¹ Bulletin of the Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law, Traditio 18 (1962) 449.Google Scholar

² The text was discovered by A. García in 1961. Description of the MS, edition and general evaluation of the letter (chs. I-III) are the result of our joint labors. S. Kuttner is responsible for most of the commentary (IV) and for Appendices A and C; A. García for Appendix B.Google Scholar

³ Adrian, J. V., Catalogus codicum mss. bibliothecae academicae Gissensis (Frankfurt 1840) p. 342.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Cottineau, L. H., Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés I (Màcon 1935) 1370; LThK² 4 (1960) 1326; for the Benedictine foundation see Will, C. (mit Benutzung des Nachlasses von Böhmer, J. F.), Regesten zur Geschichte der Mainzer Erzbischöfe I (Innsbruck 1877) p. 327 No. 35.Google Scholar

⁵ We wish to thank Dr. Schawe, Director of the University Library, for reexamining the codex and supplying some of the physical detail given above.Google Scholar

⁶ 1 Comp. 5.37.12.Google Scholar

⁷ Senckenberg, H. Chr., Meditationum de universo iure et historia volumen (Giessen 1740) 372–83; Koch, J. Chr., Programma de Breviario extravagantium Bernardi Circae cod. ms. membran. Biblioth. Acad. Giessensis (Giessen 1772; microfilm kindly supplied by Dr. Schawe). Jos. Anton Riegger used the MS in his unfinished edition, Bernardi praepositi Papiensis Breviarium extravagantium cum Gregorii IX. P. Decretalium collectione ad harmonium revocatum Pars I (Freiburg Br. 1779; no more publ.).Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Kuttner, , Repertorium der Kanonistik (Studi e Testi 71; Città del Vaticano 1937) 322 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁹ Fransen, G., ‘Les diverses formes de la Compilatio prima,’ Scrinium Lovaniense: Mélanges historiques Étienne Van Cauwenbergh (Louvain 1961) 235–53; and his paper ‘La tradition manuscrite de la Compilatio prima,’ read at the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Boston, August 12-16, 1963, to be published in the forthcoming volume of Proceedings. These studies also show that the earliest form of Comp. I does not antedate the pontificate of Clement III (1187-91) as proposed by Vetulani, A., ‘Deux intéressants manuscrits de la “Compilatio prima”,’ Traditio 12 (1956) 605-11.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Mansi 22.986 lin. E5; Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. di Documentazione, Centro, Istituto per le Scienze Religiose (Herder: Basel-Barcelona-Freiburg etc. 1962) 209 lin.12. In this new edition (hereafter COD) C. Leonardi, who signs as responsible for the medieval councils from I Lateran to Vienne, has collated Mansi's text of IV Lateran with Crabbe's editio princeps (1538) and the Roman edition (1612); cf. pp. viii, 204-5.Google Scholar

¹¹ Mansi 1066 E8; COD 246.23.Google Scholar

¹² Ends at ‘multa sunt et uaria desideria hominum’ (Mansi 968E).Google Scholar

¹³ On the MSS and editions of the constitutions see, for the time being, García, A., ‘El Concilio IV de Letrán (1215) y sus comentarios,’ Traditio 14 (1958) 484–500; Leonardi, C., in COD 204-5. A fuller account will be given in García's edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Fol. 60^rb : ‘Sigfr. Arep̄s. Moguntinus’ (to line 170 of the text edited below); ‘Siciliae’ (to line 182); ‘lignum S. Cruris’ (to line 185).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. García, , in Trad. 14.487; Luchaire, A., ‘Un document retrouvé,’ reprinted from Journal des savants 1905 pp. 557-68 in Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire des conciles 5.ii (Paris 1913) 1722-33, at 1724 n.2. We may cite, e.g., the following MSS: Bern 22, fol. 2^rb; Cambrai 556 (514), fol. 196^v; Cambridge, Corpus Christi Coll. MS 450, p. 201; Giessen; Kassel Jur. 11 (no foliation); Lisbon B. N. Alcob. 304 (173) fol. 1^r; London, Lambeth Palace 210, fol. 148^r; Munich lat. 8596, p. 255; Oxford, Bodl. e Mus. 82, fol. 120^v; Merton Coll. B. I. 7, fol. 45^ra; Paris, B. N. lat. 12249, fol. 108^v; Rome, Casanat. 1910, fol. 15^rb-15^va; Rouen 706, fol. 268^vb; 759, fol. 77^v; Toledo 15-26, fol. 36^rb-36^va; Vatican, Vat. lat. 3555, fol. 61^v; Reg. lat. 448, fol. 1^r; Zurich Car. C. 148, fol. 46^rv .Google Scholar

¹⁶ Winkelmann, E., Philipp von Schwaben und Otto IV von Braunschweig II (Leipzig 1878) 513.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Mansi 22.1079.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Vatican Archives, Indice 254 fol. 13^v On this Indice and its importance for the reconstruction of the lost volumes of the Register see Haidacher, A., ‘Beiträge zur Kenntnis der verlorenen Registerbände Innocenz III,’ Römische historische Mitteilungen 4 (1961) 37–62; this entry, given p. 61 n.1 (reading recollated by Dr. Peter Herde), must refer to something different from No. 234 (Haidacher p. 49 n. 49), ‘Item expressio nominum prelatorum in synodo ipsa presentium.’ Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Riggenbach, E., Historische Studien zum Hebräerbrief (Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons 8; Leipzig 1907) 93–100, 157; Stegmüller, F., Repertorium biblicum medii aevi 3 (Madrid 1951) Nos. 3083, 3084; cf. 3066.Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘Nachricht von einer Merkwürdigkeit des ehemaligen Klosters Aulesburg in Hessen,’ in Retter, J.F.C., Hessische Nachrichten, darinnen allerlei zur Historie 3 (Frankfurt 1741) 1–14, 15ff. (not seen).Google Scholar

²¹ Analecta Bollandiana 11 (1892) 264–9; cf. Chevalier, U., Repertorium hymnologicum 2 (1897) No. 16520; Bibliotheca hagiographica latina No. 5530. Also printed from the Giessen MS by Ayrmann, , op. cit., 74ff. according to J. V Adrian's Catalogus, where likewise an edition by Ayrmann (p. 7) of the Confessio fol. 142^r is cited.Google Scholar

²² Ryccardi de Sancto Germano Chronica, long version, ed. Gaudenzi, A., in Società Napoletana di storia patria, Monumenti storici ser. 1: Cronache (1888) 89–94; ed. Garufi, C. A., in RIS² 7.ii (1936-38) 61-73, left columns. (Unless otherwise noted, texts will be cited from Garufi.) Google Scholar

²³ We may assume that in the original letter also the bishop of Münster was correctly identified where the MS has the corrupt reading, ‘quod Manifestime episcopum captiuauerit’ (G 100, app.crit.), but R 72.15-6 has merely: ‘legatum alium episcopum capere’ Google Scholar

²⁴ See below, commentary on lines 170-1.Google Scholar

²⁵ ‘hanc secundum ordinem explanare non sufficiens breuiter perstringo’ (G 74-5); ‘ne lectori forte fastidium occasione prolixitatis gignerent, stilo mandare recusaui’ (G 200-1). Also to be noted are the Ciceronian ‘satis superque’ (G 2) or the rare word ‘barrientibus’ (G 65; cf. ThLL s.v. barrire).Google Scholar

²⁶ See the edition, notes 4, 5, 9, 10.Google Scholar

²⁷ See G 109-10, 174-5. Jests and sarcastic remarks by Innocent were reported by not a few contemporary writers, cf. Tillmann, H., Papst Innocenz III. (Bonn 1954) 50, 154 n. 11, 237-8.Google Scholar

²⁸ Mansi 23.610-13; 24.61-8.Google Scholar

²⁹ See above, I, at nn. 15-16.Google Scholar

³⁰ Luchaire, , ‘Un document retrouvé’ (n. 15 above); his text, reprinted in Hefele-Leclercq 5 ii.1726-8, is inferiol to the one published by Werner, J., ‘Die Teilnehmerliste des Laterankonzils vom Jahre 1215,’ Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 31 (1906) 575-93. It was actually Werner who had first shown the MS to Luchaire.Google Scholar

