), as summarized in Papal Letters (Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, ed. Twemlow, J. A.) 6(London 1904) 212–23. See appendix.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ John, XXIII, Oblatae nobis , 4 Id. Nov. 1411 (153.61); summarized in Papal Letters 6.249, and given in full in Wadding, Luke, Annales Minorum 9 (Rome 1734) 523 (see appendix).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ John, XXIII, letters as cited (343.131^v, 138^v, 141^v) Papal Letters 6.170.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Eulogium (historiarum sive temporis) (ed. Haydon, F. S.; Rolls Series 9) III (London 1863) 419–20: ‘Hoc anno, papa Ioannes XXIII misit quendam fratrem minorem, generalem ordinis, in Angliam, petens a rege ut filium suum Thomam mitteret ad Romam, ut capitaneus fiat exercitus papalis contra regem Neapoli et Gregorium antipapam, et ut sineret nuntium suum praedicare cruciatam et pecunias colligere in regno suo, promittens indulgentiam omnibus conferentibus et adiuvantibus. Et dispensavit cum praefato Thoma filio regis ut duceret in uxorem uxorem patrui sui. Rex breviter respondebat quod noluit depauperare regnum suum propter papam, et quod oportebat ipsum mittere exercitum in Aquitaniam ad recuperandum hereditatem suam. Generalis tamen mansit in Anglia in expensis fratrum minorum ab Annuntiatione usque ad Augustum, distribuens gratias suas et colligens pecunias.’ An abbreviated version of this account is found in a continuation of the Brut written before 1471: An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, and Heny VI (ed. Davies, J. S., Camden Series 1.64; London 1856) 37. On June 15, 1412, John, XXIII signed a peace treaty with Ladislaus, who publicly acknowledged him as pope on October 16. Thomas, having been made Duke of Clarence on July 19 and some days before appointed Lieutenant of Aquitaine, crossed into France early in August at the head of an English force. Tyler, J. E., History of Monmouth (London 1838) I 277 n. ‘g,’ describes a letter found among the Additional Charters of the British Museum written by Thomas from Blois on November 20, 1412, directing that a hundred crowns in gold were to be paid to John Seurmaistre, his chancellor, who was going to Rome on his affairs. Perhaps Thomas wished to inquire if the pope still had any use for his arms, especially since he had found little need for them in France.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Reign of Henry IV, 4 (London 1909) 422–23. This entry records the disposition of property after the marriage.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Chron. Croyland cont. 2 (364 Riley): ‘The before-named Lady Margaret, after her husband had departed this life, was again married to the most illustrious lord, Thomas, Duke of Clarence, son of King Henry IV, and nephew of her former husband, a dispensation having been first obtained for the purpose.’ The marriage is spoken of again on p. 389.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ The third continuator of the Croyland chronicle read at least part of the second continuation, since he opens his own account with a critique of it (453 Riley).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Radford, L. B., Henry Beaufort, Bishop, Chancellor, Cardinal (London 1908) 27.Google Scholar

⁷² Incerti scriptoris chronicon Angliae de regnis trium regum Lancastrensium (ed. Giles, J. A.; London 1848) Henry, IV (p.62): ‘Hoc anno Thomas dux Clarenciae duxit in uxorem Margaritam, relictam Ioannis, comitis Somersetiae, avunculi sui, sed cum dispensatione papae; attamen inter eos nunquam habuerunt proles. Et posterius praefatus dux Clarenciae postulavit magnam summam pecuniae ab avunculo suo, episcopo Wintoniensi, ratione uxoris suae, eo quod praefatus episcopus fuerat executor Ioannis Bewford, prioris mariti, et ideo voluit habere dimidium summae triginta millium marcarum, quam summam habuit praefatus episcopus. Sed Henricus, tunc princeps Angliae, sustinuit praefatum episcopum, sic quod praefatus dux non poterat eum nocere ultra debitum rationis. Et tamen concordati erant, mediatione quorundam dominorum.’ Clarke, M. V., ‘The Deposition of Richard II,’ Fourteenth Century Studies (ed. Sutherland, L. S. and McKisack, M.; Oxford 1937) 78–85, links this chronicle to the Scrope family of York.Google Scholar

