Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:20:05.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cardinalis: The History of a Canonical Concept

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Stephan Kuttner
Stephan Kuttner*
Affiliation:
The Catholic University of America
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is commonly known that in the canonical sources of ancient and early medieval times many bishops, priests and deacons throughout the Latin Church were called cardinales, long before that term came to be used exclusively, or even primarily, for a specific group of dignitaries in the Church of Rome. Historians do not agree, however, as to the original meaning of the word in the language of the ancient Church. Nor do they, as a rule, explain with sufficient clearness in what sense it was first applied to those members of the Roman clergy—the priests of the ancient tituli or quasi-parishes; the deacons both of the papal palace and the city's diaconiae; and seven bishops of the metropolitan province—who eventually rose to the unique position of becoming the ‘senators’ and sole electors of the Pope.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 3 , 1945 , pp. 129 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © 1945 by Cosmopolitan Science & Art Service Co., Inc. 

Access options

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

References

1 Already Jacques Godefroy complained, Comm. Cod. Th. 12, 6, 7 (V, 541 Lugd.; IV, 573 Lips.): ‘ubi cardinale quid sit, non magis quam quid cardinales presbyteri, diaconi, ad hanc diem scitur’ Muratori begins his dissertation, ‘De cardinalium institutione,’ Antiq. 5, 155 with the words: ‘Multi multa de cardinalibus eorumque origine atque institutione commentati sunt; actum agere non est mihi animus.’ Select bibliographies of the period are found in Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 309 and Kehr, IP 1, 1f.Google Scholar

2 Onofrio Panvini, ‘De episcopatibus, titulis et diaconiis cardinalium liber,’ in Romani Pontifices et Cardinales S.R.E. ab eisdem creati (Venice 1557) Appendix p. 51; id. De origine cardinalium 481; H. Plati, De cardinalis dignitate (Rome 1602; 6th ed. 1836) 2, 3, 23; Cohellius, J., Notitia cardinalatus (Rome 1653) 3; Card, J B. de Luca, ‘Relatio romanae curiae forensis’ 4, 2, in Theatrum veritatis et iustitiae (Rome 1671) 7, 2, 17; Gonzalez Tellez, M., Commentaria perpetua in singulos textus quinque librorum decretalium Gregorii IX (Lyons 1673) 1, 24, 2 ad v. sacerdotum cardinalium; 3, 4, 2; P de Goussainville, note to epp. 1, 15 and 12, 2 in his edition (Paris 1675) of the letters of Gregory the Great (reprinted in the Maurist edition, to epp. 1, 15 and 14, 7; cf. PL 77, 461 note e; 1310 note g); Thomassin, L., Vetus et nova Ecclesiae disciplina 1, 2, 115, 2; Kleiner, J., De origine et antiquitate S.R.E. Cardinalium (Heidelberg 1767; ed. A. Schmidt, Thesaurus iuris ecclesiastici, Heidelberg-Bamberg-Würzburg 1773: II, 443–66) §13, and many others. The doctrine goes back as far as the glossators; cf. Glossa ordinaria on C. 21 q. 1 c. 5 ad v. cardinalem; on X. 1, 24, 2 ad v. cardinalium. Google Scholar

3 Fleury, C., Institutiones iuris ecclesiastici (= Institution au droit ecclésiastique, Paris 1676; 3rd latin ed. Venice 1779) 1, 19, 2; Gothofredus loc. cit.; Muratori, Antiq. 5, 156f.; van Espen, Z. B., Ius ecclesiasticum universum (Louvain 1753–68) 1, 22, 1, 1; Devoti, J., Institutionum canonicarum libri IV (Rome 1785–9; used ed. 1830) 1, 3, 2, 22 note 4. Also De Luca and Goussainville locc. citt. offer this explanation, in combination with the first theory.Google Scholar

4 Robert Bellarmine, St., Controversiae 2: ‘De membris Ecclesiae militantis' 1, 16 (Venice 1596; Opera omnia ed. Naples 1872:II, 174); Cohellius, op. cit. 4D; L. Nardi, Dei parrochi (Pesaro 1829–30) II, 403–21 (but see note 6 infra).Google Scholar

5 Thus Thomassin, op. cit. 1, 2, 116, 1; Muratori, Antiq. 1, 552; 5, 155; 162B; 163C; 164f.; the anonymous author of the pamphlet, Cosa è un cardinale? reprinted and refuted by Tamagna, Origini; and several Gallicanists cited by Nardi, loc. cit. But see also Panvini, De rig. card. 482f.; Kleiner, op. cit. §21 (455 Schmidt).Google Scholar

6 The Correctores Romani in their note on Gratian D. 71 c. 5 (Rome 1582, col. 465–6; ed. Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici I, Leipzig 1879, col. 258) ad v cardinandum: ‘Cardinare vero, seu cardinalem constituere (quod est in fine huius capitis), ita videtur B. Gregorius accepisse, ut canonicam translationem significet'; Panvini, De orig. card. 472–8; F Florent, Tractatus IX in IX priores titulos libri I decretalium Gregorii IX (Paris 1641) 266–8; Cohellius, op. cit. 3; 4D; Le Cointe, Instit. et rang 29f. 33; J. Garnier, note to LD 11 ad v. incardinari in his edition (Paris 1680) of the Liber diurnus (reprinted in ed. Rozière 32); Tamagna, Origini I, 99–109; Nardi, Dei parrochi II, 396–103.Google Scholar

7 Le Cointe 30–2 and Tamagna I, 109f. at least point correctly to some later instances of cardinalis in the Gregorian sense. Panvini 479f. and Garnier loc. cit. do not even admit it in all of St. Gregory's letters. A typical example for the disconnected parallelism of the different interpretations is found in Cohellius loc. cit. Google Scholar

8 Phillips, Kirchenr. VI, 50–9; Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 313f.Google Scholar

9 Phillips VI, 53f. holds that the other meaning of cardinalis, i.e. cleric of a main church or cardo (cf. pp. 43–50; 54f.), runs parallel to the Gregorian usage since the sixth century. Hinschius arbitrarily grafts the derivation from cardo (I, 314–7) and the identification with principalis (319f.) on his discussion of the Gregorian terminology.Google Scholar

10 To cite a few representative names only: R. von Scherer, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts I (Graz 1886) 473f.; Sägmüller, Cardinäle 6f.; id. Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts I, 4 (4th ed. Freiburg 1934) 516; id. ‘Cardinal,’ Catholic Encyclopedia 3 (1908) 333; C. Wenck ‘Das Cardinalscollegium,’ Preussische Jahrbücher 53 (1884) 431; id. ‘Kardinalat,’ Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 3 (1st ed. 1912) 925; F M. Cappello, De Curia Romana I (Rome 1911) 18; Forget, J., ‘Cardinaux,’ DThC 2 (1905) 1717f.; Martin, V, Les cardinaux et la curie (Bibliothèque catholique des sciences religieuses 36, Paris 1930) 20; Molien, A., ‘Cardinal,’ Dictionnaire de droit canonique 2 (1937) 1313–5; Dumas, A., in Fliehe-Martin, Histoire de l'Église depuis les origines à nos jours 7 (Paris 1940) 154f.Google Scholar

11 Especially by Duchesne and by Dr Klewitz.Google Scholar

12 See e.g. the most recent discussion in McBride, J. T., Incardination and Excardination of Seculars (The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 145, Washington, D. C. 1941) 1–13; these pages also separately under the title ‘The Terms Incardination and Excardination,’ The Jurist 2 (1942) 292–304.Google Scholar

1 Cf. ch. V sec. 3 infra. Google Scholar

2 Many of the letters were already studied by Panvini, De orig. card., and almost all of them, by Thomassin. The latter included in his list (Vet. et nova discipl. 1, 2, 115, 6) also Greg. Reg. 4, 13 (JE 1284) of which one sentence reads in Goussainville's edition (ep. 3, 13): ‘in alia quacumque ecclesia eum volumus cardinari.’ But since the correct reading is: ‘in aliam quamcumque ecclesiam ordinari’ (cf. MGH Epp. 1, 247 notes e, f), this text must be dropped for our purposes.Google Scholar

3 Glossa ordinaria on C. 21 q. 1 c. 5 (= Greg. Reg. 3, 13) ad v. cardinalem: ‘idest proprium Glos. ord. on X. 1, 24, 2 (cf. on this doubtful canon ch. IV nn. 37, 75 infra) v. cardinalium: ‘idest principalium. Simile vii. q. i. Pastoralis (c. 42 = Greg. Reg. 2, 37); et dicuntur cardinales a cardine simile xxiiii. dist. Presbiter (c. 3 = Gelasius JK 677) et lxxi. dist. Fraternitatem (c. 5 = Greg. Reg. 6, 11). Ibi exponitur cardinalis, idest proprius, et xxi. q. i. Relatio (c. 5 = Reg. 3, 13).’ See further Thomassin, op. cit. 1, 2, 115, 3–6, and, above all, Ewald in MGH Epp. 1, 97 note 3 to Greg. Reg. 1, 77; also Mommsen, ‘Ostgothische Studien,’ NA 14 (1888–9) 472; O'Donnell, J. F, The Vocabulary of the Letters of St. Gregory the Great (The Catholic University of America Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin 2, Washington, D C. 1934) 136; McBride, op. cit. 5–7 (Jurist 2, 296–8).—As to the theory, cardinalis = principalis, it had always difficulties with the term, cardinal bishop. Bellarmine (Controv. 2, 1, 16) easily observed: ‘ nam non sunt in una dioecesi plures episcopi’ (Opp. II, 174).Google Scholar

4 This letter passed on into Gratian: C. 7 q. 1 c. 42.Google Scholar

5 Gratian: C. 21 q. 1 cc. 5–6.—Phillips, Kirchenr V, 462 and Ewald 173 n. 4 wrongly interpret this text as treating of a union of the two bishoprics.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Johannes Diaconus, Vita s. Gregorii 3, 18 (PL 75, 141); Phillips, Kirchenr. V, 459fGoogle Scholar

7 For the prohibition of transfers see the Councils of Nicaea c. 15; Antioch c. 21; Serdic cc. 1, 2; Chalcedon cc. 5, 20. Cf. Johannes Scholasticus, Synagoga L itulorum 12 (ed. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Abt Neue Folge 14 [1937] 13f. 52–5); for a Greek illustration of these rules in the tenth century sea J. Compernass, ‘Zwei Schriften des Arethas von Kaisareia gegen die Vertauschung de Bischofssitze,’ Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 4 (1935) 87–125, in particular p. 111f. The comparison with adultery is first found in a Roman synod under Pope Siricius c. 13 (Bruns 2 280). An excellent exposé was given in the ninth century by Hincmar of Reims, ep. d translatione episcoporum contra Actardum (PL 126, 210–30; see also nn. 16, 27–8 infra).—Cf Phillips, Kirchenr V, 424–31 and note 59; Ober, L., ‘Die Translation der Bischöfe im Alter tum,’ AKKR 88 (1908) 209–29; 441–65; 625–48; 89 (1909) 3–33: Fuchs, Ordinationstitel 78–85 Kurtscheid, Hist. iur. can. 112–6.Google Scholar

8 Phillips, Kirchenr. V, 458–63.Google Scholar

9 The visitor-administrator of a foreign diocese is not to be confused with a bishop visiting in his own diocese. On the latter see the Synods of Tarragona 516 c. 8 and II Brag 572 c. 1 (Bruns 2, 17; 39); Gelasius I JK 710; Pelagius I JK 984, 991. Cf. Thiel, Epp. Rom pont. 495 n. 2 (on JK 710); Sdralek, ‘Visitationen,’ in Kraus, F X., Real-Encyklopädie der christlichen Alterthümer 2 (Freiburg 1886) 958–60. Two instances are found in St. Gregory's letters. Reg. 2, 19 (JE 1172): Bishop Paulinus of Taurianum, near Reggio Calabria, who had been temporarily dispossessed of his see and given various interimistic assignments (cf. Reg. 1, 38–9; 2, 51: JE 1108–9; 1171), is told to visit his own church ‘quotiens oportunum tempus credideris’ (116, 6–7 Ewald); in fact, we find him later again at Taurianum, cf. Reg. 9, 134; 13, 21 (JE 1656, 1886). In Reg. 9, 71 (JE 1596), Gregory enjoins upon Bishop Passivus of Fermo to consecrate an oratory at Teramo, ‘si in tuae dioceseos, in qua visitationis impendis officium, memorata constructio iure consistit’ (2, 90, 14–5 Hartmann). Cf. n. 43 infra. The Teramo case has been misunderstood by most authors as treating of the visitation of a foreign diocese, see Appendix A, infra. Google Scholar

10 Greg. Reg. 1, 15; 76; 79 (JE 1083, 1145, 1147); 2, 13; 18; *25–6; *39–40 (JE 1163, 1170, 1178–9, 1192–3); 3, 24–5; 35 (JE 1228–9, 1240); 4, *39 (JE 1311); 5, *12–4; *21–2 (JE 1327–9, 1336–7); 6, *21; 38 (JE 1400, 1420); 7, *16 (JE 1462); 9, 60; *80–1; *99–100; *140; *184–5; (JE 1585, 1605–6, 1624–5, 1665, 1712–3); 13, *16–7; *20–1 (JE 1880–1, 1885–6). The letters marked by an asterisk were made out according to a formulary of the chancery Reg. 5, 13 and 13 16 passed on into Gratian: D 61 cc. 19 and 16.—Cf. Phillips, Kirchenr. V, 459f.; Hinschius Kirchenr, II, 229–32. For visitatores before St. Gregory see Gelasius I JK 677–8 (n. 22 infra); John II JK 886–8; Agapitus I JK 890.Google Scholar

11 Greg. Reg. 1,8 (JE 1075: Formio-Minturno); 2, 44 (JE 1197: Miseno-Cumae = C. 16 q. 1 c. 50): 2, 48 (JE 1202: Velletri-Tre Taverne); 3, 20 (JE 1224: Nomentum-Cures); 6, 9 (JE 1389: Reggio-Carina). Cf. the form-letter LD 9 (discussed by Peitz, Lib. diurn. 64f.); Joh. Diaconus, Vita 3, 14; Phillips, Kirchenr. V, 351f.Google Scholar

12 Thus correctly Joh. Diaconus, Vita 3, 15–6, the Correctores Romani, and the other writers cited ch. I n. 6 supra; also Phillips VI, 52f. and Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 313. The assertion by Ewald (97 n. 3 to Reg. 1, 77): ‘incardinatus in ecclesia autem dicitur primo loco ordinatus’ (repeated by Bannier, ThLL 3, 442 s.v. cardino) is entirely gratuitous.Google Scholar

13 Hinschius I, 314 n. 3 wrongly refers in this context also to Greg. Reg. 2, 8 (JE 1159; ep. 2, 7 ed. Maur.), a letter which in fact treats of the appointment of an Apostolic Vicar for Sicily, not of an incardination.Google Scholar

14 Cf. Reg. 3, 13 supra. Google Scholar

15 Cf. Reg. 2, 37 supra. Google Scholar

16 The analogy between incardination and second marriage in cases of uncertain death was already drawn by Hincmar, ep. cit. (note 7 supra: PL 126, 225f.); cf. also Phillips V, 464; Hinschius I, 314.Google Scholar

17 Cf. Reg. 2, 37; 3, 13.Google Scholar

18 The permanent, if conditional, nature of the incardination was rightly stressed by Phillips V, 457f. and Hinschius I, 314 n. 4 against Florent, op. cit. (ch. I n. 6 supra) 266f. who classified the institute as a mere commendatio ad tempus. The incardinated bishop signs, and is addressed, with the name of the new bishopric: we find e.g. Agnellus of Fondi (Reg. 3, 13) after his incardination styled as episcopus civitatis Terracinensis (Roman synod of 595: Greg. Reg. 5, 57a [1, 366, 3 Hartmann]), episcopus de Terracina (Reg. 7, 16: JE 1462), episcopus Terracinensis (Reg. 8, 19; 9, 45: JE 1507, 1569).Google Scholar