³¹ Rubricella in Reg. Vat. 8A, ed. Theiner, A., Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia (= VMS; Rome 1864) p. 63 No. 14: ‘Item sunt ibi nomina cardinalium, patriarcharum, archiepiscoporum et episcoporum qui interfuerunt in dicto concilio’; cf. also Vat. Arch. Indice 254, fol. 13^v No. 234 (see n. 18 above).Google Scholar

³² For details see the commentary below, passim. Other affairs mentioned in connection with the council by chroniclers (Stephen Langton's suspension, the York electioncase, the foundation of the bishopric of Chiemsee, the reorganization of Cyprus, etc.) are discussed in Luchaire, A., Innocent III (vol. VI): Le Concile de Latran et la réforme de l'Église (Paris 1908) 26–7, 43-54; Hefele-Leclercq 5 ii.1321, 1397-8.Google Scholar

³³ See MS Vat. lat. 3555, Appendix B below.Google Scholar

³⁴ See below, app. crit. to G 13, 50, 111, 161, 167, 178; also 130 (haplography), 137 (dittography).Google Scholar

³⁵ See app. crit. G 100 and n. 23 above.Google Scholar

³⁶ See G 28, 57.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 1} Cf. Act. 2.5Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 2} Cf. 1 Cor. 2.9; Is. 64.4Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 3} Cf. Act. 2.9Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 4} Ov. Metam. 5.499–500Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 5} Hor. Ars poet. 180-1Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 6} Cf. Dan. 7.10Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 7} Cf. Is. 11.2Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 8} Vide infra in comment.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 9} Ov. Metam. 9.138-9 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 10} Virg. Aen. 4.175 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 11} Cf. Esth. 8.15 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 12} Cf. Ps. 150.4 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 13} Cf. 1 Paral. 15.28; 2 Paral. 5.12, 29.27 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 14} Vide infra in comment.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 15} Cf. Cant. 3.2 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 16} Cf. 3 Reg. 4.29 cum concordantiis Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 17} Cf. Cant. 3.2 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 18} Cf. Ps. 48.3 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 19} Cf. Luc. 23.5 Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 20} Vide infra in comment.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 21} Cf. Jo. 21.24, 19.35 Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 1} Mansi 22.1079. Cf. Winkelmann loc. cit. (I n. 16 above) on the use of the Notice by the medieval chroniclers.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 2} ed. Holder-Egger, O., MGH SS 30.i (1896) 588.24; 384.28; also in Monumenta Erphesfurtensia (MGH in usum schol.; 1899) 214.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 3} Cf. Holder-Egger's, introduction to both texts, SS 30.339, 494-8.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 4} Ibid. 588.25-8, 384.29-31. Cf. Luchaire, , Le Concile de Latran (II n. 32 above) 7-8 for a résumé (uncritical) of this and of some of the texts cited in nn. 5-8.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 5} ed. Holder-Egger, , MGH SS 26 (1882) 436.1-2; ed. Duplès-Agier, H., Chroniques de Saint-Martial de Limoges (Paris 1874) 94.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 6} Chron. Amalph. c. 47, ed. Muratori, L. A., Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi 1 (Milan 1738) 210; ed. Pelliccia, A. A., Raccolta di varie croniche, diarj appartenenti alla storia del Regno di Napoli 5 (Naples 1782) ii.160. Cf. Ughelli, , Italia sacra 7 (2nd ed. Venice 1721) 218, who adds (without giving proof) that the bishop was buried ‘in eadem ecclesia.’ Nothing is recorded in V Forcella's Iscrizioni delle chiese di Roma (Rome 1869-84), nor did a search kindly undertaken by Professor Robert Brentano of Berkeley yield any inscription at the Lateran basilica. — A notice on Matthew's death, very similar to that of the Chron. Amalph., as Professor Brentano points out, exists in the Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Amalfitanae (ed. Pirri, P, Il duomo di Amalfi e il Chiostro del Paradiso [Rome 1941] at p. 181), which is based on old traditions, although its last entry is for 1547.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 7} Chronica de Mailros ed. Stevenson, J. (Bannatyne Club; Edinburgh 1835) 121; ed Pauli, R., MGH SS 27 (1885) 438.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 8} ed. Holder-Egger, , MGH SS 25 (1880) 831–2.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 9} Hispanus, Vincentius, Apparatus Comp. III, prologue: ‘pater eminentis scientie et perspicacissimi ingenii’ (MS Vat. lat. 1378, fol. 1^ra); Anonymous, prologue to the Lateran constitutions: ‘patre perspicacissimi ingenii et summe intelligentie, cui a longissimis temporibus non fuit inuentus similis in cathedra piscatoris’ (Lisbon, B. N. MS Alcob. 381, fol. 225^r).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 10} ed. Pertz, G. H., MGH SS 19 (1866) 300.33.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 11} We owe the information which follows to the kindness of Dr. Richard Kay of the University of Kentucky, who sent abundant notes with a letter dated 10 June 1963.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 12} Berlin MS Phillipps lat. 93, fol. 117^v (from the Jesuit College of Clermont), ed. Martène, E., De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus III (Rouen 1702) 404; ed. Delisle, L., ‘Notice sur les manuscrits originaux d'Adémar de Chabannes,’ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale 35 (1896) 267.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 13} Paris, B. N. MS nouv. acq. lat. 1202; also Martène, and Durand, , Thesaurus novus anecdotorum 4 (Paris 1717) 891.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 14} Various Sens Pontificals; Liber synodalis of Lodève.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 15} An examination of the manuscript materials of the editores Romani (cf. Kuttner, S., L'édition romaine des Conciles généraux et les actes du premier Concile de Lyon [Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 3; Rome 1940] 13f.) is not possible at present. But a collation of R with ed. Rom. shows that the two texts came from different archetypes; one example must suffice here: R 70.35-6 qui cum patre et spiritu sancto uiuit in secula seculorum. Amen] cui est honor et gloria in secula seculorum. Amen ed. Rom et seqq. — It is worth noting that the two sermons of Innocent III (on the second, which is spurious, see below, to lines 152-158) were inserted in ed. Rom. at the last moment. They are not mentioned in the table of contents of vol. 4, fol. a ij^v, and occupy four unnumbered leaves intercalated in signature D between pp. 42 and 43. Page 42 (= fol. D iii^v), at the end of Innocent's epistolae ad concilium spectantes (= Mansi 22.956-68), has in the lower right corner the custos DECRE-, which refers to the beginning of p. 43 = fol. D iiii: Decreta generalis concilii lateranensis, but the printer marked the first of the inserted sheets again as D iiii.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 16} See above, I at n. 12.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 17} Luchaire, , ap. Hefele-Leclercq 5 ii.1725.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 18} de Guise, Jacques, Annales Hannoniae, ed. Sackur, E., MGH SS 30.272.29.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 19} Mansi 22.969E, 970 D; R 64.42ff., 66.4ff. For a brief analysis of the sermon see Hefele-Leclercq 5 ii.1321-3; Luchaire, , Le Concile de Latran 18–20 (who finds ‘rien de bien original’).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 20} Cf. Potthast 4954; Eubel, C., Hierarchia catholica medii aevi I (2nd ed. Münster 1913) 275.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 21} Mansi 22.970B-C; R 65.25-30.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 22} Mansi 22.1059C-D; COD 244.30-36.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 23} Cf. Mansi 1058; COD 243; García, , in Trad. 14 (1958) 487.