⁷³ Loc. cit. (n. 68 supra).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Martin, V, in Rinaldi, Odorico, Annales ecclesiastici , anno 1418 §§34–35 VIII (Lucca 1752) 500–01. There is no record that the dispensation was actually given. François Pagi assumed that it was, though, as he points out, it was never used. Blanche later married Prince John of Aragon (later John, King II, and father of Ferdinand the Catholic by a second marriage); Breviarium historico-chronologico-criticum, saec. 15 §15 (ed. Pagi, Antoine; Venice 1730) IV 372.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Cajetan, , loc. cit. (n. 52 supra) p. 240.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Wylie, J. H. and Waugh, W. T., The Reign of Henry the Fifth III (Cambridge 1929) 99–100. Beaufort was issued a safe-conduct by Martin for his pilgrimage on February 19 (Papal Letters 7.6).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Joannes a Turrecremata, Commentarii super Decretum C.35 q.2–3 c.2 (Coniunctiones) ad 3 (Venice 1578) III 465: ‘De eo quod dicitur, quod aliquando fuit dispensatum, non vidimus hoc; imo rege Franciae nunc regnante cum esset delphinus et peteret ut mortua uxore sua possit cum sorore illius contrahere, materia ista fuit ventilata ex mandato domini Eugenii coram nobis, cui commissa fuit causa, et iudicatum est quod non poterat papa dispensare.’ He goes on to say that at the present time, during the reign of Pius, II, the Count of Armagnac was refused a dispensation to marry his sister, and that everyone (at least all the wise) said the pope could not give it.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Above, p. 274.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Turrecremata, , Comm. C.35 q.2–3 c.2 (464), citing Summa fratris Alexandri 3 §254 IV (Quaracchi 1948) 359–60. He also quotes the response of Paludanus to a similar question (In 4 Sent. 40.1.3.3, given below, n. 82). But where Paludanus says ‘almost all’ of the degrees prohibited by divine law seem to be prohibited also by natural law, Torquemada reads ‘all’.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Turrecremata, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

⁸¹ Antoninus, , Summa theologica 3.1.11 (Verona 1740 = repr. Graz 1959) III 42–43. This third part of the Summa was printed twice without date in the fifteenth century; other editions appeared in 1477, 1478, 1480, and two in 1485.Google Scholar

⁸² de Palude, Petrus, Scriptum in 4 Sent. 41.1.5.2 (Venice 1493) 189^v. At this point Paludanus is quite definite in saying that no dispensation can be had in the Levitical prohibitions. But in his remarks on the previous distinction (40.1.3.3) he is less categorical, for he says only that this position is more probable than the contrary, since almost all of the degrees listed seem based on natural law: ‘Est tamen dubium utrum papa posset dispensare in gradu lege divina, non naturali, prohibita. Et si quidem prohibitio legis Mosaicae esset pure iudicialis, non moralis, hodie non ligaret nisi quantum est iure canonici [sic] renovata, et sic in omnibus illis gradibus papa posset dispensare. Sed fere omnes gradus lege divina prohibiti videntur prohibiti ratione naturali, quia ad omnes illas personas cohabitantes est amicitia naturalis sine aliquo foedere; unde quia natura nihil facit frustra, ubi sunt mulieres aliae ex quibus potest esse generatio sicut ex istis, frustra matrimonium fit cum istis, quod non est necesse nec propter generationem nec propter amicitiam; unde probabilius est quod papa not potest dispensare in illis. Et secundum hoc diceretur quod ante legem scriptam erat dispensatum a Deo ut cum eis contraheretur excepto primo gradu ascendentium et descendentium’ (187^v-88^r). Antoninus quotes this latter passage in his treatment of consanguinity (3.1.14 III 52), as does Torquemada (above, n. 79).Google Scholar