19 Ewald, MGH Epp. 1, 97 n. 3 (to Reg. 1, 77): ‘Cardinalem sacerdotem aut pontifice idem significare ac proprium pontificem probant epistolae ubi proprius, et epistolae ubi cardinalis eodem modo dicitur,’ referring, besides the Gregorian texts, to Gelasiu JE 679, 680 (mistakenly for JE 677, 678).—See also note 3 supra. Google Scholar

20 Greg. Reg. 1, 76 (JE 1145) to a visitator: ‘cunctis igitur te rebus superscripta ecclesiae ut proprium volumus uti pontificem’ (96, 15–6 Ewald); 3, 25 (JE 1229) in a case of visitation: ‘ ut omnia quae ad curam utilitatemque ecclesiae pertinent tamquam pro prius episcopus debeat ordinare’ (183, 6–7 Ewald), cf. 3, 24 (JE 1228): ‘Et praete ordinationes clericorum cetera omnia i n praedicta ecclesia tamquam cardinalem et proprium te volumus agere sacerdotem’ (182, 14–5 Ewald); 2, 48 (JE 1202) in a case of union: ‘ quaeque tibi de eius patrimonio, vel cleri ordinatione, seu promotione, vigilanti ac canonic visa fuerint cura disponere, quippe ut pontifex proprius liberam habebis ex nostra praesenti permissione licentiam’ (149, 23–5 Ewald); the same formula in other cases of union: 3, 2 (JE 1224; 178, 15–7 Ewald) and 6, 9 (JE 1389: ‘ quippe ut proprius sacerdos': 1, 388, 10 Hartmann); 2, 44 (JE 1197) in the case of consumptive union: ‘ quaeque tibi de earum patrimonio, vel cleri ordinatione, sive promotione, iuxta canonum statuta visa fuerint ordinare atque disponere, habebis ut proprius revera sacerdos liberam ex nostrae consensu atque permissione licentiam’ (143, 12–5 Ewald); 3, 13 (JE 1217) to a cardinal bishop: ‘quicquid vero de praedictae rebus ecclesiae, vel de eius patrimonio, seu cleri ordinatione promotioneve et omnibus generaliter ad eam pertinentibus sollerter atque canonice ordinare facereque provideris, liberam habebis quippe ut sacerdos proprius modis omnibus facultatem’ (172, 22–5 Ewald). Note the terms, ut, quippe ut, tamquam.Google Scholar

21 Reg. 3, 24.Google Scholar

22 Gelasius JK 677, 678 (485 f. Thiel). The first fragment passed on into Gratian D 24 c. 3.Google Scholar

23 Cf. Phillips, Kirchenr V, 460; VI, 51; Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 313.—In Greg. Reg. 3, 2 (note 20 supra) the cumulative formula, ‘tamquam cardinalem et proprium te volum agere sacerdotem,’ was evidently used in order to make clear that both rulings of Pop Gelasius did not apply to this particular case of visitation.Google Scholar

24 LD 8. Cf. Tamagna, Origini I, 109; Hinschius I, 314.—Peitz, Lib. diurn. 67f. tries to onstrate a pre-Gregorian origin of that formula. But it appears rather to be modeled on a combination of various Gregorian cases.Google Scholar

25 JE 2903: ‘ decernimus hunc sanctissimum crebro dictum fratrem nostrum et co-copum Hactardum ecclesiae, quae forte suo fuerit viduata rectore, penitus incardinari’ E. Perels, MGH Epp. 6, 2, ii, Berlin 1925, p. 708 lines 6–8; cf. lines 31–3); JE 2904: sciens a nobis eidem te stabiliter incardinatum’ (709, 26 Perels; cf. 710, 14–5); JE 2945: constituimus cardinalem metropolitanum et archiepiscopum Turonicae ecclesiae’ (738, 30 Perels). See also JE 2902, 2946, 2951 (706, 18–9; 742, 8; 744, 27 Perels).—Cf. Tamagna c. cit.; Phillips V, 465f.; Hinschius loc. cit. Google Scholar

26 JE 3049: ‘fratrem scil, nostrum Frotharium in Bituricensem ecclesiam cardinalem ri decernentes’ (ed. E. Caspar, MGH Epp. 7, 1, Berlin 1912, p. 8 line 37–9, 1); JE 3054: in ipsa eum incardinandum necessario esse censemus’ (12, 15 Caspar). See also JE 55, 3083 (13, 13 and 20; 37, 27 Caspar).—Cf. Le Cointe, Instit. et rang 30–2; Tamagna loc. it.; Phillips V, 467f.; Hinschius loc. cit. Google Scholar

27 Hincmar violently opposed in his ep. de translat. (note 7 supra) the transfer of Actard. ut he recalls in this letter (c. 7) various cases of incardination by earlier popes, to wit, at of St. Augustine of England: ‘ ab eodem beato Gregorio in civitate regia eiusdem entis accepto pallio archiepiscopus est incardinatus’ (PL 126, 213D–214A), and of St. oniface: ‘Winfrit cognomento Bonifacius a tertio (!) papa Gregorio Romae fuit ordinatus iscopus, aliquamdiu in civitate Agrippinensi Colonia sedit et emergente necessitate tque utilitate ad Moguntinam ecclesiam translatus, ibi est archiepiscopus regulariter cardinatus’ (214A), and quotes in c. 10 the letters Greg. Reg. 2, 37 and 3, 13. See also his tter (A.D. 866) on the case of Ebo of Reims, c. 3: ‘ Sed neque necessitate cogente, opria amissa provintia secundum Calchedonenses canones, civitate in qua ordinatus fuerat aptivata, pulsus ab hostibus extitit (scil. Ebo), ut alibi incardinari valeret, sicut in decretis eati Gregorii et aliorum sedis Romanae pontificum invenimus’ (ed. E. Perels, MGH Epp. 1, Berlin 1939, p. 180 lines 4–7 = PL 126, 52); the new fragment discovered by Perels, Eine Denkschrift Hinkmars von Reims im Prozess Rothads von Soissons,’ NA 44 (1922) 3–100: ‘ ordinato praefato Wintfrid cognomento Bonefacio a Gregorio praedecessore Zachariae et incardinato illo ab eodem Zacharia in metropoli ecclesia Mogontina’ (77 NA = 25, 20–1 MGH); and the Capitula synodica Rhemen. (874) c. 1: ‘ qui vacantes ecclesiis acantibus incardinantur’ (Mansi 15, 493 B; cf. Tamagna, Origini I, 110 and Phillips VI, n. 73).Google Scholar

28 See his quotations from Greg. Reg. (previous note) and his tract De iure metropoli-norum c. 20: ‘cui (scil. Bonifacio) per annos XXV in eadem praedicatione sine cardinali de laboranti praefatorum successor Zacharias papa inter cetera in privilegio sibi directo ripsit atque firmavit ad locum’ (PL 126, 201). Evidently, sedis cardinalis is not to be derstood here as ‘a cathedral’ (thus Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 315 n. 1) but as ‘a see of cardination': for Hincmar was wont to cite the case of St. Boniface (missionary bishop in 722, archbishop in 732, assigned to the see of Mayence in 748, cf. Gregory II JE 2160- Gregory III JE 2239; Zachary JE 2286) as an example of incardination, cf. note 27,—On t use made by Hincmar (in ep. de translat. 7, ep. de iure metrop. 20, and in Perels’ fragme of the spurious letter JE 2292, see M. Tangl, Die Briefe des heiligen Bonifatius und Lull (MGH Epp. sel. 1, Berlin 1916) 202 n. 1; id. ‘Studien zur Neuausgabe der Bonifatius-Brief NA 41, 1 (1917) 72f., 75f.; Perels, NA 44, 60 n. 1; NA 48 (1929) 156f.Google Scholar

29 Cf. the Councils of Arles 314 cc. 2, 21 (2, 107; 110 Bruns); Chalcedon cc. 6, 10, 20 (e E. Schwartz, Acta concil. oecumen. 2, 2, ii: pp. 34, 36, 39; 55–6, 59; 88–9, 91); Mileve 402 c (1, 178 c. 90 Bruns); II Arles 443 (452?) c. 13 (2, 132 Bruns); Angers 453 c. 1 (2, 137 Bruns I Tours 461 c. 11 (2, 141 Bruns). The ancient law was stressed again in Carolingian time cf. ch. IV note 2 infra. Google Scholar

30 Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 63; Imbart de la Tour, Les paroisses rurales du IV e au X siècle (Paris 1900) 63f.; M. Hofmann, ‘Die Excardination einst und jetzt,’ Zeitschrift f katholische Theologie 24 (1900) 100f.; C. V Bastnagel, The Appointment of Parochial A jutants and Assistants (The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 58, Was ington, D. C. 1930) 17, 23f.; Kurtscheid, Hist. iur can. 152; McBride, Incardination an Excardination (ch. I n. 12 supra) 66–8, 72, 99f.; J. Christ, Title 120 n. 79.—Contra: Fuch Ordinationstitel 95f. The dissertation by J. Weier, Der kanonische Weihetitel rechtshistorisc und rechtsdogmatisch gewürdigt (Cologne 1936) is not available to this writer.Google Scholar

31 The indissolubility has been exaggerated by R. Sohm, Das altkatholische Kirchenrec und das Dekret Gratians (Leipzig 1918) 229–31; thus far the criticism of Fuchs 99f. is justifieGoogle Scholar

32 Cf. the canons cited (n. 29) of Chalcedon, II Arles, Angers, Tours; also Innocent JK 286 (c. 7 = D. 71 c. 2); Leo I JK 409 (c.4), 411 (c. 9 = C. 19 q. 2 c. 1). In Greg. Reg. 55; 81; 5, 20; 6, 20; 14, 11 (JE 1125, 1150, 1339, 1399, 1924) the technical term for this conse is cessio. See also sec. 3 at n. 57 infra.Google Scholar

33 Against the consensus of canons and authors, Fuchs, Ordinationstitel 95f. maintai that a change of place in the diocese was nothing extraordinary. But contrary to his contention (cf. 92 n. 11) the canons of Aries (314) leave no doubt; c. 2: ‘De his qui in quibus cumque locis ordinati fuerint ministri, in ipsis locis perseverent’ (2, 107 Bruns), and c. 21 ‘De presbyteris aut diaconibus qui solent dimittere loca sua in quibus ordinati sunt et a alia loca se transferunt ’ (110 Bruns). And the Council of Merida 666 c. 12 (2, 89 Bruns) requires the bishop's permission for the transfer of parochitani presbyteri atqu diacones to the cathedral, not because the early medieval parish was ‘a sort of bishopri in itself (Fuchs 96), but because of the principle stated above. Otherwise there would b little sense in the precept of the Council of Vaison 529 c. 1 (ed. F. Maassen, MGH Conc. 1 Hannover 1893, p. 56), that the junior parish clergy be educated for ordination in th parishes themselves. Finally, if certain canons required an oath from every cleric that he remain at the place of his ordination, this does not mean (as Fuchs 86f. seems to believe) that without the oath the change of title would have been licit.—See also the criticism by D. Lindner, book review, ZRG Kan. Abt. 21 (1932) 398.Google Scholar

34 JK 976: ‘ ob necessitatem aecclesiae Sessulanae, quae Nolanae aecclesiae esse videtur parroechia, vendendi sibi (sic) sacra ministeria concedi postulasti’ (ed. Loewenfeld, S., Epistolae pontificum romanorum ineditae, Leipzig 1885, p. 13). For sacra ministeria as denoting church goods, in particular sacred vessels, see St. Gelasius JK 688: ‘Ecclesiastica ministeria, que unicuique basilice fidelium deuotio deputauit. Et ideo calicem restitue sine intermissione’ in the collection of Deusdedit 3, 117 (320 Wolf von Glanvell).Google Scholar

35 JK 976: ‘ Si tanta est aecclesiae Sessulanae penuria, ut parroechia esse non possit, eam potius in titulum Nolanae aecclesiae constitue, ut per deputatos cardinales, aecclesiae presbyteros, ministeria (leg. misteria?) celebrentur.’ (The last two commas are inserted by the present writer). For titulus in the sense of an auxiliary church (Nebenkirche, Aussenstation), see Fuchs, Ordinationstitel 9; Christ, J., Title 118.Google Scholar

36 Greg. Reg. 13, 32 (JE 1513): ‘ magnae benignitatis est si eum in ecclesia ubi subdiaconi est functus officio, sanctitas vestra reducere atque illic presbyterum voluerit constituere cardinalem’ (2, 396 Hartmann). The letter passed on into Gratian: D 74 c. 6.—Johannes Diaconus, Vita 3, 11 is not correct if he speaks of this case as if the bishop had forcibly promoted the subdeacon and as if Gregory had commanded his return: ‘Item cardinales violenter in parochiis ordinatos forensibus in pristinum cardinem Gregorius revocabat’ (PL 75, 135; interpretation accepted by Phillips, Kirchenr V, 53 n. 64). Correctly Tamagna, Origini I, 102.Google Scholar

37 As suggested by Joh. Diac. loc. cit. Google Scholar

38 Pelagius JK 959; Greg. Reg. 2, 15 (JE 1167); 9, 58; 71; 165; 180 (JE 1583, 1596, 1692, 1707). Note that Reg. 9, 165 does not regard an oratory but a monastic church of private foundation. For other letters closely related to this group see nn. 40, 43a infra.—The entire complex of problems connected with the ‘Dedication of Sacred Places in the Early Sources and in the Letters of Gregory the Great’ has been recently studied by J. A. Eidenschink, The Jurist 5 (1945) 181–215; 323–58.Google Scholar

39 LD 11 (38 Rozière; 10 Sickel). Cf. Garnier's note ad v. petitorii, reprinted in Rozière's edition; Goetz, ‘Das Alter der Kirchweihformeln X–XXXI des Liber diurnus,’ Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht 5 (1895) 14–21; Peitz, Lib. diurn. 76; Eidenschink, op. cit. 325ff. We cannot enter here the lively discussion caused by Peitz’ remarkable, but generally rejected theory which makes the LD, at least in its chief portions, an official collection of pre-Gregorian origin. But there can be no doubt that form 11 belongs to those few items in the LD which existed as individual form letters in the papal chancery already before the accession of St. Gregory, cf. Rozière p. xxviif.; Goetz, op. cit. passim; Bresslau, Urkundenlehre II, 243; M. Tangl, ‘Gregor-Register und Liber Diurnus,’ NA 41, 3 (1919) 752; Eidenschink loc. cit. The wording of the very first letter of our group, Pelagius JK 959, shows the use of a formulary, cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 316 n. 2; Goetz 14ff.Google Scholar

40 JK 959: ‘ Ita tamen ut in eodem loco nec futuris temporibus baptisterium construatur, nec presbiterum constituas cardinalem. Set quotiens missas sibi fieri forte maluerit, a dilectione tua presbiterum nouerit postulandum ’ in Deusd. 3, 128 (323 Wolf von Glanvell). Repeated almost verbatim in Greg. Reg. cit. (except for 9, 71: see note 43 infra). In three other letters—Reg. 8, 5; 9, 233; 13, 18 (JE 1492, 1760, 1882)—the pertinent part of the formula is abridged: ‘et cetera secundum morem.’ In Pelagius JK 958 (Deusd. 3, 129: oratory founded by an abbot in his monastery) and Greg. Reg. 2, 9 (JE 1158: basilica founded by a deacon) the entire clause ‘Ita tamen cardinalem’ of LD 11 is omitted, see note 43a infra.Google Scholar