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 24} In the First and the Second Council of Lyons, neither Innocent IV nor Gregory X were to publish their respective crusading decrees together with the conciliar constitutiones, cf. Kuttner, , ‘Conciliar Law in the Making,’ Miscellanea Pio Paschini (Lateranum N. S. 15; Rome 1949) 48–9.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 25} Potthast 5012. The date (18 kal. jan. an. 18) is based on the printing in L. Cherubini's Bullarium (1585; 1617), whence it passed in all later editions of the Roman Bullarium. The source of Cherubini's text is, however, unknown; all other traditions are undated.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 26} Roger of Wendover, Chronica sive Flores historiarum, ed Coxe, H. O. III (London 1841) 342–4; ed. Hewlett, H. G. (Rolls Series; London 1886-89) II 156-9. Repeated from Wendover in Paris, Matthew, Chronica majora , ed Luard, H. R. II (R. S.; London 1874) 631-3.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 27} For details, see Appendix C, below.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 28} It is interesting that also Rainier of Liège (d. 1230) in his Annals singles out only a few crusading provisions of Innocent III which correspond to G's report for the first session and are contained in Wendover's text (ed. Pertz, G. H., MGH SS 16 [1859] 674.49–54). See also the 14th-cent. account of MS Vat. lat. 3555, below, Appendix B, lines 19-21.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 29} Similarly, Matthew Paris was to include a draft, not the official text of the constitutions of the Council of Lyons (1245) in his Chronica, cf. Kuttner, , ‘Die Konstitutionen des ersten allgemeinen Konzils von Lyon,’ Studia et documenta historiae et iuris 6 (1940) 97–100.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 30} Mansi 22.1059A; COD 243.22-5; Wendover, ed. Coxe III 344.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 31} For the whole election dispute (1211-15) see Santifaller, L., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Lateinischen Patriarchats von Konstantinopel (1204-1261) und der venezianischen Urkunde (Weimar 1938) pp. 28–30, and in particular Wolff, R. L., ‘Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954) 225-303, at 244-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 130 note 32} ed. Waitz, G., MGH Script. in usum schol. (1880) 237 (previously known as Godfrey of St. Pantaleon and so quoted in Mansi 22.1075). Cf. Wolff, , op. cit. 252.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 33} Rubricellae in Theiner, VMS (above, II n. 31) I 66 Nos. 83-94; Potthast ^*5193-^*5204.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 34} Cf. Wolff, , op. cit. 227–9. The constitution ‘Licet apostolice sedis’ of May 1205 on patriarchal elections, Po. 2508, edited by Wolff 297 No. ii from Honorius III's ‘Cum a nobis petitur’ (22 March 1218, Pressutti 1174), where it is inserted, had actually been published before from Reg. Vat. 7 by Delisle, L., ‘Lettres inédites d'Innocent III,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 34 (1873) 409 No. ix. Cf. Potthast, , Addenda to 2508 (II p. 2047).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 35} Above, II n. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 36} de Loaysa, García, Collectio conciliorum Hispaniae (Madrid 1593) 287–92, reproduced in the conciliar collections, e.g. Mansi 22.1071-5.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 37} Mansi 1074D.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 38} Fita, Thus F, ‘Santiago de Galicia: Nuevas impugaciones y nueva defensa (IV),’ Razón y Fe 2 (1902) 35–45, where the early history of the controversy is given; id. (V), ibid. 178-95 and (VI-VII), ibid. 3 (1902) 49-61. Cf. also Flórez, H., España sagrada 3 (Madrid 1754) 39-58.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 39} Fita, , art. cit. (V) 178–95, with a parallel printing of the original and Loaysa's text. (The Madrid shelfmark is given in Erdmann, , art. cit. infra n. 42, p. 223 n. 2.) Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 40} So Fita, , ibid. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 41} See the plates, ibid. 181, 193.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 42} Erdmann, C., ‘Mauritius Burdinus (Gregor VIII.),’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 19 (1927) 207 n.1, 208 n.1, points out that the (in part fantastic) story told of Burdinus by Archbishop Rodrigo in his rebuttal of Braga's defense (Mansi 22.1072 E-73E; Fita 187-90) has a parallel in Rodrigo's book De rebus Hispaniae 6.28 (ed. Schott, [1603]= 6.27 ed. de Lorenzana, F, Patrum Toletanorum quotquot extant opera 3 [Madrid 1793] 140-42) and that details of the Toledo account are borne out by the Braga dossier mentioned below.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 43} ed. Fita, , art. cit. (IV) 40-43; Rivera, J. F., ‘Personajes hispanos asistentes en 1215 al IV Concilio de Letrán,’ Hispania sacra 4 (1951) 335–55, at 336-7. The letters within pointed brackets are supplied by the editors. See also Gorosterratzu, J., Don Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada (Pamplona 1925) 160-76, at 169f.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 44} Gorosterratzu, , op. cit. 166–8 and Rivera, , art. cit. in refutation of Fita's arguments against the authenticity, art. cit. (IV) 44-5; (VII) 52-7.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 45} Erdmann, C., Papsturkunden in Portugal (Abh. Ges. der Wiss. Göttingen N. F. 20.3; Berlin 1927) 383 No. 13 and note; on the Braga dossier in general see ibid. 105-9, 142, 381-4. For other 12th-cent. antecedents of the great suit see Rivera Recio, J. F., ‘La primacía eclesiástica de Toledo en el siglo xii,’ Anthologica annua 10 (1962) 11-87.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 46} Fita, , art. cit. (IV) 44.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 47} La Chanson de la croisade contre les Albigeois ed. Meyer, P. (Société de l'Histoire de France; Paris 1875-79) verses 3150-3665; ed. Martin-Chabot, E. (Les Classiques de l'hist. de France au moyen âge; Paris 1931-61) II 40-89, sections 143-151.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 48} Cf. Belperron, P., La croisade contre les Albigeois et l'union de Languedoc à la France (Paris 1942) 306.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 49} Petri Vallium Sarnaii monachi Hystoria Albigensis ed. Guébin, P. and Lyon, E. (Soc. de l'Hist. de France; Paris 1926-39) II 261–2, § 571; ed. Bouquet, M., Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France 19 (1833; 1880) 104, c.83. This chapter also in Mansi 22.1069.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 50} Gesta Philippi Augusti c. 216, ed. Delaborde, H. F., Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton I (Paris 1882) 306. Repeated in Aubrey of Trois-Fontaines' Chronica (ed. Scheffer-Boichorst, P., MGH SS 23 [1874] 904), whence Mansi 22.1082.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 51} Cf. Tillmann, H., Papst Innocenz III. (Bonn 1954) 189–200; Evans, A. P., ‘The Albigensian Crusade,’ in Setton, K. M., A History of the Crusades II (ed. Wolff, R. L. and Hazard, W., Philadelphia 1962) 297-8, 304-5; Hageneder, O., ‘Studien zur Dekretale “Vergentis” (X. V, 7, 10),’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt. 49 (1963) 158-61; id., ‘Das päpstliche Recht der Fürstenabsetzung,’ Archivum historiae pontificiae 1 (1963) 60-69.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 52} Potthast 4967: des Vaux, Pierre, Hyst. Albig. § 556 (Guébin II 250; = c. 82, Bouquet 19.102; Mansi 22.938); cf. Potthast 4968-69.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 53} PL 216.613C-614A (Potthast 4517). Cf. also Chanson v. 3482 ed. Meyer (= 149.4 ed. Martin-Chabot, ), where Innocent calls the count a true Catholic.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 54} E. g. Hyst. Albig. § 571 (c. 83); Rainier of Liège, MGH SS 16.674.16, 40, 50.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 55} Cf. Meyer's note, II 520 (to p. 15 n.2); Martin-Chabot I 39 n. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 56} Theiner, VMS I 63 No. 14. Cf. below, to lines 152-8.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 57} See, however, ibid. at n. 121 for the Chronicle of St. Martin's of Tours.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 58} So the rubricella in Theiner, VMS I 63 No. 15: ‘Uniuersis Christifidelibus significatur ordinatio facta quod comes Tholosanus’ Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 59} Theiner Nos. 16-17; Potthast 5010-11.