⁸³ Peter of Ancarano once dealt with a similar case, in which however the husband separated from his wife when he learned that carnal knowledge of her sister had set up an impediment. The question then was whether he was to be punished under civil law for entering into an incestuous marriage. Peter answers that the law applies only to affinity properly so called, which arises from legal marriage. ‘Per fornicarium autem coitum non contrahitur proprie affinitas, licet talem locum obtineat quoad prohibendum matrimonium inter ipsos fornicatores et ipsorum coniunctos.’ This prohibition, therefore, he says, seems to be canonical, not civil. And it is a purely canonical impediment, not one expressing divine law: ‘Postremo, in ista quaestione … distinguimus inter matrimonia prohibita iure divino et prohibita iure positivo… . In prohibitis namque de iure divino non admittitur excusatio vel allegatio erroris ad evitationem poenae; secus in prohibitis iure positivo quoad poenam corporalem evitandam vel quoad bona.’ Cons. 391 (1568) 209r.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ ‘Reperitur tamen Martinus V dispensasse cum quodam qui contraxerat et consummaverat matrimonium cum quadam cuius germanam cognoverat fornicarie, cum magna tamen difficultate, et quia res erat occulta, nec ille erat aptus ad religionem vel ad remota eundum, unde et scandalum ex divortio, si factum fuisset, sequendum erat. Prius ordinavit plures theologos et canonistas super hac re habere collationem utrum ipse posset in hoc dispensare; nec convenerunt in conclusione, sed aliqui dixerunt quod poterat, alii contrarium affirmaverunt.’ Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Antoninus, , op. cit. 3,1.11. Concerning the dispute over the power of a prince as ‘instar sacrilegii’ see Gratian, C.17 q.4 p.c.29 and Cod. Just. 9.29.2.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Carletti, Angelo, Summa angelica de casibus conscientiae s. v. ‘Papa’ (Chivasso 1486).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Thomas, , In 4 Sent. 40.1.4. ob.7.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Palu, . In 4 Sent. 40.1.3.1 (187^v).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid. 41.1.5.2 (189^v).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Antoninus, , Sum. theol. 3.1.14 and 11 respectively (III 51 and 42). Immediately after the second passage cited, Paludanus makes explicit what Antoninus leaves implicit: ‘Tertia conclusio est de dispensatione papae concessa. Potest enim dispensare in secundo gradu lineae inferioris, ut cum filia fratris, quia non erat prohibitum in scriptura.’ Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid. 40.1.3.3 (187^v): ‘Notandum tamen quod frater patris, id est, patruus, est quasi alter pater, et similiter fratres avi, proavi, abavi, et sic in infinitum, quia omnes parentum loco sunt, quibus paterna reverentia exhibetur—quae repugnat societati maritali. Unde, quia propter hanc rationem in linea ascendentium et descendentium in infinitum nuptiae prohibentur, idem est quod inter quemcunque inferiorem et superiorem cui ut patri naturaliter honor defertur (puta quia frater patris, avi, proavi, abavi, et sic in infinitum) non potest contrahi.’ Cf. the regulation of Cranmer and his associates in the Reformatio legum ecclesiaticarum cited above, n. 10.Google Scholar

⁹³ Venice, 1475–77, Basel, 1477, Venice, 1477, Rome, 1480, Basel, 1480–81, Pavia, 1481–82, Venice, 1482–83.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Panormitanus, , Commentaria X 2.13.13 (Litteras) §4 (Venice 1617) III 185^rv .Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Ibid. §12 (185^v).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ibid. §17 (186^r): ‘Quaero an ecclesia possit dispensare in secundo gradu consanguinitatis. Glossa in verbo “praesertim” allegat pro et contra, et tandem concludit quod in secundo gradu collaterali possit ecclesia dispensare, non autem in secundo ascendentium et descendentium, quia ille prohibitus est a lege divina in Levitico. Ioannes Andreae dicit ecclesiam posse dispensare in secundo gradu inter collaterales, in linea tamen aequali, ut puta quod filii duorum fratrum contrahant; sunt enim isti in linea aequali, quia aequaliter distant a stipite. Secus autem in secundo gradu in linea inaequali, et ideo patruus non potest contrahere cum nepte, et sic dicit servare Iudaeos. Philippus autem sentit cum glossa, dicens quod in secundo gradu ascendentium et descendentium non possit ecclesia dispensare, quasi sentiat quod in collateralibus possit. Et adverte, quia hoc posset saepe contingere in practica inter istos magnos principes, qui saepe petunt dispensationem a papa ut possint ducere filiam fratris. Nam secundum dictum Ioannis Andreae papa non posset dispensare. Aliud sentiunt glossa et Philippus. Sed pro dicto Ioannis Andreae facit glossa in verbis “divina lege,” quae dicit quod de iure divino prohibetur matrimonium cum nepte et amita seu matertera, et isti sunt in secundo gradu in linea inaequali. Ego dico ponderanda verba legis divinae, et si prohibetur iste secundus gradus, non poterit ecclesia dispensare, per id quod supra dixi super illa glossa; alias, sic, quia papa potest dispensare contra ius positivum ex causa maxima… . Vide in Levitico [cap. 18]… . Glossa ista in secunda parte ponit veritatem, et eam communiter sequuntur doctores; et aliquid dixi in notabilibus.’ Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ibid.: ‘Adde tamen hic unum notabile dictum Ioannis Andreae positum in extraneo loco, scilicet Qui filii sint legitimi, cap. Per venerabilem, ubi dicit papam ex causa posse dispensare etiam in gradibus divina lege prohibitis, allegando istum textum; et unam tantum differentiam facit inter istos gradus et illos humana lege prohibitos. Dicit enim quod in istis potest dispensare circa matrimonium iam de facto contractum ut valeat ut ex tunc; in illis vero non dispensat nisi ut valeat ut ex nunc, quasi non possit facere ut illi qui iam nati sunt contra legem divinam censeantur legitimi ut ex tunc. Cogita bene, et tene semper menti.’ Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Cajetan, , loc. cit. (n. 52 supra).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Panorm, . Comm. X 4.17.13 (Per venerabilem) §22a (VII 46^v): ‘Nec ob[stat] si dicatur papam posse ex causa dispensare in gradibus divina lege prohibitis, ut notatur per aliquos in cap. Litteras, De rest. spot., quia illud est verum secundum eum [sc. Ioannem Andreae], disponendo et legitimando matrimonium ut ex nunc, non autem ut ex tunc, ita ut filii ante geniti censeantur legitimati. Constat autem papam habere maiorem potestatem in gradibus humana lege quam divina prohibitis, ut in dicto capitulo Litteras. Et notabis hoc ultimum perpetuo, quia non probatur expresse alicubi quod papa possit ex causa in gradibus divina lege prohibitis dispensare. Et facit quod notatur in simili in regula Semel, De regulis iuris libri sexti in Mercurialibus, ubi concluditur papam posse dispensare cum religioso ut contrahat matrimonium; ad idem, quod notatur in regula Actus legitimi in Mercurialibus. Et alias memini audivisse agitari in curia nunquid papa possit dispensare ut patruus duceret neptem in uxorem (nam iste gradus dicitur divina lege prohibitus, ut notatur in dicto capitulo Litteras et in dicto capitulo Gaudemus); et ad instantiam magni principis audivi fuisse dispensatum. Sed puto talem dispensationem fieri non posse nisi ex maxima causa et ardua.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ The author of the notes in the Venice 1496–97 edition of Panormitanus (ed. Bernardinus ex Capitaneis de Landriano Mediolanensis) apparently read the counsel of Peter of Ancarano on the case involving an uncle and his niece. At the words ‘ut patruus ducere neptem in uxorem’ he says: ‘Adde quod Petrus de Ancharano, eius cons. 274 [= 373], consuluit in facto quod sic’ (VII 35^r n. ‘f’). The note is repeated in subsequent editions (Venice 1617: VII 46^v n. ‘b’).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Siculus, Andreas, at the words ‘ut possint ducere filiam fratris’ (in the passage cited above, n. 96): ‘Vide dominum Petrum, cons. 350 [= 373], ubi consuluit solemniter quod nepos potuit ex dispensatione papae ducere in uxorem uxorem quondam patrui… . Ego credo quod non bene consuluit dominus Petrus, quia consuluit contra legem divinam, moralem, et punitoriam’ (III 186^r n. ‘d’). The notes of Andreas appear in the edition of Lyons 1509–10 (ed. Aeneas de Falconibus de Manliano in Sabinis) and are repeated in subsequent editions.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Innocent, III, X 4.19.9 (Deus qui ecclesiam).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Panorm, . Thesaurus singularium in iure canonico decisivorum (Venice 1618 [= 1617]) IX 24^r: ‘Dispensare potest papa matrimonium contrahi in secundo gradu consanguinitatis in linea aequali, notavit dominus Ioannes Andreae et dominus Antonius in cap. Litteras, De rest. spol. et De divortiis, cap. Gaudemus. Sed ex causa potest etiam in linea inaequali, et quolibet gradu lex divina prohibita [sic] dispensare, notat Andreae, Ioannes, Qui filii sint legitimi, cap. Per venerabilem, super secunda in fine. Debet tamen esse magna causa, secundum Innocentem et Hostiensem et Ioannem Andreae et Archidiaconum, ut notatur infra [fols. 24^v-25^r], §“Dispensare an possit papa,” ubi omnino vide. Item dispensare ex causa potest in primo gradu affinitatis, textus in capitulo finali [Deus qui ecclesiam] De divortiis. Nec ob[stat] quod sit prohibitum lege divina, quae non potest tolli per humanam, quia non tollitur sed ex causa distinguitur, et hoc fieri potest, ut notat Innocens De constitutionibus, cap. Quae in ecclesiarum [X 1.2.7]. Ad quod optime facit quod notat Ioannes Andreae in regula Actus legitimi, De regulis iuris libri sexti in Mercurialibus.