41 Gelasius I JK 630, 636 (cc. 4, 25), 643, 679–81, 704, 709 etc.; LD 10. Cf. Stutz, U., Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesens I (Berlin 1895) 56–64; Imbart de la Tour, op. cit. (note 30 supra) 181 n. 1; A. Galante, La condizione giuridica delle cose sacre I (Turin 1903) 57ff. 121ff.; Torres, M., ‘El origen del sistema de las “iglesias propias”,’ Anuario de historia del derecho 5 (1928) 169–73; Fuchs, Ordinationstitel 142, 160, 193; Eidenschink, op. cit. 330.Google Scholar

42 For the East see Justinian's Nov. 57, 2; 123, 18, and other sources cited by Steinwenter, A., ‘Die Rechtsstellung der Kirchen und Klöster nach den Papyri,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 19 (1930) 3f. For Spain: the Councils II Braga 572 cc. 5–6; IX Toledo 655 c. 2 (2, 41 and 1, 92 Bruns). For Gaul Councils of Agde 506 c. 21 (2, 150 Bruns); I Orléans 511 c. 25 (ed. Maassen, MGH Conc. 1, 8); Clermont 535 cc. 4, 15 (67 and 69 Maassen); IV Orléans 546 cc. 7, 3 (89 and 94 Maassen).—The moot question, passionately discussed ever since the appear-nce of Stutz’ Benefizialwesen, whether these phenomena belong to the sphere of ‘proprietary hurch’ law (which in the case of an affirmative answer would no longer be a specifically Germanic institution, as Stutz maintained) lies outside the scope of the present inquiry As to the East, Stutz later acknowledged (Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 1930, p. 213) the existence of an autochthonous Byzantine roprietary church system. It has now been studied in detail by S. Troickij, Ktitorsko ravo u Vizantiji i u Nemanjićkoj Srbiji (Belgrade 1935); cf. the review by F X. Schmid, Kan. Abt. 28 (1939) 624–9.Google Scholar

43 Reg. 9, 71 to Bishop Passivus of Fermo: ‘Et ideo, frater carissime, praedictum ratorium solemniter consecrabis. Presbyterum quoque te illic (i.e. at Teramo) consti-uere volumus cardinalem, ut quotiens praefatus conditor fieri sibi missas fortasse voluerit vel fidelium concursus exegerit, nihil sit quod ad sacra missarum sollemnia exhibenda valeat impedire’ (2, 90, 14–23 Hartmann). Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 316f. Stutz, Benefi-ialwesen 62 n. 98; id. Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1904, p. 24 n. 1; Eidenschink, op. cit. 41.—The next step in such a case would have been the permission to erect a baptisterium cf. the forms LD 29, 30), but the Pope's first mandate was not successful and no appropriate riest was found. Therefore St. Gregory abandoned, three years later, the idea of a presyter cardinalis for Teramo and directed that a certain Oportunus be first ordained sub-eacon and subsequently promoted to pastoralis cura (Reg. 12, 4 [JE 1855]; for further discussion of the Teramo case see Appendix A infra).Google Scholar

43a This reason at least seems the most plausible explanation of the abridgment made of 11 in JK 958 and Greg. Reg. 2, 9 (note 40 supra). In two other authorizations for the dedication of monastic oratories (Reg. 3, 58; 5, 50: JE 1264, 1365) St. Gregory did not use 11 at all but was satisfied with merely advising the bishop: ‘ut quotiensnecesse uerit, a presbiteris ecclesiae tuae in superscripto (al. sancto) loco deservientibus cele-rentur sacrificia veneranda missarum’ (218, 7f. Ewald). Cf. LD 15; Goetz, op. cit. (n. 39 upra) 22f.; Eidenschink, op. cit. 344f.Google Scholar

44 As was assumed by Panvini, De orig. card. 481f.; Thomassin, Vet. et nova discipl. 1, 2, 15, 6; Mabillon, Museum ital. II, xix; Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 317; Goetz, op. cit. 16, 20f.; H. Schäfer, Pfarrkirche und Stift im deutschen Mittelalter (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen d. Stutz 3, Stuttgart 1903) 8 n. 3.Google Scholar

45 A somewhat similar explanation in Tamagna, Origini I, 106f.; less appropriate are the interpretations given by L. Nardi, Dei parrochi II (Pesaro 1830) 398 and Phillips, Kirchenr. VI, 58. The latter assumes that the formulary had in mind the incardination of priests from other, devastated dioceses. As Hinschius I, 316 rightly observes, this hypothesis has no foundation in the sources.Google Scholar

46 This was required, for fiscal reasons, also by imperial legislation, cf. the much dis cussed statute of Emperor Honorius (398) in Cod. Th. 16, 2, 33 = Cod. Iust. 1, 3, 11: ‘Ecclesiis quae in possessionibus ut adsolet diversorum, vicis etiam vel quibuslibet locis sunt constructae, clerici non ex alia possessione vel vico, sed ex eo ubi ecclesiam esse constiterit, eatenus (om. Iust.) ordinentur, ut propriae capitationis onus ad sarcinam recognoscant '; cf. Imbart de la Tour, op. cit. 63 n. 2; F Thaner, book review, Gött. gel Anz. 1898, p. 302; Stutz, ibid. 1904, p. 44 note.—For a description of the clergy serving in churches of private estates see also St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 18 in Act. (PG 60, 147–9); the terms of this homily should however not be pressed (as is done, e.g., by A. Pöschl, Bischofsgut und Mensa episcopalis I, Bonn 1908, p. 33f. and Fuchs, Ordinationstitel 154f. 158) as if they were intended to convey authoritative and definite legal-canonical statements.Google Scholar

47 Cf. the final mandate, Greg. Reg. 12, 4, in the Teramo case (note 43 supra): the sub deacon Oportunus ‘ ad pastoralem curam debeat promoveri’ (2, 350, 16–7 Hartmann). For a similar situation in a private basilica, ‘quae in possessione filii et consiliarii nostri, viri magnifici Theodori fundata est,’ see Pelagius I JK 995: the bishop of Sabina is told to ordain one Rufinus, presented by the founder, as subdeacon and the Pope voices his intention to promote him later to the priesthood (presbyterum faciemus), in order that next Easter ‘sacra mysteria in memorata basilica a persona competenti valeant adimpleri (454 Thiel). Cf. further LD 41, ordination of a presbyter in a previously established oratory: ‘Filius noster ille postulavit in oratorio instantia (al. in substantia) sua conservato debere sibi ordinari presbyterum ’ (30 Sickel; 70 Rozière; see also Stutz, Benefizialwesen 62 nn. 99–101). Baluze's note ad v. presbyterum: ‘cardinalem videlicet ’ (reprinted in Rozière) misses the point of difference between LD 41 and LD 11.Google Scholar

48 Greg. Reg. 1, 15 (JE 1083): ‘ memoratae ecclesiae visitator accedas et unum cardi nalem illic presbiterum et duos debeas diacones ordinare. In parroechiis vero praefatae ecclesiae tres similiter presbiteros ’ (16, 10–2 Ewald).Google Scholar

49 Thus the common interpretation, from Panvini, De orig. card. 480 down to Hinschius Kirchenr, I, 315 and McBride, Incard. and Excard. 4; 7Google Scholar

50 Cf. J. Forget, ‘Diacre,’ DThC 4 (1911) 711; Kurtscheid, Hist. iur. can. 53. See e.g. the fragment of Gelasius JK 673: ‘ diaconos in ecclesia sua secundum possibilitatem vel loci ipsius paupertatem secundum dispositam traditionem apostolorum aut tres aut V aut VII ’ (509 Thiel).Google Scholar

51 As he did in other cases; cf. e.g. Greg. Reg. 1, 76 (JE 1145): ‘ in qua etiam ecclesia vel eius parroechiis diacones atque presbyteros tibi concedimus ordinandi licentiam’ (93, 10–1 Ewald); 4, 39 (JE 1311): ‘ ei ordinandi presbyteros ac diacones, si necesse fuerit., dedimus licentiam’ (276, 2–4 Ewald).Google Scholar

52 The exceptional character of promotions per saltum—somewhat underestimated by J Tixeront, L'ordre et les ordinations (Paris 1925) 230–3—makes it imperative to exclude such a possibility whenever it is not expressly mentioned in a given text. Even in such instances as Greg. Reg. 12, 4 or Pelagius JK 995, where nothing is said about intermediate ordination to the diaconate of subdeacons who are prospective candidates for the priesthood (notes 43, 47 supra), we have no right to assume that promotio per saltum was contemplated. Similarly in Gelasius JK 668: ‘ si quos habes vel in acolythis vel in subdiaconibus maturioris aetatis et quorum sit vita probabilis, in presbyteratum studeas promovere’ (489 Thiel), observation of the regular scale of promotion is evidently presupposed though not expressed. Cf. the Council of Serdica c. 8 (c. 12 in Coll. I Dionysiana; c. 13 in Coll. Hispana and Dion. II: ed. Turner, C. H., Monum. 1, 2, iii, pp. 472–3; Gratian D. 61 c. 10); Pope Siricius JK 255 (cc. 9, 10), Innocent I JK 314 (c. 5), Zosimus JK 339; also the notice on Pope Sylvester in LP I, 171 (with Duchesne's note 25 p. 190). But for a possible abbreviation of the interstices see Gelasius JK 636 (cc. 2, 3). Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 111f.; Kurtscheid, Hist. iur. can. 158.Google Scholar

53 Greg. Reg. 6, 38 (JE 1420): ‘ adhortamur ut de clero eiusdem ecclesiae requirere debeatis, cuius vita et mores ad hoc possit convenire et eum illic presbyterum festinetis auxiliante Domino consecrare’ (1, 415, 7–9 Hartmann).—A further analogous case, Reg. 1 51 (JE 1121), concerning the diocese of Canosa (today united with Bari), is not helpful because the text of the pertinent letter is defective at the crucial passage: ‘ memoratae ecclesiae visitator accedas et * vel duos parroechiales presbyteros debeas ordinare’ (77, 12–3 Ewald). Ewald's conjecture: ‘ accedas et 〈unum cardinalem illic presbyterum et duos diacones〉 vel duos parroechiales ’ rell. (77 n. 2) is unwarranted and does not make good sense. The facts of the case must have been different from those at Populonia.Google Scholar

54 This possibility is indicated by the mention of other parroechiae in the bishopric. Whether deacons were available in these baptismal churches depends upon the construction of the passage, ‘in parroechiis vero praefatae ecclesiae tres similiter presbyteros ': the adverb, similiter, may stand for etiam cardinales (then no deacons were on hand), or simply for ordinabis quoque (in this case, there were deacons present for promotion). See also Phillips, Kirchenr. VI, 52 n. 60.Google Scholar

55 This text passed on into Gratian: D. 71 c. 5. It was correctly understood by the Correctores Romani (ch. I note 6 supra); Tamagna, Origini I, 104; Phillips V, 462; Hinschius I, 315 n. 5.Google Scholar

56 Panvini, De orig. card. 480; Thomassin, Vet. et nova discipl. 1, 2, 115, 4; Ewald, MGH Epp. 1, 99 n. 1; O'Donnell, Vocabulary (n. 3 supra) 2; 136.Google Scholar

57 Cf. note 32 supra. Google Scholar

58 Tamagna, Origini I, 93f.; Nardi, Dei parrochi II, 403; Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 315 n. 5.Google Scholar

59 This was already noticed by Joh. Diaconus, Vita 3, 21, who cited our letter as instance for the fact that St. Gregory ‘antiquissimum ecclesiasticae consuetudinis ordinem adeo studiosissime retinebat, ut nullum anterioribus clericis in conventu, concessu, statione, sive subscriptione praeponeret’ (PL 75, 142). Hinschius II, 184 and Amanieu, ‘Archidiacre,’ Dict. de droit can. 1 (1924) 950 wrongly deny that seniority was as a rule the selective principle for the archdeaconate.Google Scholar

60 De architectura 4, 4, 6 (ed. V Rose, Leipzig 1899, p. 96).Google Scholar

61 Copious references in Bannier's article, ThLL 3, 442f. s.v.Google Scholar

62 Priscianus, De figuris numerorum 19 (ed Keill, H., Grammatici latini 3, Leipzig 1855–9, p. 412 line 27); Ambrose, St., De excessu fratris Satyri 1, 57 (ed. Albers, P B., Florilegium patristicum 15, Bonn 1921, p. 44 line 17); Augustine, St., De civitate Dei 9, 22 (ed. Hoffmann, E., CSEL 40, 1, 440, 8); De baptismo 1, 6, 8 (ed. Petschenig, M., CSEL 51, 153, 8–9); Eusthatius Afer, Versio hexaemeri S. Basilii 3, 2 (PL 53, 892A). Cf. ThLL loc. cit. Google Scholar

63 Notitia dignitatum Orientis 6, 70; 7, 59 (ed. Böcking, E., Bonn 1839, pp. 24, 28; ed. Seeck, O., Berlin 1876, pp. 18, 22); Cassiodorus, Variae 7, 31 (ed. Mommsen, Th., MGH Auct. antiquiss. 12, Berlin 1894, p. 218). For discussion of these two texts see Appendix B infra. Cf. also Joh. Cassianus, Conlationes 1, 20, 6: ‘ (nomismata) non sunt a legitimismonetariis nec de cardinali ac publica prodeunt officina’ (ed. M. Petschenig, CSEL 13, 31, 25–32, 1).Google Scholar

64 Cf. Appendix B infra. It was with regard to the relative statements in the Not. dign. that Gothofr Comm. Cod. Th. 12, 6, 7 made the complaint quoted at the beginning of the present studyGoogle Scholar

65 Cf. ThLL 7, 848 s. v.Google Scholar

66 Vitruv de archit. 10, 15, 4: ‘ arrectaria duo compacta coniuncta capitibus transversario cardinato tigno et altero mediano inter duos scapos cardinato et lamnis ferreis relegato’ (275 Rose). There is one other passage (ibid. 10, 14, 2) using not cardinare, but intercardinare.Google Scholar

67 Thus Bannier, ThLL s. v.: ‘cardinatus, idem quod cardine praeditus.’ But see Panvini, De orig. card. 472 and Muratori, Antiq. 5, 156 for the better interpretation, cardinatus = insertus.Google Scholar

1 Thomassin, Vet. et nova discipl. 1, 2, 115, 11; Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 313; 318; Klewitz, Entstehung 149.Google Scholar

2 See ch. IV, 1 infra (Pope Zachary 747).Google Scholar

3 The well known exception was Alexandria, perhaps also Constantinople. Cf. e.g. Turner, C. H., ‘The Organisation of the Church,’ CMH 1, 159f.; Schäfer, H. K., ‘Frühmittelalterliche Pfarrkirchen und Pfarreinteilung in römisch-fränkischen und italienischen Bischofsstädten,’ Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte 19, 2 (1905) 26.Google Scholar

4 Cf. von Harnack, A., ‘Zur Geschichte der Anfänge der inneren Organisation der stadtrömischen Kirche,’ Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1918, II, 957–9. This distinguished the Roman situation sharply from that at Alexandria or Constantinople.Google Scholar

5 Kirsch, J. P., Die römischen Titelkirchen im Altertum (Paderborn 1918) 133–7Google Scholar

6 LP I, 164, ascribing this reorganization to Pope Marcellus (308–9): ‘Hic et XXV titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi diocesis, propter baptismum et paenitentiam multorum.’ It is unlikely, however, that it was accomplished during the persecutions; the confiscated churches of Rome were not restored before 311. Cf. Kirsch, Titelkirchin 137; Christ, J., Title 104.Google Scholar

7 The Liber pontificalis delights in antedating this number into the earliest times (Cletus: I, 122; Urban: I, 143; Marcellus: I, 164), but archeological evidence shows the origin of seven tituli only after the end of the persecutions. Cf. Kirsch 6f. 117f. 127f.; Christ 110f.; Klewitz, Entstehung 148. The seemingly greater number of tituli represented in the Roman Synod of 499 is explained by the fact that several titles were known by more than one name, cf. Duchesne, LP I, 165 n. 5; Sägmüller, Cardinäle 6.Google Scholar