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 60} Theiner Nos. 19-20; Potthast 5014-15.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 61} (Paris 1730-45) III, preuves p. 251; new ed. by Molinier, A., VIII (Toulouse 1879) 681. The text is badly reproduced in Bouquet 19.598. Another original exists in Paris, Archives Nationales J. 430 n.13, cf. Guébin-Lyon, , Petri Hyst. Albig. II 263 n.1 (cited as ‘Trésor des chartes, Bulle contre les hérétiques n°. 13’ by Molinier, , Hist. gén. de Languedoc V 474 n.1).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 62} ed. Augustinus, Antonius (Agustín), Antiquae collectiones decretalium (Lérida 1576) fol. 24^rb-24^va ; Friedberg, , Quinque Compilationes antiquae (Leipzig 1881) 147.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 63} Cf. Luchaire, , ‘Un document retrouvé,’ Journ. des savants 1905 p. 560 (= Hefele-Leclercq 5 ii. 1725); García (above, I n. 13), Trad. 14.487.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 64} d'Achéry, L., Spicilegium 7 (Paris 1666) 210; 2nd ed. (1723) 1.707 (reference in Potthast 5009 not correct); whence reproduced e. g. in Mansi 22.1069.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 65} It is not among the bulk of the abbey's MSS in the Bibliothèque Municipale of Évreux, nor apparently among the scattered books from Lyre which ended up in Rouen or Paris, listed by Omont, H. in Catalogue général des manuscrits, Départements 2 (Paris 1888) 383 nn. 2-3 and Nortier, G., in Revue Mabillon 48 (1958) 16-19.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 66} According to d'Achéry, the Lyre MS contains the traditional brief Notice of the council, ‘Anno ab incarnatione,’ ending ‘non fuit certus numerus comprehensus. In ea Synodo fuerunt haec instituta quae sequuntur, videlicet (d'Achéry adds) Canones ejusdem Concilii et sub finem post orationem Innocenta Papae: Sententia de terrâ Albigensi. Quantum ecclesia videbitur expedire.’ This sequence corresponds to Paris lat. 12249 (as given by Luchaire loc.cit.), while in the Kassel and Rouen MSS Quantum ecclesia follows immediately after Ad liberandam and is in turn followed by the brief Notice. [Possibly Par. lat. and d'Achéry's MS are identical; see Additional Note, p. 178.]Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 66a} All quotations are from De Vic-Vaissete (ed. Molinier, ). Friedberg in his edition of 4 Comp. 5.5.1 used the faulty reprint of Bouquet 19.598 for collating the decretal text with the ‘original’; and even these collations are unreliable. In the notes which follow, variant readings of the decretal text (from Agustín and Friedberg) will be recorded (= D). Warner, H. J., The Albigensian Heresy II (London 1928) 88–9 merely reproduces d'Achéry's edition, cf. Guébin-Lyon loc. cit. (n. 61).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 67} Hyst. Albiy. § 572 (Guébin II 262; = c. 83 Bouquet); Gesta Phil. Aug. c. 216 (Delaborde I 306).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 68} utique om. D.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 69} Hyst. Albig. loc. cit .Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 70} Raimundus—qui] quoniam R. quondam comes Tolosanus D utrisque D.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 71} exterminandos D ruptarias D (?) Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 72} posset] potuit D Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 73} Theiner, VMS I 63 No. 15 ‘propter heresim’; le Breton, Guillaume, Gesta Phil. Aug. c. 216: ‘comitem et eius filium damnatos de heresi’ (cf. at n. 50, above); Chronicon S. Martini Turonensis (c. 1225): ‘Raimundus quoque comes Tolosanus et filius suus Raimundus tanquam heretici condempnantur’ (ed. Holder-Egger, O., MGH SS 26 [1882] 466.26-7). Some recent writers, who otherwise give very fine interpretations of the case against Raymond, still describe the sentence as establishing inter al. his ‘guilt’ as a heretic: so Tillmann, , op. cit. (n. 51) 198; Hageneder, , ‘Studien’ (cit. n. 51) 160 (but more cautiously ibid. n. 75: ‘als hereticus und ruptarius oder deren Förderer’); id., ‘Das päpstliche Recht’ 69 n. 52. Correctly Evans, , op. cit. 307: ‘guilty of harboring heretics and routiers’; see also Belperron, , op. cit. (n. 48) 307, 309 (‘jugement de Salomon’). — For the relations between the disposal of Raymond's case and the general legislation of the council (const. 3) on the forfeiture of rulers’ rights by negligence in uprooting heresy see Hageneder, , ‘Studien’ 162ff.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 74} de peccatis] deportatus D (!) Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 75} uel—competentem om. D (not noted in Friedberg's, app. crit.) Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 76} Cf. his letter in Innocent's Reg. 12.109 (PL 216.142A-B), the letter of the papal legates, Reg. 12.108 (ibid. 140D), and the papal replies of 11-12 November 1209, Reg. 12.122, 123 (Potthast 3833-4; cf. Tillmann, , op. cit. 190 and n. 19).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 77} uirorum] et add. D ab iis om. D de iure est tr. D Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 78} Cf. Hageneder, , ‘Studien’ 160.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 79} comitis prefati tr. D Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 80} Hyst. Albig. § 572 (c. 83). Cf. Belperron, , op. cit. 309; also Martin-Chabot's commentary, Chanson II 86 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 81} ed. Bresslau, H., in Neues Archiv der Gesellsch. etc. 11 (1885) 99–101, at p. 101; ed Egidi, P., Necrologi e libri affini della provincia Romana I (Fonti per la storia d'Italia; Rome 1908) 100-01. — Our thanks are due to Fr. Leonard Boyle, O. P. for having pointed out this text, together with other material on S. Maria in Trastevere.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 82} Cecchelli, C., S. Maria in Trastevere (Collezione Le Chiese di Roma; Rome s. a. [c. 1932]) 36; Armellini, M., Le Chiese di Roma, nuova ed. a cura di C. Cecchelli (Rome 1942) II 786; and cf. the standard guide books.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 83} ed. Weiland, H., MGH SS 22 (1872) 438.13; incorporated in the 15th-century continuation of the Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, L. II (Paris 1892; reprinted 1955) 452, Vita of Innocent III.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 84} Cf. Armellini-Cecchelli II 785. The date of completion (Innocent II died in 1143) is uncertain. Maurice-Denis, N. and Boulet, R., Romée ou le pélerin moderne à Rome (3rd ed. Paris 1950) 657 give the years 1140-48, basing themselves probably on the last lines of the inscription of the pope's tombstone in S. Maria in Trastevere; qvi• presen/tem• ecclesiam• ad• ho/norem• dei• genetricis:/marie•sicvt•est•a•fvn/damentis•svmptibus•propriis•re/novavit: sub•anno•domini•m°•c°:xl:7c•a d:m:cxl/viii: (ed. Duchesne, , Lib. pont. II 385 n.2; Armellini-Cecchelli 788 [I have expanded the abbreviations, except for the uncertain a d: which appears as ad in Duchesne]). But this inscription dates from the 14th century when the remains of Innocent II were transferred to the church from the Lateran basilica, and the meaning of ‘etc. ad (a.d.?) m.cxlviii’ remains obscure.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 85} De cons. D. 1 cc. 16, 18, 19, 24; cf. Rufinus, , Summa decretorum, de cons. D.1 c.18 (ed. Singer, H., Paderborn 1902, p. 543) and—to cite only some of Innocent's contemporaries— Teutonicus, Johannes, Glossa ordinaria, de cons. D.1 c.18 v. altaria, c.24 ***v. innovata; id. Apparatus Comp. III, de dedic. eccl. 3.31.3 (= X 3.40.4) v. reconciliari (Munich MS lat. 3879, fol. 232^va); Tancred, , Gl. ord. Comp. III, ad loc. (MS Vat. lat. 1377 p. 195^b); later, Bernard of Parma, Gl. ord. X 3.40.4 v. reconciliari, and (incorporating Tancred's gloss) Hostiensis, , Summa, tit. de consecr, eccl. § Et an sit iteranda (ed. Venice, 1570, fol. 306^va no. 5.) Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 86} Lib. pont. II 384.