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Above, p. 291.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ For the episode of the Count of Armagnac, see Rinaldi, , Annales ecclesiastici anno 1460 §§110–13 X (Lucca 1753) 260–62. Torquemada describes the case thus: ‘Nunc etiam tempore Pii papae venit ad curiam comes de Armagnach, qui sororem propriam petebat posset in uxorem habere; non potuit talem dispensationem habere, dicentibus omnibus sane sapientibus quod papa non posset. Et unus episcopus qui falsificaverat unam bullam mediante qua ille comes de facto contraxerat fuit privatus dignitate et carceri mancipatus.’ According to Pius II's own account, the bishop in the case, Ambroise de Cambrai, Bishop of Alet, did not know that the dispensation issued in the name of Calixtus, III had been forged, though he fraudulently added Pius' seal. When he held out for more money, Count John came to Pius and indignantly demanded that the document be delivered to him. Pius rebuked him for incest and for thinking that the Holy See would grant ‘a dispensation never heard of since the world began.’ The count answered that he had seen the letter of Calixtus and Pius containing the dispensation with his own eyes; if such a dispensation could be granted, as theologians maintained, then it had been given to him; why therefore did the pope oppose his right rather than order the letter to be released? The pope answered that he could neither affirm nor deny what Calixtus had done; but he had often refused to grant dispensations in a less binding degree, and Pius himself had never heard of such a thing; however, he would not deprive the count of his right if the dispensation of Calixtus turned out to be genuine. (Pius here seems to admit that a valid dispensation was possible.) Later, the Bishop of Arras spoke in defense of the count, who, he said, had asked the advice of legal experts and the best theologians; they told him that such a marriage could not take place unless it were allowed by the pope, who was accustomed to grant dispensations at times (The Commentaries of Pius II , tr. Gragg, F. A., Smith College Studies in History 30 [1947] 315–20; cf. Supplementum ad Commentarios Pii secundi, in Opera inedita , ed. Cugnoni, G., Rome 1883, 200–04, for a defective Latin version).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Turrecremata, , Comm. C.35 q.1 (461).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Ibid. C.35.q.2–3.c.2 ob.1 (464). This is the same reading of the Pitacium gloss as the one that appears in the Litteras gloss (above, p. 278).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. ad 1 (465): ‘Et ad capitulum Pitacium et Leviticum 18 respondetur quod non faciunt ad propositum, quia ibi loquitur in secundo gradu in linea ascendentium (unde ibi neptem vocat filiam filii vel filiae) non autem de secundo gradu in linea lateralium.’ Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ibid. C.35 q.2–3 c.20 (Quaedam lex) 468: ‘Quaeritur utrum papa possit dispensare in gradibus affinitatis prohibitis lege divina. Et videtur quod sic; nam dispensat in gradibus consanguinitatis prohibitis, ut videtur; ergo multo magis potest in gradibus affinitatis; assumptum patet, quia nuper papa Pius dispensavit cum comite de Placentia quod contraheret cum nepte sua, filia sororis suae, quae in secundo gradu attinebat sibi; sed iste gradus videtur prohibitus divina lege (Levitico 18); ergo, etc.’ Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Palu, . 4.41.1.5.2 (189^v). See above, pp. 293 and 297.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Above, pp. 296–298.Google Scholar

¹¹² Turrecremata, , loc. cit. (469): ‘Ad rationem in oppositium respondetur negando quod gradus ille sit prohibitus in divina lege. Unde Petrus de Palude (ubi supra) dicit sic: Potest papa dispensare in secundo lineae inferiores [sic], ut cum filia fratris, quia non erat prohibitum in scriptura. Haec ille. Item dicit Thomas, Sanctus in 4, dis. 40, q. ult., ubi ita ait: In veteri lege prohibebatur accipere sororem patris sui, non tamen filiam fratris. Item dominus Durandus, et Huguccio. De hoc nos plenius disputavimus in una quaestione nostra, id [sic] qua quaesitum fuit utrum papa posset dispensare quod quis contrahat matrimonium cum filia sororis suae. Et ostendimus ratione et multiplici doctorum testimonio quod sic’ (the printed text adds the word ‘Lege’, which is not found in MS Vat. lat. 2271 fol. 317^v).Google Scholar