8 Kirsch, Titelkirchen 175f.Google Scholar

9 LP I, 164: ‘propter baptismum et paenitentiam multorum.’ The individual titles were fitted with baptismal fonts not before the fourth century, cf. Kirsch 186f. For the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the titles see Kirsch 191f.: The fermentum, consecrated and sent by the Pope (Innocent I JK 311 c. 5: ‘De fermento vero quod die dominica per titulos mittimus': Mansi 3, 1030 B), was mixed with the species consecrated by the priest, in token of the communio with the Pope.Google Scholar

10 Kirsch, Titelkirchen 178; Klewitz, Entstehung 148f. Cf. Greg. Reg. 6, 12 (JE 1391): ‘una cum tribus presbyteris prioribus’ (1, 391, 27 Hartmann).Google Scholar

11 JK 311 c. 5: ‘quia die ipsa propter plebem sibi creditam nobiscum convenire non possunt’ (Mansi loc. cit.).Google Scholar

12 Kirsch, Titelkirchen 200f. 212f.: the presbyteri per diversa coemeteria constituti in JK 311 were priests detailed from the titles. Mabillon's theory (Mus. ital. II, xvi) that the cemeteries themselves were ‘minor titles’ cannot be upheld.Google Scholar

13 Kirsch, Titelkirchen 217f.Google Scholar

14 LP I, 249. The distribution was: ‘regio III ad s. Laurentium, regio prima ad s. Paulum, regio VI vel septima ad s. Petrum.’ For the individual tituli involved see the chart in Klewitz, Entstehung 156.Google Scholar

15 As shown by the Ordo Romanus I (early 8th cent.) num. 3 (ed. Mabillon, Mus. ital. II, 5). Cf. Phillips, Kirchenr. VI, 122 n. 9; Klewitz, Entstehung 155.Google Scholar

16 For episcopium (later patriarchium, then palatium) Lateranense as name of the papal residence see Klewitz, Entstehung 182 and his reference to E, Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums II (Tübingen 1933) 625, 630. For the Lateran basilica as cathedral see e.g. LP I, 249, 15: ‘Hic (Simplicius) fecit in ecclesia Romana scyphum aureum', quoted by Phillips VI, 120 n. 4.Google Scholar

17 Ordo I Rom. num. 8; 13 (pp. 8, 11 Mabillon). Cf. Phillips VI, 17.1 n. 10; Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 324 n. 1; Sägmüller, Cardinäle 12 n.Google Scholar

18 The ingenious thesis, which solves so many difficulties left unexplained by older historians of the Sacred College, was developed with an array of convincing arguments by Klewitz, Entstehung 151–8, pursuant to a brief and tentative remark by Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums (4th ed. Leipzig 1924) 857 n. 4. For a reconstruction of the resulting assignment, five by five, of the tituli to the great basilicas see Klewitz’ chart p. 156.Google Scholar

19 Not to be confused with the singing of the daily Office, which was entrusted since olden times to the monks of the three monasteries of St. Pancras, St. Stephen, and Pope Honorius; a custom renewed by Gregory III (731–41). A fourth monastery, Sts. Sergius and Bachus was included in this schedule by Paschal I (817–24). Cf. LP I, 419, 506; II, 58; Kehr, IP 1, 33–4.Google Scholar

20 Klewitz, Entstehung 120, 151, 156f. (against the theory of Sägmüller, Cardinäle 6, who dated the increase of the tituli as late as the 12th century). For the list mentioned above, the so-called Descriptio sanctuarii Lateranensis ecclesiae, see at n. 38 infra.Google Scholar

21 For one possibly earlier occurrence in a liturgical text see infra at n. 30.Google Scholar

22 Sometimes considered as Stephen IV (e.g. in the Annuario Pontificio); the designation depends upon whether or not the papa quatriduanus Stephen (752), who died before his consecration, is counted as Stephen II.Google Scholar

23 LP I, 478: ‘Erat enim hisdem praefatus beatissimus praesul ecclesiae traditionis observator, unde et pristinum ecclesiae in diversis honoribus renovavit ritum.'Google Scholar

24 Conc. Rom. 769 actio 4: ‘Si quis ex episcopis vel presbiteris vel monachis aut ex laicis contra canonum et sanctorum patrum statuta proprumpens in gradus clericorum (al. gradum maiorum) sanctae Romanae aecclesiae, id est presbiterorum cardinalium et diaconorum, ire praesumpserit et hanc apostolicam sedem invadere quilibet ex supradictis temptaverit et ad summum pontificalem honorem ascendere voluerit ’ (ed. Werminghoff, A., MGH Cone. 2, Hannover 1906–8, p. 88 lines 4–8 [revised ed. of pp. 85–8]); act. 3: ‘Oportebat ut in apostolatus culmen unus de cardinalibus presbiteris aut diaconibus consecraretur’ (86, 21–3 Werminghoff): both texts as transmitted by Deusdedit 2, 163 and 161 (269, 21–6 and 268, 11–4 Wolf von Glanvell). A parallel tradition, generally ascribed to Anselm of Lucca, was first printed by Holstenius, L., Collectio Romana bipartita veterum monumentorum (Rome 1662) I, 259–64; repeated in Labbe, Hardouin, Coleti, Mansi 12, 719f. and used for collation by Werminghoff loc. cit. In fact, this text is not part of Anselm's original collection (A, as edited by Thaner), but of the posthumous recension B (MSS Vatic. lat. 1364 and 6381: lib. 6 c. 25; cf. Fournier, P, ‘Observations sur les diverses recensions de la collection canonique d'Anselme de Lucques,’ Annales de l'Université de Grenoble 13 [1901] 438, 441; Mai, A., Spicilegium Romanum 6, Rome 1841, p. 346 = PL 149, 505).—Another testimony (overlooked by Klewitz, Entstehung 159 n. 1; 165 n. 5) is contained in LP I, 476, 2–3: nullus umquam praesumi laicorum neque ex alio ordine, nisi per distinctos gradus ascendens, diaconus aut presbyter cardinalis factus fuerit, ad sacrum pontificatus honorem promoveri.’ For a tenth-century abstract from this passage see Werminghoff 79, 5–6; a later abstract in Ans. Luc. 7, 27 (375 Thaner) and Deusd. 1, 255 (146, 8–11 Wolf von Glanvell).—The three texts quoted passed on into Gratian: D. 79 cc. 5, 3, 4. From the first of them it is clear that the attribute, cardinalis, was meant only for the presbyters, not for the deacons, see ch. V at n. 70 infra.Google Scholar

25 LP I, 478: ‘Hic statuit, ut omni dominico die a septem episcopis cardinalibus ebdomadariis, qui in ecclesia Salvatoris observant, missarum sollemnia super altare beati Petri celebraretur et Gloria in excelsis ediceretur’ Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 323; Phillips, Kirchenr VI, 171f.; Sägmüller, Cardinäle 12; Klewitz, Entstehung 127f.Google Scholar

26 As suggested by the phrase, ‘pristinum ecclesiae in diversis honoribus renovavit ritum’ (note 23 supra), and by the possibility that the mention of cardinal priests in the second supplement of the first Ordo Romanus (note 30 infra) is older than Pope Stephen's decree.Google Scholar

27 It is only in a much later text that the Liber pontificalis speaks of cardinales tituli (LP II, 196 on Stephen V, 885–91). Moreover, the expression is here probably a mere ellipsis for ‘titles whose incumbents are cardinals'Google Scholar

28 For these alternative explanations see Sägmüller, Cardinäle 6f. 13; Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 319f. They have been accepted in one or the other combination by current textbooks and reference works, e.g. those cited ch. I note 10 supra. Even Klewitz, who has recognized better than any other writer the fundamental connection of the Roman cardinalate with the hebdomadary service, misses the point and falls back on the common doctrine by deriving the name from the outstanding rank of the hebdomadaries in the chief basilicas (Entstehung 149f.). The correct view was hinted at briefly by Tamagna, Origini I, 111 (for the cardinal bishops) and by Christ, J., Title 116.Google Scholar

29 See ch. IV at nn. 9ff. 38f. 106f. infra.Google Scholar

30 Ordo I Rom. suppl. II (num. 48): ‘In diebus festis, id est Paschae, Pentecostes, s. Petri, Nativitatis Domini, per has quattuor sollemnitates habent colligendas presbyteri cardinales unusquisque tenens corporalem in manu sua’ etc. (29 Mabillon); cf. also Anselm of Lucca 6, 166 (345f. Thaner); Deusdedit 2, 114 (241f. Wolf von Glanvell); Martène, De antiq. eccl. rit. 1, 3, 8, 2 (I, 329f. Antw.; I, 120 Ven.). On the transmission of the ‘second supplement’ see Andrieu, Ordines 4, 472, 474, 486f. 520, 533, 540, 543 (his Ordo III); for a similar text mentioning the concelebration of the Roman priests, but not qualifying them as cardinales, see the Ordo of St. Amand (Andrieu's Ordo IV; ed. Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 3rd ed. Paris 1902, p. 460; 5th ed. 1920, p. 480). The liturgical institution here described might be as old as the sixth century, cf. Duchesne, LP I, 139 n. 3; 246 n. 9; Origines (5th ed.) 185 n. 2; de Puniet, P, ‘Concélébration liturgique,’ DACL 3 (1914) 2473; contra, however, Hanssens, I. M., ‘De concelebratione eucharistica,’ Periodica de re morali, canonica, liturgica 17 (1928) 107ff. At any rate, the text of the Ordo ‘In diebus festis' belongs to the eighth century, perhaps to its first half, and may thus be slightly older than Pope Stephen Ill's decrees. But there is no reason to assume with Dom D. Buenner, L'ancienne liturgie romaine: le rite lyonnais (Lyon-Paris 1934) 270 that the name, cardinalis, originated because of the concelebration. The pseudo-etymology, cardinalis < ad cardines (cornua) altaris, is of very late origin. Cf. ch. IV at n. 76 infra. Google Scholar

31 Invectiva in Romam pro Formoso papa (ed. Dümmler, E., Gesta Berengarii, Halle 1871) 145. Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr, I, 326 n. 9; Klewitz, Entstehung 131.Google Scholar

32 Cf. (for the Roman Synod of 732) Duchesne, LP I, 423; Sägmüller, Cardinäle 12 On the much discussed continuity of the seven sees see now Klewitz, Entstehung 128–33.Google Scholar

33 Cf. e.g. St. Gregory's Roman Synods of 595 and 600, Reg. 5, 57a and 11, 15 (MGH Epp. 1, 366–7; 2, 275); or the Roman Synods of 745 and 761 (MGH Conc. 2, 44; 70f.); Gregory III JE 2234 (ed. Gundlach, W, MGH Epp. 3, Berlin 1892, p. 706f.); Roman Synod of 853 (Mansi 14, 1021). An earlier form of subscription—Ego ille misericordia Dei presbyter S.R.E.; Ille humilis presbyter S.R.E.—is recorded in LD 58, 82 (107, 173 Rozière; 48, 90 Sickel). Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 313 n. 2.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Roman Synod of 993 (JL 3848): ‘Bonizo archipresbyter et cardinalis s. Luciae consensi; Benedictus presbyter et cardinalis s. Stephani consensi’ etc. (Mansi 19, 172). The letter JL 3802 (dated A.D. 980), where similar subscriptions occur, is not genuine: cf. Kehr, IP 5, 133 num. 1.Google Scholar

35 Epistola 2, 1: ‘Venerabilibus in Christo sanctis episcopis, Lateranensis ecclesiae cardinalibus’ (PL 144, 253). Cf. Hinschius, I, 324 n. 3; Molien, Dict. de droit can. 2, 1317.—Klewitz, Entstehung 128 incorrectly speaks of Peter Damian as using the expression, ‘Lateran bishops'Google Scholar

36 JL 4736; Kehr, IP 1, 7 num. 9. Sägmüller's doubts, Cardinäle 155, as to the authenticity are not justified.Google Scholar

37 Abbot Desiderius of Montecassino, cardinal priest of the title of St. Cecilia (1058–86) and later Pope (Victor III, d. 1187), subscribes the acts of the Roman Synod of 1065 as ‘cardinalis s. Petri et abbas s. Benedicti’ (JL 4565). Gregory VII addresses him, Reg. 9, 11: ‘Venerabili cardinali s. Petri et abbati Casinensi’ (ed. Caspar, E., Das Register Gregors VII., MGH Epp. sel. 2, 2, Berlin 1923, p. 598).—Cardinal Albert, priest of the title of St. Sabina, appears in 1098 as cardinalis s. Pauli (Kehr, IP 8, 355 num. 36). Cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 160 n. 1.—As late as 1154 we find in Anastasius IV (JL 9793) the expression: ‘cardinalium episcoporum, qui sunt ad principalis altaris servitium deputati’ (Mansi 21, 779E), and about the same time, the Ordo Romanus XI num. 38 speaks of ‘unus de cardinalibus s. Laurentii basilicae’ (135 Mabillon); cf. Phillips, Kirchenr VI, 175 n. 35; 125 n. 18.Google Scholar

38 MS Vatic Reg. 712, fol. 88v (ed. Giorgi, D., De liturgia Romani pontificis III, Rome 1744, p. 553; better in Kehr, IP 1, 3f.; Klewitz, Entstehung 119f.). On the approximate date of the Descriptio see Klewitz 123–6. Its survey of cardinals was taken over in 1160 by Johannes, deacon and canon of John Lateran, St., in his Liber de ecclesia Lateranensi c. 16 (ed. Mabillon, Mus. ital. II, 574; Lauer, Ph., Le palais de Latran, Paris 1911, p. 404), cf. Klewitz 118 n. 2.—Phillips VI, 124f. and Hinschius I, 335f. knew only this later list.Google Scholar

1 These fundamental aspects and effects of the proprietary church system are firmly established results of the researches conducted by Stutz, U. and his school (of his numerous studies on the subject, see in particular Benefizialwesen [ch. II note 41 supra]; Die Eigenkirche ah Element des mittelalterlich germanischen Kirchenrechts, Berlin 1895 [transl. Barraclough, G., in Medieval Germany, Essays by German Historians, Oxford 1938, II, 35–70]; the articles ‘Pfarre, Pfarrer,’ in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 15 [1904] 239 ff. esp. 242–7; ‘Eigenkirche, Eigenkloster,’ ibid. 23 [1913] 864–77, with further bibliography)—regardless of the position one takes in the controversy (cf. ch. II note 42 supra) on the purely Germanic (Stutz) or nationally indifferent roots of the Eigenkirchen.Google Scholar

2 Cf. Fuchs, Ordinationstitel 179–81. For tendencies in Carolingian times to reinstate the ancient law, see the Councils of Reims 813 c. 20 and Tours 813 c. 14 (ed. Werminghoff, Conc. 2, 255; 288); the Capitula a sacerdotibus proposita 802 c. 13 (ed. Boretius, A., Cap. 1, Hannover 1883, p. 107); Benedictus Levita, Capit. 1, 175 and 3, 393 (ed. Pertz, H., MGH Leg. 2, 2, Hannover 1837, pp. 55, 126; for Benedict's sources in these chapters see Seckel, E., ‘Studien zu Benedictus Levita,’ NA 31 [1905] 87; 41, 1 [1917] 194). Cf. Fuchs 97; 181 n. 6; also 185 n. 24; J. Christ, Title 121.Google Scholar

3 The last who took cognizance of the true concept was Hincmar of Reims, cf. ch. II notes 27–8 supra. Google Scholar

4 Zachary JE 2277 c. 15 (ed. Gundlach, W, MGH Epp. 3, 484), in conformity with LD 11, JK 959, etc. (ch. II notes 38–40 supra); cf. Stutz, Benefizialwesen 218f.—Hinschius and Schäfer (ch. II n. 44 supra) give to this text the inadequate interpretation: cardinal priest = parish priest.Google Scholar