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 87} Cited ibid. n.1 and, in the full context, by Vogel, C., Lib. pont. III (1957) 138 from the edition of Duchesne-Fabre, , Le Liber Censuum de l'église Romaine II (Paris 1910) 141ff. (at p. 169). On Benedict's Liber politicus (= polyptychus), its MSS, and the use made of it in the Liber censuum, cf. Duchesne, , Lib. cens. I (1905) 3-4. The work was dedicated to Innocent II; Mabillon published part of it (not including the passage here quoted) as Ordo XI = PL 78.1026ff.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 88} Delle Magnificenze di Roma antica e moderna Libro terzo, che contiene le Basiliche e Chiese antiche di Roma (Rome 1753) p. xlviii.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 89} Bresslau, , art. cit. 100; Egidi, , op. cit. 88-9.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 90} Egidi 94 (without notes on the Latin of the entry); not in Bresslau's excerpts.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 91} So cited in Armellini-Cecchelli II 786 n.2.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 92} De cons. D.1 c.16.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 93} Cf. Boyle, L., ‘The Date of the Consecration of the Basilica of San Clemente,’ Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 30 (1960) 417–27.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 94} Chronicon, PG 19.521 = PL 27.542.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 95} Mirabilia urbis Romae cc. 8, 31; Graphia aurea urbis c.39: ed. Valentini, R. and Zuchetti, G., Codice topografico della città di Roma III (Fonti per la storia d'Italia; Rome 1946) pp. 26, 64, 94; and in derivative texts, ibid. 125, 189. By mistake, the editors also cite (ibid. 26) the Passio s. Calixti, AS Oct. VI 439-40: this is a confusion with the Bollandists' introduction, AS cit. 422E. — Lib. pont. II 323 = III 168 (Vita of Calixtus II); Lib. censuum I 272. — Cf. Cecchelli, C., ‘Fons olei,’ Capitolium 1 (1925) 535-9 (not seen; reference kindly supplied by Dr. Peter Herde); Cecchelli, , S. Maria in Trastevere 8-9; Castagnoli, F., Cecchelli, C. et al., Topografia e urbanistica di Roma (Rome 1958) 244-5.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 96} Cf. Armellini-Cecchelli 790; Maurice-Denis, and Boulet, , Romée 661; Cecchelli locc. citt. (preceding note). Reproduction, e. g. in Enciclopedia Italiana 9 (1931) pl. clxx (opposite P. Toesca's article, p. 547).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 97} Cf. notes 11-13 to the text (above, III).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 98} There exists a late, and substantially correct, summary in Jean Le Long's Chronicle of St. Bertin's, Ypres (14th cent.): ‘In hoc consilio lecte fuerunt epistole Othonis imperatoris quarti, sed excommunicati, ad s. concilium destinate quibus humiliter petebat absolvi. Sed multis ibidem racionibus ostensum est tam a domino papa quam a marchione Montisferrati quod absolvi non deberet’ (ed. Holder-Egger, MGH SS 25.831, with note 13 pointing to the parallel in R). The direct source of the monk of Ypres cannot be determined.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 99} In the columns of Garufi's edition, R gives 74 lines to sess. II, as against 21 for sess. I (not counting the verbatim insertion of the opening sermon) and 22 for sess. III. In G the proportions are: 65 lines (of our edition) for sess. II, 24 for sess. I, and 46 for sess. III (not counting 46 lines for the events between sessions and 9 for those after the council).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 100} According to the recent investigation by Haidacher, A., ‘Über den Zeitpunkt der Exkommunikation Ottos IV. durch Papst Innozenz III.,’ Römische historische Mitteilungen 3 (1960) 132–85, the complex chronological problem is to be answered thus: conditional excommunicatio latae sententiae, 18 January 1210 (Potthast 3880, with correction, II p. 2052); solemn declaratory sentence, 18 November 1210 (Potthast 4213, with wrong date; cf. Böhmer-Ficker-Winkelmann, , Regesten des deutschen Kaiserreichs 5 iii [= BFW; Innsbruck 1892] No. 6099); repeated on Holy Thursday 1211 (Potthast ante 4213; BFW 6101b).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 101} ed. Pertz, G. H., MGH SS 18 (1863) 431.25–8.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 102} Cf. Gratian, , C.3 q.6 p.c.2, and the Ordines iudiciarii in general, e.g. Ricardus Anglicus c.38 (ed. Wahrmund, L., Quellen zur Geschichte des römisch-kanonischen Processes im Mittelalter 2.3 [Innsbruck 1915] p. 89); Tancred 2.5.1 (ed. Bergmann, F., Pillii, Tancredi, Gratiae Libri de iudiciorum ordine [Göttingen 1842] p. 140).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 103} According to Gratian loc. cit. also ‘in initio litis’; but cf. the modifications and qualifications in the Ordines, e.g. Ricardus Anglicus loc. cit., Tancred 2.5.3 (p. 143).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 104} The oath is in the Regestum de negotio imperii , ed. Kempf, F. (Miscell. hist. pont. 12.21; Rome 1947) No. 192, p. 405.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 105} que om. Garufi innodato Garufi .Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 106} Chron. regia Coloniensis , ed. Waitz, , MGH SS in usum schol. (1880) 291, 293; cf. 235, 236; Annales Stadenses , ed. Lappenberg, I.M., MGH SS 16 (1859) 356.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 107} ed. Pertz, , MGH SS 17 (1861) 173.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 108} Op. cit. (above, I n. 16) II 423.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 109} Potthast 3299, 3300 (postulation quashed, excomm.; cf. also 3256, 3354); 3530 (deposition); 3760-1 (mandate to Otto); 4116-18 (confirm. of Gerard, 30 October 1210); Annales Stadenses, MGH SS 16.355. Cf. Eubel, , Hierarch. cath. I 145, 455; also Krabbo, H., ‘Die deutschen Bischöfe auf dem vierten Laterankonzil,’ Quellen und Forsch. aus ital. Arch. und Bibl. 10 (1907) 292-3: Gerard was unable to attend the council.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 110} There are instances of his having done so on other occasions, cf. Tillmann, , op. cit. (n. 51) 50 n. 64, 154 n. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 111} Testimonies in Tillmann 49f.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 112} Cf. Winkelmann, , Philipp von Schw. und Otto II 421 with n. 6; more material in Tillmann 149.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 113} Cf. Dig. 2.2.3.3; 17.1.6, 46 etc.(spondere); Dig. 18.1.72 pr.; 35.3.3.1 (cautio fideiussoria); Cod. 1.49.1.1; 12.21.8.1 (cautio iuratoria).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 114} ed. Weiland, L., MGH Const. 2 (1896) 52.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 115} Only at this point has R him introduce an objection against their right to appear for Otto, see above, to line 90.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 116} Cf. § 5 above; esp. to lines 50-52, 54-5.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 117} Ed. Rom. (intercalated pages, cf. n. 15 above); Mansi 22.973ff.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 118} Luchaire, A., ‘Un document retrouvé’ ap. Hefele-Leclercq 5 ii.1723; cf. also Maccarrone, M., ‘II IV Concilio Lateranense,’ Divinitas 5 (1961) 270-98, at 288 n.25.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 119} Theiner, VMS I 63 No. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 120} R 73.8-11 ‘librum Ioachim seu tractatum dampnauit quem contra magistrum Petrum Lombardum ediderat de unitate seu essentia Trinitatis’; this is almost verbatim from the opening words of the constitution (cf. COD 207.7-9).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 121} Chron. S. Mart. reports on the council in this sequence: constitutions (below, G 184), crusading statute (G 159-60), ‘condemnation’ of Raymond and his son, excommunication of other heretics (G 154-5), reprobation of Joachim's book and the teaching of Amaury (G 155-6): ed. Holder-Egger, O., MGH SS 26 (1882) 466–7. Cf. n. 125.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 122} ed. Holder-Egger, , Cronicon Reinhardsbr. MGH SS 30.588.28-9; Chronica s. Petri Erford. SS 30.384. On the Historiae as source, cf. at n.3 above.