¹¹³ As is evident, for instance, from his use of ‘unus’ as an indefinite article.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Jos, . 15.16–17 provides another, post-Mosaic, instance; here Othniel marries Achsah the daughter of his brother Caleb.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ These relationships are made clear in the testimony of Stanley, Thomas, Earl of Derby (stepfather of Henry, VII), and Berkeley, William, Earl of Nottingham, in establishing that Henry, VII and Elizabeth, of York were third cousins and that therefore they required a dispensation for their marriage. Both were descended from the children of John of Gaunt—Henry through his mother Margaret, daughter of John, Duke of Somerset, who was a son of Beaufort, John; and Elizabeth through her father Edward, IV, son of Cicely Neville, daughter of Joan Beaufort. This was testified to on 16 Jan. 1486 and exemplified in the confirmatory decree of VIII Innocent on 23 July 1486; Papal Letters 14 (1960) 17–19. The original dispensation was given by Pasarella, James, Bishop of Imola, papal nuncio to England, in virtue of the faculty granted to him by Innocent on 5 Aug. 1485 (exemplified on pp. 23–25), empowering him to dispense twelve persons from the impediments of consanguinity and affinity in the fourth degree; the bishop states that the faculty was first used by him on the present occasion. The marriage took place two days later, 18 Jan. 1486.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ They were married in March, 1496, according to Croce, B., ‘Re Ferrandino,’ Storie e leggende napoletane (Scritti di storia letteraria e politica 11; Bari 1919) 156.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ In the posthumous edition (1948) of Joyce's Christian Marriage, there occurs the following incoherent statement, with reference to dispensations for marriage between uncle and niece: ‘The first recorded seems to be that granted in 1475 by pope Sixtus IV to marry Joanna, the daughter of his half brother, John II of Aragon’ (p. 551). He has confused the marriage of Ferrante and Joanna described above with that of Joanna's parents, whose names were also Joanna and Ferrante. Ferrante the Elder (Ferdinand I, King of Naples) was the younger Ferrante's grandfather and son of Alfonso V of Aragon; Joanna (she was his second wife) was the daughter of Alfonso's brother John II, and so she was her husband's first cousin, not his niece.Google Scholar

Mackie, J. D., The Earlier Tudors, 1485–1558 (Oxford History of England 7; Oxford 1962) 326 n. 1, says that XII Louis had been allowed to marry his brother's widow, Anne of Brittany. But Anne's former husband, VIII Charles, was Louis‘ second cousin once removed. She did happen to be the sister-in-law of Louis’ ex-wife, but this raised no impediment.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ The dispensations involving Ferrante the Younger, Emanuel, and VIII Henry are noted by Cajetan, Cardinal, op. cit. (n. 52 supra) §4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Vergil, Polydore wrote his MS history of England before any question of the validity of Henry's marriage was raised. But he later inserted a passage in its defense (in a chapter, however, which he did not publish until 1555, in the third edition). Here he argues, not that the pope could dispense in the Levitical degrees, but that it was permitted by the law of levirate, and also that according to Catherine's testimony the marriage was unconsummated (Angl. hist. 149 Hay). Cajetan, , however, in answer to Clement VII's request for his opinion, responded under date of Rome, 13 March 1530, that it was manifestly untrue that Henry married Catherine to carry on his brother's name; he did so in the interests of peace, which was an even greater good than that envisioned in the law of levirate, and therefore the pope was justified in granting the dispensation. De coniugio regis Angliae cum relicta fratris sui, ad Clementem VII (Opuscula omnia 3.14) cc. 8–10 (Venice 1612) 228–29.Google Scholar