5 JE 2277 c. 4: ‘de presbiteris agrorum quam obedienciam debent exhibere episcopis et presbiteris cardinalibus. Ex concilio Neocesar. c. xiii. ita continetur’ (481, 34–6 Gundlach); cf. Phillips, Kirchenr, VI, 55; Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 315 n. 7Google Scholar

6 Dionysius Exiguus translates: (I) presbyteri eiusdem urbis, (II) presbyteri urbis ipsius; both the Versio prisca and the Hispana translate: presbyteri civitatis (cf. Turner, Monum. 2, 1, 136–7). Cf. also Deusdedit 2, 14 (198 Wolf von Glanvell); Bonizo, Vita chr 5, 15 (180 Perels).—Gratian D. 95 c. 12 uses the version of Dion. II.Google Scholar

7 Pope Urban II (1088–99) refers to this canon with the words (Kehr, IP 1, 7 num. 11): ‘iuxta concilium Neocaesariense in quo de cathedralibus presbyteris agitur’ (ed. Kehr, P., ‘Nachträge zu den Papsturkunden Italiens,’ Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1908, p. 228 num. 3; cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 161 n. 1).Google Scholar

8 JE 2277 c. 1: ‘ ut episcopus iuxta dignitatem suam indumentis utatur, simili modo et presbyteri cardinales’ (480, 40–481, 1 Gundlach). Cf. Phillips, Kirchenr VI, 55 n. 68, who rightly understands this passage as treating of the cathedral canons, while Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 317 n. 2 refers it to rectors of parishes because the text goes on to speak of plebs sibi subiecta. But as the priests of the cathedral chapter were exercising the bishop's pastoral functions in the city, they also had plebem sibi subiectam.Google Scholar

9 Nearly all instances quoted in the ensuing note have been recorded, in varying selections, by Cange, Du s. vv. canonici cardinales, presbyteri cardinales; Muratori, Antiq. 5, 158ff.; Tamagna, Origini I, 113–9; Nardi, Dei parrochi II, 408ff.; Phillips VI, 42f.; Hinschius I, 318f. Further research may well yield additional evidence. (i) Italian bishoprics in alphabetical order: Asti, document of Bishop Alericus or Oldricus (924): ‘ consensu et consilio presbyterorum, diaconorum, seu reliquorum clericorum nostrae ecclesiae cardinalium’ (Ughelli, Italia sacra 4, 352D).—Bergamo, document of Bishop Adalbert (908): ‘ praenominatae s. Pergamensis ecclesiae cardinalibus canonicis, presbyteris, diaconibus, subdiaconibus quoque atque custodibus’ (Ughelli 4, 426A); Bishop Reginfred (1000): ‘ Abel eiusdem ecclesiae car〈di〉nis presbytero’ (Ughelli 4, 438B; cf. Tamagna I, 114).—Como, charters of Emperors Lothar (950), Otto III (996), Arduin (1002), Henry II (1004), Konrad II (1026): ‘ s. Cumanae ecclesiae gregi tam de cardine quamque omnium sacerdotum’ (ed. Schiaparelli, L., I diplomi di Ugo e di Lotario ., Fonti per la storia d'Italia 38, Rome 1924, p. 284 lines 11–2; cf. MGH Dipl. 2, 618, 19–20; Dipl 3, 95; 702f.; Dipl. 4, 60).—Cremona, judgment of King Berengar I (910): ‘ Leo archipresbyter, Petrus, Lampertus et Rapertus presbyteri, Lupus archidiaconus, Aldo, Oldepertus diacones cardinis ipsius episcopii’ (Muratori, Antiq. 1, 125C); charters of Emperors Konrad II (c. 1037) and Henry III (c. 1040): ‘ quendam diaconem Henricum nomine, s. Cremonensis ecclesiae cardinalem et utilimum famulum’ (ed. Bresslau, H., MGH Dipl. 4, Hannover-Leipzig 1909, p. 348 lines 20–1; cf. MGH Dipl. 5, 35).—Florence, document of Bishop Sichelmus (967), with an inserted document subscribed by several priests who are styled ‘presbyter canonicus et cardinalis', ‘presbyter et cardinalis’ (Ughelli 3, 30 C).—Ivrea, document of Bishop Ogerius (1075): ‘ donamus etiam domino Taurino ibidem abbati et omnibus successoribus eius canonicas duas de ordine XII presbyterorum, ut tam ipse quam successores sui sint de ordine et officio nostrorum cardinalium’ (Historiae Patriae Monumenta 1, Turin 1836, p. 649).—Lodi, document of Bishop Aldegrausus (c. 951–62): ‘quo tantummodo cardinales sacerdotes, presbyteri scil. ac diaconi, subdiaconi ad comedendum conveniant; Radbertus presbyter de cardine s. Laudensis ecclesiae’ (ed. Vignati, C., Codice diplomatico laudense, Bibliotheca historica italiana 2, Milan 1879, num. 13 p. 19; cf. Tamagna, Origini I, 113, 119; wrongly referred to Laon by Phillips VI, 43 and Hinschius I, 318); document of 972: ‘ Landevertum nostrae ecclesiae cardinalem sacerdotem’ (Vignati p.26).—Lucca, document of Bishop Peter (904): ‘ Ego Viventius archipresbyter cardines et vicedomino Ego Sichardus presbyter et chardinalis et primicerius Ego Guntripaldus presbyter et cardinalis’ etc. (Muratori, Antiq. 6, 407C–D); document of Bishop Peter (923): ‘ Andreas presbyter et cardinalis Benedictus presbyter et cardinalis’ etc. (ibid. 5, 162D; both documents and several others from 907 to 925 also in Barsocchini, D., Memorie e documenti per servire all'istoria di Lucca 5, 3, Lucca 1841, pp. 27, 43, 108, 110, 115 etc.).—Milan: see notes 13ff. infra.—Naples, document of Archbishop Peter (1100): ‘ Sergius archipresbyter et cardenalis s. sedis Neapolitanae subscripsi’ (Muratori, Antiq. 5, 161D); cf. also documents of 1177 subscribed by two presbyteri cardinales, 1183 by three presbyteri cardinales, 1213 by one archipresbyter and one presbyter cardinalis (Ughelli 6, 99D; 101C; 105B–C).—Padua, diocesan synod of Bishop Hildebert (962): ‘ convocata sacerdotum, levitarum, reliquorumque caterva tam ex cardine urbis eiusdem quamque ex singulis plebibus vel oraculis’ (Ughelli 5, 430A); repeated in the synod of Bishop Gauslinus, 978 (Muratori, Antiq. 1, 549D).—Pavia, charter of Emperor Otto I (972): ‘ que actenus Iohannis cuiusdam presbyteri fuit de cardine s. Ticinensis aecclesiae’ (ed. Sickel, MGH Dipl. 1, Hannover 1879–84, p. 567 lines 18–9).—Piacenza, election of Bishop Guido (904): Ego Andreas diaconus cardinis s. Placentinae ecclesiae’ (P M. Campi, Dell'historia ecclesiastica di Piacenza I, Piacenza 1651, p. 430); charter of King Charles III (883): ‘ qualiter inter diaconibus et presbyteris viginti et novem nostram adierunt celsitudinem, cardinales etiam s. Iustinae virginis et martyris’ (Campi I, 468).—Ravenna: see note 12 infra.—Salerno, document of Judge Guaferius (1163): ‘ existentibus in eadem praesentia Urso et Paschasio, primiceriis et cardinalibus, Matthaeo cardinali et archipresbytero, Constantino presbytero et cardinali et pluribus aliis eiusdem ecclesiae’ (Ughelli 7, 401C); cf. also documents of 1176, 1178, 1187 (Ughelli 7, 403B; 404B; 415D).—Siena, document of the cathedral chapter (1000): ‘ Johannes clericus & (leg. de?) cardine et prepostus Sigizo presbyter & cardine, Petrus clericus & cardine, Martinus diaconus & cardine’ etc (Muratori, Antiq. 5, 609A; paleographical confusion of & and de is very likely).—Vercelli Bishop Atto (924–c. 950; cf. Bonnard, F, ‘Atton évěque de Verceil,’ Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 5 [1931] 191) in his Capitulare c. 90: ‘ Quodsi defuerit cardinalibus primae sedis interim suggeratur’ (PL 134, 46A).—Verona, Bishop Ratherius (d. 974) in his Itinerarium c. 7: ‘Ad quod cum titulares (= city pastors) omnes et illos de plebibus (= rural pastors) paratos, Deo gratias, invenissem; vos cardinales hinc manere adhuc cerno rebelles’ (Opera edd. P et Ballerini, H., Verona 1765, p. 447 with note 31 = PL 136, 589 with n. 1046).—Further references made by Du Cange s.v canonici cardinales to cardinals in Aquileia, Benevento, Capua, Pisa can not be verified. (ii) Much less evidence has been collected from non-Italian dioceses: Nevers, document of Bishop Franco (903): ‘ per consilium nostrorum fidelium canonicorum, scil, cardinalium et archipresbyterorum atque forensium sacerdotum’ (Gallia christiana 13, instr. 18° col. 313E–314A).—Orléans, Bishop Walter's Capitulare (871) c. 2: ‘Ut per archidiaconos vita, intellectus et doctrina cardinalium presbyterorum investigetur’ (Mansi 15, 505).—On the particular feature of cardinales archidiaconi in Autun, Besançon, etc. see notes 23–6 infra. Also the ‘liturgical’ cardinals found in several other bishoprics outside of Italy are to be treated separately from the mere cardinals de cardine.—Finally, we have to eliminate some erroneous references to non-existing cardinals: i.e. to the Lex Baiwariorum 1, 10 (9?) 1 (Du Cange s.v. diaconus cardinalis; but see ed. von Schwind, E., MGH Leg. nat. germ. 5, Hannover 1926, p. 279f.); to the Capitulare of Bishop Haito of Basel ‘c. 90’ (Du Cange s.v. cardinalis; in fact Atto of Vercelli c. 90, see supra); to Laon (Phillips, Hinschius; in fact Lodi, see supra).Google Scholar

10 The contrary was asserted by Muratori, Antiq. 5, 155; 162B; 163A, C; 164f. (also 1, 552) on the strength of the ‘parochialist’ theory he assumed that in medieval cathedral chapters only those clerics were cardinales who at the same time held parochial churches in benefice See infra at nn. 35–6.Google Scholar

11 Tamagna, Origini I, 116–8; examples may be found e.g. in the documents of Asti Bergamo, Milan.Google Scholar

12 For cardinal priests, deacons, etc. in general, see Synod of Ravenna (998): ‘ e subscribentes confirmaverunt presbyteri cardinales ecclesiae Ravennatis’ (Mansi 19 221B); document of Archbishop Walter (1141): ‘ assidentibus Johanne quoque Ravennatis ecclesiae archipresbytero cardinale et presbytero Fantulino cardinale Henricdiacono cardinale et Buniolo subdiacono cardinale’ (Muratori, Antiq. 5, 159A). The tituli occur in Archbishop Walter's charter of 1122 for Bishop Dodo of Modena, which char acteristically begins by aping the style of the Pope: ‘Gualterius servus servorum Deidivina gratia archiepiscopus’ and creates Bishop Dodo and his successors cardinal priests of the ‘title’ of St. Agnes in Ravenna. It is subscribed, among others, by ‘Ego Johannes archipresbyter s. Ravennatis ecclesiae et cardinalis s. Petri maioris tituli subscripsi; Eg Johannes presbyter et cardinalis s. Salvatoris manu mea subscripsi’ etc. (Muratori, Antiq. 5 178A). Hinschius I,321 n. 4 correctly points to the obvious imitation of Roman institutions I was not able, however, to verify his further reference to cardinals with tituli as occurring also in Naples.Google Scholar

13 Landulfus senior, Historia Mediolanensis (c. 1100) 1,3: ‘ Quin etiam locum in quo mines convenirent, insignivit ubi omnes sacerdotes urbani in sexta feria vel kalendis onvenientes’ (ed. Bethmann, L. and Wattenbach, W, MGH Script. 8, Leipzig 1848, . 39 lines 31–2; ed.Bianchi, H. in Muratori, Rer ital. script. 4, 62); ibid. c. 4: ‘At cum beatus Ambrosius supradictos sacerdotes Deo disponente ordinavit, visum est sibi ceteris cum ratribus viginti quatuor sacerdotes, qui quasi cardinales essent, debere constitui; sic misterium ecclesiae Ambrosianae per viginti quatuor cardinales aperiretur et regeretur’ 39, 57–40, 5 Bethmann-Wattenbach; 63f. Bianchi). The sacerdotes urbani were also called decumani, cf. the synodal testament of Atto of Vercelli (946): ‘ Item iudico et lego Aldemano consanguineo meo, archipresbytero s. Mediolanensis ecclesiae et cardinalibus et resbyteris decumanis.; et cardinales presbyteri cum primicerio decumanorum tantum abeant per unumquemque quam duo presbyteri decumani; archipresbyter et cardiales, primicerius et decumani, qui pro tempore erunt’ etc. (ed. Mai, A., Scriptorum veterum ova collectio 6, 2, Rome 1832, pp. 5–6). For other texts referring to decumani see notes 4, 16 infra. Google Scholar

14 Document of 905: ‘ Petrus diaconus de cardine s. eiusdem ecclesiae Mediolanensis’ Muratori, Antiq. 1, 773B; Hist. Patr. Monum. 13, Turin 1873, col. 699b); testament: et diaconi cardinales et subdiaconi (tantum habeant) quam unus presbyter decumanus’ Mai, loc. cit. 5); see also his shorter testament of 948: ‘ ut valles illae deveniant in ure et potestate s. Mediolanensis ecclesiae et presbyterorum seu diaconorum cardinalium tque sacerdotum decumanorum’ (PL 134, 20C); document of Archbishop Aribert (1032): adhibitis sibi senioribus suae ecclesiae cardinalibus presbyteris et diaconibus’ (quoted by Muratori, Antiq. 5, 158 from Puricelli, J P, Ambrosianae Mediolani basilicae ac monasterii monumenta, Milan 1645, num. 222); Aribert's testament (1034): ‘ faciant oresbyteri, diaconi et subdiaconi cardinales de ordine s. Mediolanensis ecclesiae’ (Ughelli, Italia sacra 4, 105A).Google Scholar

15 Archbishop Arnulph, Gesta archiepiscoporum Mediolanensium (c. 1085) 1, 3: ‘ ut decedente metropolitano unus ex praecipuis cardinalibus, quos vocant ordinarios, succedere debeat’ (ed. Bethmann-Wattenbach, MGH Script. 8, 7, 26; ed. Muratori, Rer. ital. script. 4, 8A). The praecipui in this text are the priests and deacons, since the entire passage is contingent upon Pope John VIII's mandate to elect the archbishop de cardinalibus presyteris et diaconibus (JE 3294, see infra at n. 40). The clause, quos vocant ordinarios, refers however to cardinalibus, not to praecipuis, for the (grammatically possible) interpretation hat only the highest ranking cardinals were ordinarii is contradicted by the sources; see he following notes.—Landulfus de s. Paulo (Landulfus iunior, c. 1136), Hist. Mediol. um. 34, document of 1105: ‘Ordinarii cardinales s. Mediolanensis ecclesiae necnon et primicerius cum universo sacerdotio et clero Mediolanensi’ (ed. Bethmann and Jaffé, Script. 20, Hannover 1868, p. 34 lines 9–10; Muratori, Antiq. 5, 158). Cf. also the synonymous expression, cardinales de ordine in the document of 1034, note 14 supra. Google Scholar