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 123} Mansi 22.981-2; COD 206-7; X 1.1.1. For bibliography, see COD 207 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 124} Mansi 22.981-6; COD 207-9; X 1.1.2. For bibliography, see COD 207 n.2, 209 nn. 1-3; Maccarrone, , art. cit. 286-8; also Bloomfield, M., ‘Joachim of Flora,’ Traditio 13 (1957) 249–309, at 254-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 130 note 125} Raimundus quoque condempnantur (see above, n. 73), multique alii heretici < et ? > fautores eorum gladio anathematis feriuntur. Libellus enim (al. etiam) vel tractatus de Trinitate quem abbas Joachim edidit reprobatur et perversissimum dogma magistri Amorici condempnatur' (MGH SS 26.467.26-31).+fautores+eorum+gladio+anathematis+feriuntur.+Libellus+enim+(al.+etiam)+vel+tractatus+de+Trinitate+quem+abbas+Joachim+edidit+reprobatur+et+perversissimum+dogma+magistri+Amorici+condempnatur'+(MGH+SS+26.467.26-31).>Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 126} Mansi 22.986E; COD 209.10-14. For historical analysis of c.3 cf. Hageneder, , ‘Studien’ (n. 51 above) 163–7.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 127} igitur om. edd. (supplied here from A. García's forthcoming new edition).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 128} Reinerius Leod. Ann. ed. Pertz, , MGH SS 16.674.49-54 (cf. n. 28 above); Chron. s. Martini Turon . ed. Holder-Egger, . MGH SS 26.467.4-26.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 129} Mansi 22.1066E-67B; COD 246.20-35; cf. also 243.35-8 (Mansi 1059E).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 130} See above, to lines 33-6 at n. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 131} See tabulation in Appendix C: peace and truce; measures against aiding Corsairs and pirates; against trading with Saracens; ordinance on material and spiritual preparation; provision for revenue of clerics in absentia; enforcement of crusading vows.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 132} The best edition (with translation and notes) is in Cheney, C. R. and Semple, W. H., Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England (1198-1216) (London-Edinburgh etc. 1953) No. 85, pp. 221–3.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 133} Sel. Letters No. 87, pp. 226-7, cf. 226 n.1.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 134} See esp. Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, ed. Coxe, III 323ff., 336ff.; ed. Hewlett, II 138ff., 151ff.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 135} Sel. Letters Nos. 75 (19 March 1215; Potthast 4961), 79 (spring-summer 1215; pp. 205-6, not in Potthast), 80 (7 July 1215; Potthast 4992, misdated), 82 (24 August 1215; Potthast 4990), 83 (same day; Potthast 4991), 84 (4 November 1215; Potthast 5006, cf. 5005). For the last of these, confirming the suspension of Archbishop Stephen Langton, cf. Powicke, M. and Cheney, C. R., Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church II (Oxford 1964) 47–9, with bibliography (page proofs kindly supplied before publication by Professor Cheney).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 136} Memoriale ed. Stubbs, W. (Rolls Series; London 1872-3) II 228.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 137} Gesta Phil Aug. c. 216 ed. Delaborde, (n. 50 above) I 306.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 138} Potthast, 4992, 4990, 4991; see Sel. Letters 80, 82, 83 (at pp. 207-8; 212-3, 215; 217, 219).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 139} Sel. Letters No. 85, p. 221; cf. No. 87 (Potthast 5057) p. 227.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 140} MGH SS 16.674.39-41.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 141} Memoriale loc. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 142} Sel. Letters p. 226.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 143} Ibid. pp. 221, 226.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 144} Potthast 4912; Sel. Letters No. 67, pp. 178ff.: promise of the feudal census, ‘mille marchas sterlingorum’ (180); ‘concedentes in feudum’ (papal charter, 181).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 145} Potthast 4990; Sel. Letters No. 82, p. 212.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 146} MGH loc. cit. (continued).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 147} For sources, see Will, , Regesten der Mainzer Erzbischöfe (above, I n.4) II (1886) 123 No. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 148} Ibid. 126–7, Nos. 16, 21; Potthast 1643.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 149} Will, , Regesten 149–50, Nos. 166-7, 170; p. 152 Nos. 178 (not in Potthast), 179, 183.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 150} Ibid. 154–5, Nos. 193-4; p. 161 No. 244.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 151} Ibid. 135-7, Nos. 75-89. A notice in the Chronica regia Coloniensis for 1208 makes him cardinal priest of Sabina, S., ‘Romam ad apostolicum se transtulit, ubi per biennium in ecclesia s. Sabine, ubi erat cardinalis, degens’ (ed. Waitz, , MGH Script. in usum schol. [1880] 226). This is accepted at face value by Will, , Regesten No. 75, but cannot be confirmed by any other source: no papal document is subscribed by him during those years (cf. Potthast I p. 464 and Eubel I 46 for cardinals of S. Sabina under Innocent III). The title was apparently vacant between the death of Archbishop William of Reims (card. 1179-1202) and Archbishop Thomas of Naples (1216-43), and Siegfried is not addressed as cardinal in the papal letter, Potthast 3310 (Will p. 136 No. 83) nor in any later document.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 152} Will, , Regesten 162-3, Nos. 257-8; cf. Krabbo, , ‘Die deutschen Bischöfe’ (n. 109 above) 281-2; and the conciliar list of the Zurich MS cited II n. 30 above.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 153} Otto of Freising, in Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I imp. 1.25, third ed. by Waitz, G. and von Simson, B., MGH Script. in usum schol. (1912) 38.37-39.4: ‘Ad haec Francia Hyspania Anglia Dania caeteraque regna imperio nostro adiacentia nos frequentant, ad ea quae imperii nostri mandata sunt se prompta esse affirmantes’ Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 154} von Dassel, Rainald, ap. Saxo Grammat. an. 1162, ed. Waitz, G., MGH SS 29 (1892) 114.19.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 155} Cf. Kantorowicz, E., Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite (Berlin 1927) 12–15; Gebhard, B., Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte I (8th ed. by Grundmann, H., Stuttgart 1954) 332, 334 with bibliography.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 156} Cf. (to cite only a few modern interpretations) Carlyle, R.W. and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West III (Edinburgh and London 1928) 173–6; Holtzmann, R., ‘Der Weltherrschaftsgedanke des mittelalterlichen Kaisertums und die Souveränität der europäischen Staaten,’ Hist. Zeitschr. 159 (1939) 251-64, esp. 255ff.; Holtzmann, W., Das mittelalterliche Imperium und die werdenden Nationen (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 7; Köln-Opladen 1953), esp. 18-26; Kempf, F. S. J., Papsttum und Kaisertum bei Innocenz III. (Miscell. historiae pontificiae 19; Rome 1954) passim (see Index s. vv. ‘Kaisertum und Nationen’; ‘Königserhebung durch Kaiser oder durch Papst’); Heer, F., Die Tragödie des heiligen Reiches (Stuttgart 1952) 240-45: ‘Die staufischen reguli.’ — For the canonists see Ullmann, W., ‘The Development of the Medieval Idea of Sovereignty,’ English Historical Review 64 (1949) 1-33; Mochi Onory, S., Fonti canonistiche dell'idea moderna dello Stato (Milan 1951); Kuttner, S., ‘Papst Honorius III und das Studium des Zivilrechts,’ Festschrift für Martin Wolff (Tübingen 1952) 79-101, at 95ff.; Post, G., ‘Rex Imperator,’ Traditio 9 (1953) 296-320; and ‘Blessed Lady Spain,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 198-209; both revised and enlarged in his Studies in Medieval Legal Thought (Princeton 1964) 453-93; Tierney, B., ‘Some Recent Works on the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 594-625, esp. 612-19: ‘Regnum and Imperium’; Kempf, , op. cit. 194-252.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 157} Ed. cit. (n. 153) 172.14-21.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 158} Roger of Hoveden, Chronica ed. Stubbs, W III (Rolls Series; London 1870) 202–3. Carlyle, , op. cit. III 176 expressed doubts (confusion by Roger with a feudal oath for Richard's continental possessions?); but cf. Poole, R. L., From Domesday Book to Magna Carta (Oxford History of England 3; 1951) 336-7.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 159} Frederick II's own conception of the relation between the Empire and the regna was to develop in a very different direction, cf. Kantorowicz, , op. cit. 515; Holtzmann, W., op. cit. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 160} PL 216.853A; Potthast 4746; Will, , Regesten II 157 No. 211.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 161} Will 188, Nos. 469-70.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 162} Rymer, Thos., Foedera (ed. Record Commission; London 1816) I 120; cf. Winkelmann, , Philip von Schw. und Otto II 421 and n.6 (correcting Rymer's date); Tillmann, , Papst Innoc. 149 and n. 279; Kempf, F., ‘Zu den Originalregistern Innocenz’ III.' Quellen und Forsch. aus ital. Arch. 36 (1956) 127.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 163} On ‘approbation’ in Innocent's political thought, as being not in the jurisdictional order of canonical confirmatio but based on a right to ‘examine’ the elect before imperial consecration, cf. Kempf, , Papsttum und Kaisertum 105–34. The formula ‘ratum habemus’ is a new element in this complex set of concepts.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 164} MGH SS 30.588.29-30.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 165} MGH SS 16.674.45-6.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 166} ‘Ibidem presidens barones Anglie cum Othone qui fuerat imperator excommunicans, eundem Othonem depositum, quia ecclesie Romane rebellis extiterat, denunciavit’; ed. Sackur, E., MGH SS 30.i (1896) 272.28–32.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 167} Winkelmann, , op. cit. II 423-4; Hefele-Leclercq 5 ii.1319; Kantorowicz, , Kaiser Friedrich der Zweite 68; Bock, F., ‘Studien zu den Originalregistern Innocenz’ III.,’ Archivalische Zeitschrift 50/51 (1955) 329–64 at 356ff. This whole construction has been refuted by Tillmann, H., ‘Zur Frage des Verhältnisses von Kirche und Staat in Lehre und Praxis Innocenz' III.,’ Deutsches Archiv für die Erforschung des Mittelalters 9 (1951-2) 140 and n. 17; Kempf, , ‘Zu den Originalregistern’ 127; Papsttum und Kaisertum 271.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 168} Giessen MS fol. 47^r-58^v; cf. pp. 117, 120, above.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 169} MGH SS 26.466-7; they are identified in the editor's notes: cc. 6, 11-13, 18, 20-25, 28, 29, 43-47, 50, 52, 59, 62-69. ‘hec et multa alia ibi instituta sunt que longum est enumerare’ (467.3-4). Later on, the chronicler speaks also of the crusading statute, of the condemnation of heretics (c.3) and of Joachim's and Amaury's teachings (c.2). — Cf. also Luchaire, , Le Concile de Latran (above, II n. 32) 62.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 170} MGH SS 26.466.14. It is not correct to say the chronicler of St. Martin's ‘observed that the decrees lacked originality’—so Gibbs, M. and Lang, J., English Bishops and Reform (Oxford 1934) 101, who evidently misunderstand Luchaire's remark (loc. cit.), ‘ne sont pas toutes originales’—nor to cite him as an example of the ‘surprising ignorance’ concerning the decrees among medieval chroniclers (ibid.).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 171} ed. Scheffer-Boichorst, P., MGH SS 23 (1874) 904.6–7.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 172} Continuatio Annal. Rotomag. (late 13th cent.), citing c.68 on the Jewish badge; Annales Normannici (same period): ‘multa utilia statuta sunt pertinentia ad statum universalis ecclesie,’ mentions c.13 against foundation of new religious orders; the so-called Ménestrel de Reims (c. 1260) § 145: ‘mout de commandemenz qui estoient necessaire a seinte eglise,’ cites a non-existing statute ‘que une clochete seroit portee avec Corpus Domini’ and c.16 on clerical dress (ed. Holder-Egger, , MGH SS 26.502, 514, 530; cf. Luchaire, , op. cit. 61-3). Also Salimbene, , Chronica (c. 1282-88) says he read the pope's sermon Desiderio desideravi and ‘omnia que ibi ordinata sunt’ but singles out only c. 13; ‘cetera que ibi ordinata fuerunt non scribo propter tedium et propter prolixitatem vitandam’ (ed. Holder-Egger, MGH SS 32.i [1905] 22; cf. Gibbs and Lang loc. cit.).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 173} Chronica minor auctore minorita Erphordiensi (c. 1261) ed. Holder-Egger, , MGH SS 24 (1879) 195. Luchaire, , op. cit. 61, cites only a later derivative of this text, the Flores temporum of a Swabian Franciscan (c. 1292; SS 24.247-8). There some more statutes are inserted and the series is concluded by a purported constitution on the Octave of the Nativity B.M.V Actually this belongs to Innocent IV and the First Council of Lyons (from Chron. min. Erph. p. 200, not recognized by the editor); cf. Potthast II 995 post num. 11731.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 174} ed. Coxe, III 342; Hewlett, II 156.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 175} Cf. Luchaire, , op. cit. 63. — Ann. Normann. loc. cit. (on c. 13): ‘quod paucis potuit temporibus observari’; Ménestrel de Reims loc. cit.: et mout d'autre commandement qui ne sont mie bien tenu ni gardei'; Salimbene loc. cit. (on c.13): ‘set ista constitutio propter prelatorum negligentiam servata non fuit’ Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 176} Cf. above, I n. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 177} Theiner, , VMS I 63 No. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 178} Munich MS lat. 9596, p. 255: ‘Incipit nouella Innocentii pape’; Prague Univ. XXIII. E. 59, fol. 1^r: ‘Hee sunt constitutiones edite a domino papa Innocentio iii. et confirmate in concilio generali’; Rouen MS 706, fol. 255^r: ‘Incipit noua constitutio domini Innocentii pape iii.’; Vatican MS Vat. lat. 3555, fol. 25^v: ‘Incipiunt constitutiones Innocentii pape’; Aix-en-Provence, Bibl. de Mèjanes MS 1683 (1548), fol. 3^r : ‘Institutiones domini Innocentii tercii’; etc. (From A. García's apparatus of the forthcoming edition.) Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 179} Liber pontificalis ed. Duchesne, I (Paris 1886; repr. 1955) 242; Diaconus, Johannes, De ecclesia Lateranensi c.10 (PL 194.1556) = c.13 ed. Valentini-Zuchetti, , Codice topografico (n. 95 above) III 356. Cf. Frolow, A., La relique de la Vraie Croix (Paris 1961) Nos. 20, 357.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 180} Lib. pont. I 80, 179, 196 n.75; Frolow No. 27 (with recent bibliography, p. 177). Cf. Breviarium Rom. 3 May: Nocturn, , lectio 6 (until the suppression of the feast in 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 181} Frolow No. 34 (with bibliogr. pp. 180-1); cf. Duchesne, , Lib. pont. I 378 n.28.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 182} Diaconus, Jo. loc. cit.; cf. Frolow Nos. 78, 357.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 183} Lib. pont. I 374, with Duchesne's commentary 378 nn. 28-30 and C. Vogel's supplementary note III (1957) 97; Andrieu's, Ordo XXIII (8th cent.): Andrieu, M., Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen-âge III (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense 24; Louvain 1951) 271; Benedict of St. Peter's, Liber politicus (before 1142; cf. n. 87 above) c. 74, ed. Duchesne-Fabre, , Liber censuum II 159 (cf. p. 164 n.60) (= ed. Mabillon, , PL 78.1053); Cencius, , Ordo (13th cent.) § 28, ed. Lib. cens. I 296 (= Mab. Ordo XII, PL 78.1075). — Cf. Frolow Nos. 67, 79, 88 (with bibliography, pp. 215-6, on Paschal I's [817-24] now empty enameled reliquary in the Museo Sacro of the Vatican, but without mentioning the traditional identification with Pope Sergius' Cross), N°. 357.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 184} Regestum Clementis papae V, Benedictine, ed. Appendix I (Rome 1892) p. 448; cf. Frolow Nos. 452, 682.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 185} Communication from Dr. Richard Kay, letter of 10 June 1963.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 186} Hist. minor ed. Madden, F II (Rolls Series; London 1866) 174; ed. Liebermann, , MGH SS 28 (1888) 399.32-6; shorter in Chron. majora ed. Luard, H. R. II (1874) 635. This was accepted at its face value by Winkelmann, , Philip von Schw. und Otto II 424.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 187} Chron. maj. II 565.