16 There exists unfortunately no adequate study of the composition of the Ambrosian clergy with its remarkable differences, in the minor orders, from the Roman scale of ordination. (M. Magistretti, La liturgia della chiesa milanese nel secolo IV [Milan 1899] I, 33–41 made an uncritical attempt to harmonize the two sets of orders.) Landulfus senior, Hist. Mediol. 2, 35 (71 Bethmann-Wattenbach; 93 Bianchi) and the Ordo of Beroldus (ed. Magisretti, Beroldus sive ecclesiae Ambrosianae Mediolanensis kalendarium et ordines, Milan 1894, p. 35f.; ed. Muratori, Antiq. 4, 861f.) give the following picture: 24 priests; 7 deacons; 7 subdeacons; the primicerius presbyterorum (only in B, cf. note 20 infra); the notarii without definite number, under their primicerius; the primicerius lectorum and 16 lectores (i.e. th secundicerius, 4 clavicularii, and 11 terminarii; L has 18 lectores); 4 magistri scholarum.; sacerdotes decumani (cf. note 13 supra; only in L); the cimeliarcha and 16 custodes (8 maiore i.e. 4 cicendelarii and 4 ostiarii; 8 minores); the schola of 20 vetuli. Cf. also P Lejay ‘Ambrosien (rit)’ DACL 1 (1907) 1392f.—With the exception of the decumani (the cit priests) all these ranks were ordinarii, cf. document of 1053: ‘ Domini ordinarii eiusde s. Mediolanensis ecclesiae, presbyteri, diacones, subdiacones, notarii, lectores, cum pr miceriis, magistri scholarum seu (= et) custodes’ as distinct from ‘et presbyteri d ordine decumanorum s. Mediolanensis ecclesiae’ (Ughelli 4, 107D). Also in the documen of 1105 (note 15 supra) the ordinarii cardinales include the entire clergy of the cathedr as set over against the ‘primicerius cum universo sacerdotio et clero Mediolanensi’ C also Atto of Vercelli's shorter testament (948) in PL 134, 20D. Muratori's suggestio (Antiq. 5, 168) that the ordinarii might have been the hebdomadaries of the cathedral entirely gratuitous.Google Scholar

17 Ratherius of Verona, Itinerarium c. 6: ‘Recolitis me praecepisse, ut duobus diebu archipresbyter el archidiaconus me absente adventantes cum ordinariis omnibus parite residentibus discuterent’ (445 Ballerini; PL 136, 587); these ordinarii of Verona are evidently identical with the cardinals mentioned Itin. c. 7 (cf. note 9 supra). For Novara see the compromise between the ‘Novarienses ordinarios s. Marie’ and the ‘ordinarios Iulii’ before Bishop Riprandus (1040) in Ughelli 4, 703B. For eleventh-century canonica opinion see Bonizo, Vita chr (c.1090–9) 5, 77, who speaks of clerics ‘qui in quibusda ecclesiis canonici, in quibusdam vero ordinarii, in quibusdam vero, ut Rome, cardinal nominantur’ (204, 14–7 Perels), much as seven centuries after him the Ballerini, in the note 27 to Ratherius loc. cit. (PL 136, 587 n. 1042) point to the identity between ordinari cardinales, and canonici; cf. also Forchielli, G., ‘Collegialità di chierici nel Veronese dal VIII secolo all'età comunale,’ Archivio Veneto 58 (1928) 81f. and Gaudenzi, Nonantola 40 (with reference to the expression computari in ordine in the anonymous tract on ecclesiastical offices, quoted n. 30 infra). On the ‘minor clergy’ of Verona cathedral, i.e. thos without capitular prebends (as e.g. the presbyteri cappellani) see the Ballerini's prologu to their edition, pp. cxxiii–viii (PL 136, 103–6); Forchielli 82. They were probably no ordinarii.—Du Cange s.v. believes that ordinarii sometimes refers to ‘dignitates quibu competit aliqua iurisdictio’ (?) and sometimes to ‘canonici ecclesiarum collegialium'Google Scholar

18 ‘In primis sunt sacerdotes cardinales, prior quorum archipresbyter cum ferula sua e primatu suo praefertur in choro. Deinde Septem diaconi cardinales subsequuntur, prio tamen archidiaconus cum ferula sua et primatu suo praedicto archipresbytero coniungitu (35, 9–13 Magistretti; 861 Muratori); the subdeacons and all the subsequent orders a enumerated without qualification as cardinales.—For the ordinarii as set over against th lectors etc. see Beroldus: ‘ Item illis descendentibus, dum lectores cantant antiphona descendunt omnes ordinarii absque archiepiscopo usque ad medium pulpiti, et ibi ordinantur ex una parte presbyteri et notarii, idest a septemtrione; alii, scil, diaconi et sub diaconi ab austro’ (41, 13–7 Magistretti; 865C Muratori); ‘ et lectores canunt anti phonam, et ordinarii paululum ascendunt, et finita antiphona a lectoribus, ordinari incipiunt eandem’ (41, 28–30 Magistretti; 865D Muratori. Cf. also 41, 36–7; 43, 8–35 Mag. 865E, 866E–867A Mur.); ‘In vigilia festivitatum vadunt ad festum ordinarii et lectore et custodes et schola s. Ambrosii et mares et feminae’ (63, 35–64, 1 Magistretti; 880D Muratori).—Magistretti, Beroldus 149 n. 3 overlooks the notarii among the ordinarii, and in hi Liturgia della chiesa milanese 40 n. 3 he even contends that the subdeacons were ordinarii only after the thirteenth century. The term is also misunderstood by Pöschl, A., Bischofsut und Mensa episcopalism I (Bonn 1908) 74f. Google Scholar

19 Landulfus sen. Hist. Medial. 1, 3: ‘ qui primicerius vocaretur, qui quasi 〈r〉episcopus circa omnes in crimine laborantes potestatem a s. Ambrosio magistro ccepit, ut quod episcopus implere per se non posset, co〈r〉episcopus qui primicerius ocabatur circa illos implere curiose studeret. Quin et iam locum in quo omnes convenient, insignivit (etc.: cf. note 13 supra); deinde subepiscopus qui co〈r〉episcopus sque modo et primicerius vocatur ’ (8, 28–34 Bethmann-Wattenbach; 62 Bianchi). No nention of the Milanese chorbishop is made in Th. Gottlob, Der abendländische Chorepisopat (Kanonistische Studien und Texte ed. Koeniger 1, Bonn 1928), where other instances of chorbishops called coepiscopi (p. 61f.) or subepiscopi (p. 35) may be found.Google Scholar

20 Beroldus, after enumerating the first three orders (cardinal priests and deacons, cf. note 18 supra; and subdeacons): ‘ Quarto loco ponitur primicerius presbyterorum, non minor ceteris dignitate, sed minor loco; vice archiepiscopi poenitentes solvit et ligat; et si contigerit quod pretium aut denarii dantur pro pastu, similiter partem suam ecipit, quantum presbyter cardinalis’ (35, 14–22 Magistretti; 861 Muratori), and passim. Note that the primicerius has ordinary vicarious jurisdiction in the internal forum.)Google Scholar

21 Note e.g. that Beroldus, while enumerating the archpriest among the sacerdotes ardinales, and the archdeacon among the diaconi cardinales (note 18 supra), never uses he term, cardinal, when speaking in the course of his treatise of the archpriest or archdeacon alone. See also the testament of Atto of Vercelli (note 13 supra).Google Scholar

22 On this development, see the copious literature cited by Amanieu, A., ‘Archidiacre,’ Dictionn. de droit can. 1 (1924) 962ff.; Koeniger, A., ‘Archidiakon,’ LThK 1 (1930) 616; Kurtscheid, Hist. iur. can. 257–61.Google Scholar

23 Autun, document of 972: ‘. Gerardus humilis Eduorum episcopus; Rodulfus cardialis archidiaconus ’ (Gallia Christiana 4, instr. 35 col. 73D); document of 1034: ‘ (ignum) Helmoini episcopi, Widonis abbatis, Valterii cardinati archidiaconi, Gaufredi bbatis et archidiaconi. ’ (ibid. instr. 42 col. 79A); document of 929: ‘ Adso kardinalis rchidiaconus subscripsit’ (ed. Bernard, A. and Bruel, A., Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Cluny I, Paris 1876, p. 269 num. 274; cf. Schröder, A., Entwicklung des Archidiakonats bis um elften Jahrhundert, Augsburg 1890, p. 58 n. 17).—Besançon, document of Archbishop Hugo (1041): ‘ S(ignum) Gibuini cantoris et archidiaconi cardinalis. S. Roberti archidiaconi et archiclavi’ and several other archdeacons (ed. Martène, E. and Durand, U. Thesaurus novus anecdotorum 1, Paris 1717, col. 166; cf. Schröder loc. cit.).—Toul, privileg of Bishop Udo for the collegiate church of St. Gengoul (c. 1065): ‘ constituimus etian cardinalem archidiacon〈at〉um huius urbis ad earn pertinere, ut prepositus huius loceum perpetuo in beneficium possideat’ (quoted by Du Cange s.v archidiaconus cardinalis from Probationes historiae Tullensis); confirmed by Pope Alexander II in 1069 (JL 4665) ‘ constituimus etiam ut (add. sit?) archidiaconus ipsius civitatis secundum idem tuu decretum, ut cardinalem archidiaconatum (leg. cardinalis archidiaconatus?) illius civitati ad eandem ecclesiam pertineat. Quatinus prepositus ipsius loci ’ (ed. Ewald, P, ‘Ach päpstliche Privilegien,’ NA 2 [1877] 209; cf. his remarks p. 210 on the difficult reading the original). Cf. also Emperor Henry IV: ‘ confirmamus etiam cardinalem archi diaconatum eiusdem urbis ad ipsum cenobium pertinere, ut prepositus ’ etc. and Bishop Poppo (1105): ‘ ut cardinalem archidiaconatum obtineat’ (both quoted by Ewald 20 n. 10). On the restoration of St. Gengoul by Bishop Udo and the privileges granted to th collegiate chapter see also Gesta episcoporum Tullensium c. 43 (ed. Waitz, G., MGH Script.8 645f.) and Gallia christ. 13, 990D. Du Cange loc. cit. quotes also a document, not to b verified at present, in which the prepositus ecclesiae s. Gengulfi signs as archidiaconus cardnalis ecclesiae Tullensis. Google Scholar

24 Cf. the expressions, cardinalem archidiaconatum huius urbis, archidiaconus ipsiu civitatis in the privileges for St. Gengoul. That this was only one of several archdeaconrie in the diocese of Toul, is shown by the number of archdeacons signing e.g. the document Gallia christ. 13, instr 23 col. 470A (a. 1054); instr. 25, 26 col. 472A, E (a. 1076). Cf. also for the major archdeacon in general, Schröder, op. cit. 58f.; Hinschius, Kirchenr II, 192 n.2 Baumgartner, E., Geschichte und Recht des Archidiakonates der oberrheinischen Bistüme (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen ed. Stutz 39, Stuttgart 1907) 150ff. Google Scholar

25 Du Cange s.v archidiaconus cardinalis cites one more: ‘Marbodus cardinalis archi diaconus ecclesiae Andegavensis’ On Marbod (Marbeuf), scholastic (1076) and archdeaco (1090–6) of Angers, later bishop of Rennes (1096–1123), author of didactic poems, lives local saints, and very interesting letters (PL 171, 1463–1782), see Ch.Urseau, , Cartulaire noi de la cathédrale d'Angers (Paris-Angers 1908) p. xlivf.; Amann, E., ‘Marbode,’ DThC 9, (1927) 1939; Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters III (Munic 1931) 719–30. His signature, Marbodus archidiaconus, occurs frequently in the Cartulai noir and in other cartularies published for the diocese of Angers (e.g. for the abbeys St. Aubin and Ronceray, for St. John's hospital, and St. Sergius’ church), but I was no able to find the form of subscription quoted by Du Cange.Google Scholar

26 Among the documents of Autun, there is an undated charter of Bishop Agano with the signatures of four archdeacons and ‘signum Ramerii archipresbyteri cardinalis signum Rotberti archipresbyteri’ etc. (Gallia christ. 4, instr 45 col. 83). Since one passag of the document reads: ‘ auctoritate domini Gregorii papae, domini quoque Hugoni Lugdunensis archipraesulis et apostolicae sedis legati, et nostra’ (ibid. 82), it can be date as of 1082–5: Hugo of Die became Archbishop of Lyons in 1082 (cf. Caspar, E., Das Registe Gregors VII. [ch. III note 37 supra] II, 592 n. 1) and Gregory VII died in 1085.—Also in this case the multiplication of archpriests was the reason for designating one of them cardinal; as to archpriests holding archdeaconries, in particular the city archdeaconate see Baumgartner, op. cit. pp. 60 n. 1, 75, 118f. 140, 151f.Google Scholar

27 Capitulare Mantuanum 1, 8: ‘Ut prepositi cardinalium aecclesiarum obedientes sint episcopis suis’ (ed. Boretius, MGH Cap. 1, 195) For the correct date see Patetta, F, ‘Sull'introduzione in Italia della collezione d'Ansegiso e sulla data del così detto capitulare Mantuanum duplex,’ Atti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 25 (1889–90) 87; De Clercq, Carlo, La législation religieuse franque de Clovis à Charlemagne (Louvain-Paris 1936) 229 n. 1.—This text and the greater part of those quoted in the following notes were already mown and commented upon by Thomassin, Du Cange, Muratori, etc. Cf. also Schäfer, Pfarrkirche und Stift (ch. II n. 44 supra) 124 n. 5.Google Scholar

28 On titulus as a term used in the Middle Ages for churches, in particular for churches with parochial rights depending upon the cathedral, see Muratori, Antiq. 5, 1003; the Ballerini in their note to Ratherius, Itin. c. 7 (Opp. 447 n. 31 = PL 136, 589 n. 1046; cf. note 9 supra s.v Verona); Christ, J., Title 119 n. 73. Especially on tituli as city parishes see Schäfer, Frühmittelalterliche Pfarrkirchen (ch. III n. 3 supra) 36 n. 3; 46; 51 n. 3.Google Scholar

29 Conc. Meld. c. 54: ‘Ut titulos cardinales in urbibus et suburbibus constitutos episopi canonice ordinent et disponant’ (ed. Boretius, A. and Krause, V, MGH Cap. 2, Hannover 1897, p. 411). The text is correctly understood by Phillips, Kirchenr. VI, 48f. while Hinschius attempts to construe cardinales as denoting the contrast between city churches and rural churches (Kirchenr. I, 317 n. 3).Google Scholar

30 Aquileia, charter of King Karloman (879): ‘ cum ecclesiis baptismalibus atque cardinalibus sive cum cellulis’ (ed. Kehr, P, MGH Urkunden der deutschen Karolinger 1, Berlin 1932–4, p. 317 lines 10–1).—Bergamo, royal and imperial charters by Charles III (883), Henry II (c. 1023), Konrad II (1027): ‘ in monasteriis, xenodochiis, vel ecclesiis baptismalibus aut cardinalibus seu oraculis vel cunctis possessionibus'(Ughelli, Italia sacra 4, 417B; cf. MGH Dipl. 3, 632, 3–4; Dipl. 4, 122).—Florence, document of Bishop Raynerius (1023): ‘ ecclesiam s. Iohannis Baptistae cardinalem’ (Muratori, Antiq. 5, 164B).—Novara, royal charters by Louis II (854), Karloman (877), Louis III (905): ‘ in monasteriis videlicet, xenodochiis, abbatiis, ecclesiis cardinalibus seu reliquis possessionibus’ (ed. Schiaparelli, L., I diplomi italiani di Lodovico III e di Rodolfo II, Fonti per la storia d'Italia 37, Rome 1910, p. 60 lines 13–4).—Pavia, charter of Kings Hugo and Lothar (943): ‘ omnesque cardinales capellas tarn extra quam infra urbem’ (Muratori 5, 169B; Schiaparelli, I diplomi di Ugo e di Lotario, Rome 1924, p. 217, 17–8).—Piacenza, charter of Charles III (881): ‘ cum monasteriis et cellis vel ecclesiis baptismalibus quae intra civitatem praedictam cardinales habentur sive quae extra civitatem existunt’ (Campi, op. cit. [n. 9 supra s.v. Piacenza] I, 467 num. 19).—Siena, document of Bishop Raynerius (1108): ‘ ecclesiam s. Martini cardinalem iuxta burgum Senensis civitatis positam’ (Ughelli 3, 544B).—See also c. 6 of a little anonymous tract on ecclesiastical offices (11th–12th cent.; purporting to be extracted Ex libro ordinis Romani), as discovered in some Italian MSS, edited, and discussed by Gaudenzi, Nonantola 395–404: ‘Ut hi computentur in ordine qui cardinales ecclesias habuerint. Hi debent facere processionem cum episcopo’ (p. 397). Gaudenzi's assumption however (p. 404) that the tract actually represents fragments of a lost Ordo Romanus composed under Nicholas I is to be rejected; not even an Italian origin of the text is sufficiently proved.Google Scholar

31 The distinction between the cardo and the other churches is expressly stated, e.g. in the documents quoted n. 9 supra for Como and Padua. There exists one single exception to the rule stated above: deed of foundation of an hospital by Deacon Dagobert in Verona (932): ‘ ut sit sub potestate et cura archipresbyteri et diaconi seu et sacerdotum dia conorumque s. cardinalis Veronensis ecclesiae qui pro tempore fuerint’ (ed. Biancolini, G. B. Notizie storiche delle chiese di Verona I–II, Verona 1749, p. 697); ‘ sacerdotes et cleric universi s. cardinalis ecclesiae; deveniant in potestatem archipresbyteri et archidiaconi et sacerdotum seu et diaconorum s. cardinalis ecclesiae’ (ibid. 698). Cf. the Ballerini in their note cited n. 28 supra (a truncated reference to this piece in Phillips, Kirchenr. VI, 48 n. 48).—Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 315 n. 1 quotes also Hincmar, De iure metrop. c. 20 on the sedes cardinalis of St. Boniface in this context, but this expression in fact means ‘see of incardination', see ch. II n. 28 supra. Google Scholar

32 See the charters n. 30 supra, rightly understood by Du Cange s.v ecclesiae cardinale as referring to parochial churches. Contra Phillips VI, 49 n. 50, who understands au disjunctively in the charter for Bergamo (‘ecclesiis baptismalibus aut cardinalibus'); correctly Hinschius I, 317 n. 2: aut = et. There can be no doubt that aut (Bergamo), atque (Aquileia), and quae cardinales habentur (Piacenza) mean all three the same.—Cf. also Gaudenzi, Nonantola 400.Google Scholar

33 On the resistance of Italian baptismal churches to the proprietary-church policy see Stutz, Benefizialwesen (ch. II, n. 41 supra) 112f.; Forchielli, G., La pieve rurale (Rome 1931).Google Scholar

34 Tamagna, Origini I, 112ff. Nardi, Dei parrochi II, 395, 403ff. The distinction between cardo on the one, and tituli and plebes on the other hand appears very clearly in Ratherius of Verona, Itin. c. 7 (quoted n. 9 supra). The assumption of E. Mayer, Die angebliche Fälschungen des Dragoni, Leipzig 1905, p. 41f.; also ‘Der Ursprung der Domkapitel,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 7 [1917] 24) that the term cardo designated the community of clerics in a given church is quite unfounded.—Only in one isolated case does it seem that also parish priests signed their names as presbyteri de cardine: document of Bishop Rudolph of Siena (1081) ‘ Ego Bonizo presbiter de cardine s. Laurentii subscripsi. Ego Petrus canonicus & cardine s. Petronilla ss. Cardine s. Donati et Ilariani presbiter Bonfilio ss.’ etc. (Muratori, Antiq. 5, 175C; but for contrary evidence from Siena see n. 9 supra). The true medieval terminology for rectors of (collegiate) parish churches is studied in detail by Schäfer, Pfarrkirche und Stift 121ff. (archipresbyter, rector ecclesiae, praelatus, praepositus, even abbas; never presbyter cardinalis).Google Scholar

35 References ch. I n. 5 supra. See also n. 10 supra. Google Scholar

36 Even modern authors do not escape this faulty syllogism; e.g. Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 817f. who concludes that cardinals were not always, but sometimes parish rectors (see also n. 8 supra on his interpretation of JE 2277). His further thesis that almost every church could be considered as cardo in comparison to the next lower church is an unjustified quid pro quo. He even cites the Capitulare of 813 which speaks of prepositi cardinalium aecclesiarum (n. 27 supra) as an instance for archpriest = cardinal priest! (Kirchenr II, 266 n. 2).Google Scholar

37 However, it seems that the notion of ecclesiae cardinales (i.e. de cardine) was not adopted in Rome. The one instance usually cited (e.g. by Phillips, Kirchenr VI, 48 n. 47; Hinschius I, 318 n. 1) is LP II, 196 on Stephen V (885–91): ‘ reliquias per diversi cardinales titulos largitus est’ (probably an elliptic expression, cf. ch. III n. 27) Or should there be one instance in Urban II JL 5351 (cf. ch. V n. 95 infra)?—Among the examples that follow in the text above for presbyter cardinis etc. we have omitted the pseudo-decretal Ministerium archipresbyteri (JE °1986), in which the archpriest appears as the superior of cardinales sacerdotes. In the later decretal collections this forged text is ascribed to ‘Leo papa’ or Leo III (Coll. II Parisiensis 6, 2; Coll. Lipsiensis 33, 7; 1 Comp. 1, 16, 2 = X. 1, 24, 2) while two MSS of Burchard's Decretum (Lucca, Cath. Chapter 124; Pistoia, Cath. Chapter 119 [ol. 140]) and one MS of Ivo's Panormia (Venice, Bibl. Marciana lat. IV 51 [Valentinelli VIII. 12; wrong number given in Gaudenzi, Nonantola 395]) present it in their respective appendices or preliminary matter under the inscription: ‘Privilegium archipresbyteri a s. Gregorio digestum (et constitutum add. Marc); Ex libro institutionum s. Gregorii papae’ (cf. Mansi 10, 444B; Gaudenzi 404; Valentinelli, Catal. II, 234). For a clue to its possible origin see n. 75 infra. Google Scholar

38 In the Roman Synod of 853, ‘Anastasius presbyter cardinis nostri, quem nos in titulo b. Marcelli ordinavimus’ is deposed by Leo IV (Mansi 14, 1017B, not in JE; see also the shorter forms of the sentence as reported in the Annales Bertiniani an. 868, ed. G. Waitz, Script. rer. germ. Hannover 1883, pp. 92–3; Mansi 14, 1026–7; JE after n. 2606 and n. 2635). In fact, Anastasius Bibliothecarius was, as title priest of St. Marcellus, cardinal of St. Paul's. The Liber pontificalis has more correctly: ‘Anastasius presbyter cardinalis, tituli b. Marcelli’ (LP II, 129 = X. 3, 4, 2).—Hadrian II repeatedly speaks of one of his egates as Petrus religiosus presbyter cardinis nostri (JE 2926–31; ed. Perels, MGH Epp. 6, 726, 15; 727–32); likewise John VIII, of Petrus cardinis ecclesiae nostrae (or cardinis nostri) presbyter (JE 3139, 3141, 3273, 3275; ed. Caspar, MGH Epp. 7, 86, 3; 99, 8; 186, 11; 189, 3).Google Scholar

39 JE 3271 (172, 30–4 Caspar), also in Deusdedit 4, 434 (614, 13–5 Wolf von Glanvell). Already Nicholas I had spoken in 862 (JE 2692) of ‘ ad honorem cardinis ipsius sanctae ecclesiae’ (446, 3–4 Perels) with regard to Constantinople.Google Scholar

40 JE 3294 (202, 32–3 Caspar).Google Scholar

41 This fact has been generally overlooked, even by Caspar, MGH Epp. 7, 172 n. 2 and 202 n. 9.Google Scholar

42 See ch. II n. 26 supra. Google Scholar

43 While Johannes Diaconus correctly records some incardinations (Vita 3, 15–6; 18–20 PL 75, 139–42—including however incorrectly some cases of union in c. 15, viz. Greg. Reg. 2, 48 and 3, 20), his references to Roman priests under St. Gregory as cardinales ecclesiae suae (3, 7–8: PL 75, 133) and to revocare in pristinum cardinem (3, 11: see ch. II n. 36 supra) are anachronistic.—Cf. Nardi, Dei parrochi II, 403 n. 1.Google Scholar

44 JL 4665, cf n. 23 supra. Google Scholar

45 This group of letters is reprinted in Mansi 20, 668–75. On the history of the preceding union see Rodière, R., ‘Arras (diocèse),’ Dictionn. d'hist. et de géogr ecclés. 4 (1930) 6991 Gallia christ. 3, 321f. Urban II repeatedly stresses the point that the union is to be dissolved unless Cambrai can show papal letters authorizing the subjection.Google Scholar

46 JL 5654, printed in Mabillon, Acta sanctorum ordinis s. Benedicti, saec. 3, 2 (Venice 1734) 406; Gallia christ. 1 instr. 38 p. 44f. The preceding union had been authorized by Gregory VII.Google Scholar

47 JL 5472 to the clergy and people of Arras: ‘ volumus cardinalem episcopum vobis et ecclesiae utilem eligere’ (Mansi 20, 671D); JL 5500 to the Archbishop of Reims ‘ ut utraque ecclesia cardinali non destituatur episcopo’ (ibid. 672E); JL 5512 to Lambert the new bishop of Arras: ‘ ut Atrebatensi ecclesiae cardinalis restitueretur antistes; ut Atrebatensis ecclesia deinceps cardinalem semper episcopum sortiatur’ (ibid. 669A B); JL 5513 to the archdeacons, and JL 5514 to the religious superiors of the diocese: ‘ ut ei deinceps tanquam cardinali episcopo subesse et oboedire curetis’ (ibid. 674C); JL 5518 to the Count of Flanders: ‘ ecce enim civitas Atrebatensis, quae in comitatu tuo principalis est, ex apostolicae sedis dignitate cardinalem recepit episcopum’ (ibid. 675A).— JL 5654 to the Abbots of Figeac and Conches: ‘ placuit ut utrique loco, sicut ante fuerat, abbas cardinalis restitueretur’ (locc. citt.).Google Scholar

48 Cf. JL 5472: ‘ solet enim fieri ut ecclesiae persecutionis tempore suis ordinibus, suis populis, subsidiis etiam temporalibus destitutae, aliis temporaliter committantur ecclesiis postquam vero his quibus imminutae fuerant, Deo donante, abundare coeperint, pristinam recipiant dignitatem’ (Mansi 20, 671D).—Phillips, Kirchenr. VI, 58f. interprets Pope Urban's manner of speech as indicating that the people of Arras received back, as it were, their cardo; but this explanation would not apply to the Figeac-Conches case, for monasteries neither are nor have a cardo. Du Cange s.v abbas cardinalis translates, abbé en chef—an expression which does not convey Pope Urban's idea any better.Google Scholar

49 JL 5472: ‘ et electum per manum metropolitani vestri consecrari et ecclesiae vestrae incardinari studeatis’ (Mansi loc. cit.)Google Scholar

50 John XIII (JL 3729): ‘ Ceterum more Romanae ecclesiae ecclesiam tuam XII presbyteros et VII diaconos et XXIV subdiaconos cardinales, qui sandaliis et lisinis utantur, habere volumus. Super hoc vero iisdem presbyteris et abbatibus ecclesiae Iohannis Baptistae in suburbio eiusdem civitatis constructae tunicis uti concedimus. Quibus exceptis et episcopis super altare in honorem b. Mauritii dedicatum missam celebrare aliquis nullo modo praesumat’ (Mansi 19, 5 C). Cf. also the confirmations by Benedict VII in 981 (JL 3808) and Benedict VIII in 1012 (JL 3989). The authenticity of JL 3729, denied by some earlier authors, can no longer be doubted, cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 151 n. 6 On the other hand, Klewitz’ assumption (p. 153) that the number of cardinal priests in Magdeburg was only seven and that the number XII in the extant text (Liber privilegiorum s. Mauricii, c. 1100) would be a copyist's mistake, is voided by the evidence of JL 3989 which speaks of the numerus duodenarius of the cardinal priests (cf. the text in Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 319 n. 2).Google Scholar

51 Benedict VII (JL 3783): ‘ cardinales quoque presbyteri, fratre nostro Theodorico archiepiscopo missam celebrante, dalmaticis, et diaconi una cum presbyteris schandaliis utantur; hebdomadariis quoque presbyteris ad s. Petrum missam celebrantibus suae dilectionis intuitu dalmaticis uti permittimus’ (PL 137, 322B) Confirmed by Victor II in 1057 (JL 4365), but not for the hebdomadaries.Google Scholar

52 Gregory, V (JL 3875): ‘ decernimus in supradicta ecclesia septem cardinales diaconos et presbyteros cardinales septem huic ecclesiae deservire, ea videlicet ratione ut nullius dignitatis persona super sacrum altare Dei genetricis Mariae ibidem constitutum missam celebret, praeterquam supradicti septem cardinales presbyteri et archiepiscopus huius loci (i.e. Coloniensis) et episcopus Leodiensis qui huic dioecesi praesidet’ (ed. Quix, Codex diplomaticus Aquensis, Aachen 1839, vol. I, 36). The cardinales ecclesiae Aquisgranensis are subsequently mentioned in charters of Emperor Otto III (1000, 1001), see MGH Dipl. 2 (ed. von Sickel, Th., Hannover 1888–93) 776, 29 and 841, 13.Google Scholar

53 Leo IX (JL 4249): ‘ Statuimus denique ad honorem nostri protomartyris super sanctum praedictum altare non ministrari nisi semel in die, et nullus praesumat super id accedere ad sacrificandum nisi quem archiepiscopus huius loci ad hoc destinaverit cum consensu fratrum, seil, septem e fratribus illius congregationis qui melioris vitae eligantur et cardinales vocentur; quorum unus sit eiusdem ecclesiae decanus, et sicut est maior in congregatione, ita prior polleat dignitate. Horum itaque quicumque ibi celebra missam, induat dalmaticam et tunc demum audeat celebrare cum omni reverentia ligione; sandaliis quoque utantur et mitra tarn ipse sacerdos quam diaconus necnon diaconus in festivitatibus Domini et Salvatoris nostri et b. Dei genetricis’ etc. (PI 668D–669A).Google Scholar

54 Leo IX (JL 4271): ‘ ut maius altare ecclesiae tuae matris virginis honori dedic et aliud ibidem apostolorum principi b. Petro addictum reverenter ministrando proc septem idonei cardinales presbyteri dalmaticis induti, quibus etiam, cum totidem diaco ac subdiaconibus ad hoc ministerium prudenter electis, ut sandaliis utantur conced (PL 143, 687D–688A).Google Scholar

55 Paschal II (JL 6208): ‘ quod secundum Romanae ecclesiae consuetudinem se cardinales presbyteri in ecclesia tua ordinaveris qui ad altare b. Iacobi missarum succedentibus sibi vicibus administrent; statuentes ut nec per te nec per tu quemlibet successorum constitutus ille sacerdotum numerus imminui debeat aut imm nec per aliam quamlibet personam, nisi'per praefatos presbyteros aut episcopos au manae ecclesiae legatos, missarum super altare b. Iacobi statuimus solemnia celel (PL 163, 247). The glossator Bernard of Compostella mentions this institution, c. 12° cf. Kuttner, Traditio 1 (1943) 315.Google Scholar

56 See the texts for Magdeburg, Treves, Besançon, Cologne.Google Scholar

57 Treves.Google Scholar

58 Aix-la-Chapelle (? Gregory V speaks of deservire), Compostella (succedentibu vicibus), perhaps also Cologne, cf. Wibertus, Vita Leonis IX: ‘ concessit domnus hoc Privilegium sedi ecclesiae Coloniensis, ut ad altare s. Petri VII presbyteri cardi quotidie divinum celebrarent officium in sandaliis’ (ed. Watterich, I. M., Pontificum. riorum vitae, Leipzig 1862, vol. I, 155).Google Scholar