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 188} Without prejudice to his otherwise well-deserved reputation as a fine historian. On his works, their interrelation, chronology, use of source material, etc. see now Vaughan, R., Matthew Paris (Cambridge 1958). Of older studies, F. Liebermann's introduction to the selections edited by him for the MGH (SS 28.74-106) retains its great value. — Modern liturgical studies, for instance, should have taken notice of the information Matthew has to offer on discussions and decisions concerning the Mass at the IV Lateran Council: on the commemoration of local saints in the Canon (‘in secreto missae’) and the abolition of ‘quaedam quae diu ante ea fuerant usitata,’ Gesta abbatum s. Albani ed. Riley, H. T. I (R.S. London 1867) 261-2; ed. Liebermann, , MGH SS 28.438.26-39; this important passage is not mentioned in the pertinent sections of Jungmann, J., Missarum sollemnia (5th ed. Wien-Freiburg-Basel 1962) I 133, II 221-2, nor in Van Dijk, S. J. P. and Walker, J. H., The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy (London-Westminster, Md. 1960) 95-112.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 189} ed. Riley, I 263–4; ed. Liebermann, 438-9. The derivation of the generalized statement in the Hist. min. from the anecdote in the Gesta can be demonstrated almost word for word.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 190} Innocent greeted Abbot William with these words: ‘Nonne es tu abbas s. Albani qui tot privilegiorum beneficia a nostra sede totiens obtinuisti?’ (Gesta I 263); they suggest that a gift was expected of the abbot of St. Alban's, not in return for the licence to depart, but in connection with earlier favors granted to the abbey. — For a sober analysis of Innocent's attitude in matters of customary, expected, and requested gifts, see Tillmann, , Papst Innoc. 39–44; on Matthew's, allegations ibid. 294.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 191} Will, , Regesten II 163 No. 258.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 192} Cf. Kuttner, , ‘Conciliar Law in the Making’ (n. 24 above) 43.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 1} ed. Weiland, L., MGH Const. 2 (1896) 106–9, No. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 2} Decr. Grat. C. 11 q.1 cc.42-43.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 3} al. factum fuerit Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 4} An emendation is needed here: either ‘iudicio sit priuatus’ or, more probably, ‘iudicii potestate auctoritate nostra sit priuatus’ (homoiotel.).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 5} habeat Gs.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 6} A papal law could at the most request such a measure from the secular ruler; so Celestine III in his decretal A nobis with regard to the effects of degradation of clerics, JL 17639: ‘per secularem comprimendus est potestatem ita quod ei deputetur exilium’ (X 2.1.10; for the date, 15 April/25 Oct. 1191, see Holtzmann, W, ‘La Collectio Seguntina,’ Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 50 [1955] 431, c.43).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 7} Gs c.2 has a wider scope than c.7 of the Privilegium in favorem principum ecclesiasticorum, granted by Frederick II at Frankfurt, 26 April 1220, where the king (emperorelect) pledges that nostra proscriptio will follow for every excommunicate whom, upon denuntiatio by the ecclesiastical judge, he finds to have persisted in the state of excommunication for six weeks (MGH Const. 2.90, No. 73 c.7). While the time span here is much shorter, the Privilegium requires in each case a royal sentence; in Gs (and in F c.3) the bannus imperialis follows automatically after a year, without a procedure of denuntiatio. For F c.3 see also below, n. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 8} Potthast 6395; Pressutti 2766; text in MGH Const. 2.104-5 No. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 9} Reg. Hon. 5.483; Potthast 6408; Pressutti 2786; the formula of confirmation is in MGH Const. 2.110 n.1.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 10} Beg. ‘Excommunicamus,’ published in the letter Noverit fraternitas tua, 4 January 1221 (Potthast 6469; Pressutti 2945; text in X 5.39.49).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 11} MGH Const. 2.110 No. 86; for the distribution among the authenticae of Cod. Just. see the editio stereotypa of P. Krüger, 510ff.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 12} 5 Comp. 1.1.1. (Potth. 6469) and 2 (const. Freder. c.1); 1.3.4 (F c.8); 2.1.2 (c.5); 2.2.2 (c.4); 3.13.un. (c.9); 3.26.3 (c.2); 5.4.un. (cc.6-7); 5.12.4 (c.10); 5.18.3 (c.3).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 13} De Vergottini, G., Studi sulla legislazione imperiale di Federico II in Italia: Le leggi di 1220 (Milan 1952) 88–96.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 14} Potthast 6395: ‘studeatis ut capitularia que vobis mittimus presentibus interclusa, sub competentibus verbis, servata sententia, sub nomine regio in leges publicas redigantur nobisque mittantur in die coronationis sub imperiali nomine publicanda’ (MGH Const. 2.104).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 15} JL 15109; X 5.7.9 (+ 3.38.23); cf. at n. 31 ed. Friedb, .Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 16} For testimonies cf. De Vergottini, , op. cit. 42–3.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 17} Cf. ibid. 47ff.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 18} Gs c.1 lin. 4-5 nullus omnino hominum] nullus F 5 clericum siue om. F 6-7 cuiuscumque conditionis sit om. F 11 si secus presumptum fuerit] si fecerit (factum fuerit) F. — Gs c.2 lin. 2-4 siue sit ecclesiastica siue secularis temere per anni circulum] per annum F 19 ipsos subiacere decreuimus] subiaceat F Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 19} Gs c.1 lin.1-4 Quoniam ea—concilium] Statuimus autem F Gs; c. 2 lin. 5-18 si clericus—sint absoluti om. F.—Also the clause ‘iuris ordine observato’ (Gs c.2.4) had no place in F c.3; it would have implied a right of the secular judge to reexamine the sentence.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 20} So Gs c.2; this does not go as far as the exaggerated promise made to Innocent III by Philip of Swabia in 1203: ‘ut quicumque excommunicatus sit a domino apostolico, in banno statim sit imperiali’ (MGH Const. 2.9 No. 8 c.9); but Innocent never pressed for this, cf. Eichmann, E., Acht und Bann im Reichsrecht des Mittelalters (Paderborn 1909) 120f. A common statute by Alexander III and Barbarossa in 1177 on mutual automatic operation of excommunicatio and proscriptio after a year is reported in the Chronicle of St. Michael's in Lüneburg (ed. Weiland, MGH SS 23.396) but deserves little credence; cf. Eichmann 31-2 (contra , Vergottini, De, op. cit. 46ff., 105-6).Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 21} By the same token, the clause of G c.1 lin. 11-13 ‘consuetudinibus—non obstantibus’ is lacking in F c.4: the consuetudines were already annulled in F c.1. (For Germany, F c.3 had the effect that the Reichsacht in cases of excommunication propter libertatem ecclesiae facta could now either follow after six weeks by denunciation procedure (n.7 above), or without this procedure after a year.) Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 22} C 15 q.6 cc.4-5, etc. — Honorius III, Potthast 7852 = 5462; Pressutti 351: 18 February 1217; 5 Comp. 5.16.2; X 5.37.13.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 23} For developments of forfeiture in the feudal law see Eichmann, , Acht und Bann 85–6.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 24} Rather, a judicial sentence was needed in these cases; see the commentaries on X 1.14.8, e.g. Innocent IV, Apparatus nn. 1-2 ad loc. (ed. Venice, 1570 p. 126); Andreae, Johannes, Novella nn. 4, 12 ad loc. (ed. Venice, 1581 [reprint Turin 1963] fol. 166^r); also Innocent III on fiefs, X 5.37.10.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 25} Conciliorum collectio 7 (Paris 1714) 15–16; cf. Mansi 22.979 n.1.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 26} See V 22-32.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 27} E. g. V 2-4 indictione — oecasu; 5-7 feria iiij.—in medio; 16-21 Quem laudabiliter—subiturum (cf. n. 28), 29 Personam—illius.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 28} See V 19-21, apparatus.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 29} See the appar. to lines 16-18, 19-21, 22-32.Google Scholar

^{page 168 note 30} Ibid. 32–34.Google Scholar