59 Magdeburg, Aix-la-Chapelle, Besançon, Compostella.Google Scholar

60 Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr 321; Klewitz, Entstehung 151f. 162. The older autho overlooked the fundamental difference between these privileged cardinals and the de cardine of other cities.Google Scholar

61 Occasionally the right to wear dalmatic and sandals was also granted to other pre e.g. to the Abbot of Fulda by John XV in 994 (JL 3853; repeated by Gregory V JL and John XIX JL4090: revoked by Clement II in 1046, JL4134; reconfirmed by many p from Leo IX in 1049 to Eugene III in 1151: JL 4170, 4364, 4557, 6972, 7462, 7631, 8244, to the Abbot of Montecassino by Leo IX in 1049 (JL 4164; repeated by Victor II JL Cf. Sägmüller, Cardinäle 162 n. 3; Kehr, IP 8, 135 num. 66; 138 num. 79; Lübeck, K., Kardinalsornat der Fuldaer Äbte,’ AKKR 120 (1940) 33–49.Google Scholar

62 Cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 151.Google Scholar

63 The first goal they attained under Callixtus II in 1120 (JL 6823), for the second they claimed a privilege by Anastasius IV (1153–4: JL 9808?) which later popes rejected repeatedly. Cf. Sägmüller, Cardinäle 59 n. 3; Klewitz 161.Google Scholar

64 JL 4249: ‘ dum illud (scil. brachium s. Stephani) recondidimus infra altare quod consecravimus te praesente’ etc. (PL 143, 668C).Google Scholar

65 JL 4177: ‘ quatenus nulla ecclesiastici ordinis magna vel parva persona in hoc altari qucd consecravimus missam celebrare praesumat, nisi Remorum archiepiscopus et huius loci abbas et cui licentiam concédat [permissa eadem licentia canonicis Remensis ecclesiae bis in anno, in Pascha scil. et in Rogationibus], Septem presbyteris legitimis ad hoc officium deputatis, quos et scientia ornet, morum gravitas et vitae probitas commendet’ (ed. Mabillon, Acta sanctorum ord. s. Ben. saec. 6, 1, Venice 1734, p. 637 = PL 143, 617). The passage in brackets is suspect of interpolation.—Anselmus monachus, Historia dedicationis ecclesiae s. Remigii c. 13: ‘Constituit etiam quod ad altare quod consecraverat, non indiscrete a quibusque sicut hactenus sacrosancta mysteria agerentur, sed secundum morem Romanae ecclesiae septem tantummodo sacerdotes qui in illa congregatione digniores haberentur, ad hoc officium deputarentur’ (ed. Mabillon, ibid. 632; Mansi 19, 736B). Cf. Martène, De antiq. eccl. rit. 1, 3, 8, 3 (I, 332E Antw.; I, 120 Ven.).Google Scholar

66 Chronicon s. Huberti Andaginensis (after 1119): ‘.nec multo post (Lambertus) electus et constitutus unus ex septem cardinalibus maioris altaris (scil. s. Remigii). Diitas huius ordinis firmata est privilegio Romano eidem ecclesiae a demno Leone papa quando eam dedicavit. Septem vero cardinales ad hunc honorem assumpti publica electione praeminent in tota congregatione’ (ed. Bethmann-Wattenbach, MGH Script. 8, 593, 17–23).Google Scholar

67 The subject has not been investigated. Ughelli, Italia sacra 7, 390D writes of Bishop Alfanus of Salerno (d. 1085): ‘ hunc sanctissimum pontificem elegisse sibi ad altaris ministerium viginti quatuor canonicos, quos et presbyteros cardinales nuncupasse, quatuorque diaconos, quos similiter diaconos cardinales vocasse tradunt Salernitani scriptores. Quibus per successores pontificis fuit in posterum concessa facultas gestandi mitras sericas quas vocant de damasco.’ If Ughelli had substantiated his source, we could accept the statement of the Salernitani scriptores as evidence for a liturgical character of the cardinalate in Salerno. (On cardinals in subscriptions of documents from that city see note 9 supra).—A liturgical connotation is also possible in the admission of Abbot Taurinus into the ordo of the twelve cardinal priests at Ivrea (ibid.).Google Scholar

68 Our main sources on this subject are the informations collected in various French dioceses by Martène, De antiq. eccl. rit. 1, 3, 8, 2 (I, 331C–D Antw.; I, 120 Ven.) and by 〈Jean-Baptiste Lebrun Desmarets〉 Sieur de Moléon, Voyages liturgiques de France (Paris 1718) passim. Cf. also P de Puniet, ‘Concélébration liturgique,’ DACL 3 (1914) 2476; Cimetier, F, ‘Cardinaux,’ Dictionnaire pratique des connaissances religieuses 1 (1925) 1090f.; Moille, L. C., ‘The Liturgy of Lyons,’ The Month 151 (1928) 402–8: King, Archdale A., Notes on the Catholic Liturgies (London-New York-Toronto 1930) 130; Denys Buenner, Dom, L'ancienne liturgie romaine: le rite lyonnais (Lyon-Paris 1934) 246f. 260–71; Molien, A., ‘Cardinal,’ Dictionn. de droit canonique 2 (1937) 1314.Google Scholar

69 Angers: thirteen parish rectors of the city assist the bishop on Easter, Christmas, the feast of Maurice, St. (later: St. Maurice, St. Maurilius, St. Andrew) and the blessing of the holy oils (Moléon, op. cit. 93).—Chalon-sur-Saǒne: seven suburban parish rectors assist at the high feasts (Martène loc. cit.).—Chartres: six priests concelebrate and co-consecrate with the bishop on Holy Thursday (Moléon 231).—Lyons: six priests assist the archbishop on Easter, Pentecost, Christmas at the cathedral: two priests assist the dean on any festum duplex I classis; six priests assist the archbishop when he pontificates on one of the high feasts at the collegiate church of St. Paul (Martène loc. cit.; Moléon 45–7, 51–2, 73; Buenner, op. cit. 246f. 260f.).—Orléans: twelve parish rectors assist the bishop at his installation, on Holy Thursday, and the Exaltation of the Cross; later (15th cent.) they are in number of fourteen and assist at all pontifical Masses; six canons concelebrate on Holy Thursday (Moléon 181, 196).—Paris: thirteen priests (10 parish rectors, the Prior of Notre-Dame-deschamps, the Prior of Saint-Jacques, and the Abbot of Saint-Victor) are to be present at the cathedral on Christmas, Easter, and the Assumption (Cartulaire de l'église de Notre-Dame de Paris ed. Guérard [Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France, 1st ser.: Collection des cartulaires de France 4–7, Paris 1850] 1, 3; cf Cimetier loc. cit.).—Sens: twelve, later thirteen (out of sixteen?) parish rectors assist the Archbishop on the feasts of the Dedication, St. Stephen, and the blessing of the oils (Martène loc. cit.: Moléon 170, 173). These priests were organized in a confraternity, called des treize prětres, the statutes of which were confirmed in 1220 by Archbishop Pierre de Corbeil, cf. Gallia christ. 12, instr. 7 col. 363; Chartraire, Abbé E., Cartulaire du chapitre de Sens (Société archéologique de Sens, Documents 3, Sens 1904) 168 note.—Soissons: twelve parish rectors assist the bishop on Christmas, Holy Thursday, Easter (Martène loc. cit.; Rituale sen mandatum insignis ecclesiae Suessionensis, tempore episcopi Niveleonis [i.e. 1175–1207] exaratum, Soissons 1856, pp. 40, 63, 69, 114, 305f.).—Troyes: thirteen (?) parish rectors assist the bishop on certain feasts (Moléon 24, 170).—Vienne: six suburban priests concelebrate with the archbishop in the third Mass on Christmas and on other high feasts (later only on Christmas. Easter, Pentecost); twelve parish rectors assist on Holy Saturday and bless with the archbishop the baptismal font (Martène loc. cit.; Moléon 11, 15–8, 22–4, 28, 32); see especially the Ordinale of 1524 quoted by Moléon 17: ‘suburbani signa faciant durante missa ad modum episcopi et sic in omnibus aliis maioribus festivitatibus.'Google Scholar

70 Cf. Martène loc. cit.; Moléon, op. cit. 17 47, 172, 181, 196, 231; Puniet loc. cit.; Moille. op. cit 408; Buenner, op. cit. 269f.Google Scholar

71 On obligations of this kind see Schäfer, Frühmittelalterliche Pfarrkirchen (ch. III n.3 supra), for Le Mans (p. 37), Verona, Ferrara (46). Arezzo, Mayence, Cologne, Florence (47).Google Scholar

72 Moléon, op. cit. 47; Buenner, op. cit. 247 n. 1, 260 n. 1.Google Scholar

73 Paris: preliminary note in the Chartularium episcopi (13th cent.): ‘Isti sunt presbyteri qui nominantur presbyteri cardinales qui debent interesse, per se vel per alios, dum episcopus celebrat in ecclesia Parisiensi, in festis nativitatis Domini, pasche et assumptions’ ed. Guérard, Cartul. de Notre-Dame 1,3); cf. also Magnum pastorale 19, 22 (c. 1080): ‘ acerdos qui parochiae (scil. s. Martini de campis) praeerit, curam animarum ab episcopo et archidiacono suscipiet, et quotiescumque diebus festis episcopus missam cantaverit, ipse duodecimus cardinalis ministerio assistet’ (ibid, 2, 400). Cf. Du Cange s.v presbyter carinalis; Le Cointe, Instit. et rang 29 (who correctly points to the corresponding functions of the early Roman cardinals); Cimetier loc. cit. (n. 68 supra).—Sens: notice in the Liber orecentoris (13th cent.): ‘Et quocienscumque (archiepiscopus) missam celebrat in festis annualibus in ecclesia Senonensi, debent sibi assistere duodecim presbyteri cardinales nduti sacerdotalibus’ (ed. Chartraire, Cartul. du chap. de Sens 168).—Soissons: notice in the Ritual of c. 1175–1207, for Christmas: ‘ deinde sic redeunt, primum ceroferarii, huribola, diaconi très, post hos XII cardinales indutis sacris vestibus’ (Rituale ed. 856, p. 40); ‘ in coena Domini XII presbyteri cardinales, similiter et VII diaconi et VII podiaconi cum totidem acolitis’ (ibid. 63; cf. also pp. 69, 114).—For Angers and Troyes o other sources are available at present than the report in Moléon's Voyages (pp. 93, 170).Google Scholar

74 For such hebdomadaries in Auxerre see the statute and kalendarium of Bishop Tetricus (695) in Mabillon, Acta sanctorum ord. s. Ben. saec. 3, 1 (Venice 1734) 90–2 and MGH Conc. 1, 223. For seventh-century Verdun a similar institution is hinted at in the Vita s. Pauli piscopi Verodun. (Mabillon, Acta ss. Ben. saec. 2, 262f.—cf. however, on the poor reliability of this Vita, Krusch's, B. note in MGH Script. rer merov. 4, Hannover-Leipzig 1902, p.566 n. 1). See also Mabillon, Mus. ital. II, xxxi. Among the hebdomadaries in Tours there was, according to an ancient Rituale, besides six dignities of the chapter, one neighborng abbot, cf. Martène, De antiq. eccl. rit. 1, 3, 8, 3 (I, 332D Antw.; I, 120 Ven.).—An Italian (?) parallel is found in the tract on ecclesiastical offices (n. 30 supra) where the rectors of the city parishes (qui cardinales ecclesias habuerint) are in ordine of the cathedral and hebdomadaries (c. 6: ‘ hi debent facere processionem cum episcopo et per vices septiamanas tenere in sancta matre ecclesia et assidue ibidem stare': 397 Gaudenzi)—but not cardinals.Google Scholar

75 Perhaps the false decretal JE °l986 (X. 1, 24, 2; cf. note 37 supra) comes from circles acquainted with this institution, since it characterizes the functions of the cardinal priests who are under the supervision of the archpriest as follows: ‘ ministerium sacerdotum cardinalium, quod (al. qui) solemnissimum debent peragere officium in communicatione corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ita ut (archioresbyter) vicissim eos sibimet sccedere faciat’ (Mansi 10, 444B).Google Scholar

76 Exactly where and when this etymology originated, needs further investigation. It is first mentioned by Moléon, Voyages 170 (from oral tradition in Sens? from a medieval source?); repeated by the editors of the Rituale eccl. Suession. 305f.; by Puniet, King Buenner, and Molien, as cited n. 68 supra. Google Scholar

77 Cf. Sparrow Simpson, W, ‘Charters and Statutes of the College of the Minor Canons in St. Paul's Cathedral,’ Archaeologia 43 (1871) 165–200; id. Registrum statulorum et consuetudinum ecclesiae cathedralis s. Pauli Londinensis (London 1873) xxxiiiff. Marion Gibbs. Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London (Camden Third Series 58, London 1939) xxvif.Google Scholar

78 In the twelfth century, the name was simply clerici prebendarii de choro (cf. Gibb xxi n. 2); still in 1231–7 a charter sets the canonici residentes over against the reliqui cleric chori medii (i.e. vicars and chaplains) et superioris (i.e. minor canons) gradus (ed. Gibbs 86 num. 114). The first references to ‘alicui paruo canonico in ecclesia b. Pauli residenti and ‘ alicui de minoribus canonicis beneficiatis’ are found in 1202–12 and 1231–4 respec tively, cf. Gibbs pp. xxvii, 95 (num. 128), 162 (num. 206).Google Scholar

79 Cf. Simpson locc. citt. and Gibbs xxviif. (with n. 8). See Dean Baldock's (1294–1305) Statutes and Customs 5, 1ff. (ed. Simpson, Registrum 66ff.).Google Scholar

80 Dean Lisieux's (1441–56) Statutes 6, 18 (102–3 Simpson, ex 1289 with interpolations cf. n. 85 infra). Pope Urban VI, confirming on October 22, 1378 Bishop Simon Sudbury's statute of May 11, 1374: ‘ De istis autem minoribus canonicis sunt duo delegati ab antiquo qui cardinales vocantur, et sunt perpetui. Qui etiam privatorum funerum et anniversariorum recipiunt proventus, et missas celebrant capitulares, ac egrotantibus ministrant ecclesiastica sacramenta, et quilibet ipsorum duorum duplum percipit omnium que superius uni minori canonico assignantur tarn in pecunia quam in pane et in cervisia' (ed. Wilkins, D., Concilia Magnae Britanniae 3, London 1737, p. 135; cf. Simpson, Registrum 325–6). King Richard II, charter of incorporation of the minor canons’ college, 1394 (ed. Simpson, Archaeol. 43, 183 = Registrum 327). Statutes of the College (1396) §35: ‘De iuniore cardinale’ (198 Archaeol. = 358–9 Registrum). Dean Colet's (1505–19) Statutes c. 7: ‘Ex minoribus canonicis a decano et capitulo delegantur duo qui cardinales chori vocantur Horum officium est circumspicere cotidie et notare omnia in choro delicta et peccata’ etc (ed. Dugdale, W, The History of St. Paul's Cathedral, 3rd ed. London 1818, p. 345; cf. Simpson, Registrum 222; Cange, Du s.v. cardinales chori). For further texts mentioning the cardinals, from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century, see Registrum 147, 150, 282–3, 302, 305, 321, 477Google Scholar

81 Cf. the latest editions of the London Diocese Book. Canon W Sparrow Simpson, the zealous historian and editor of the statutes, was himself for some time junior cardinal, cf. his Documents Illustrating the History of St. Paul's (Camden Society, new ser. 26, London 1880) xxvi note b and title page.Google Scholar

82 Gibbons, Thomas (1720–85: cf. Dictionary of National Biography 21, 265), as quoted from MS Harl. 980, fol. 179r by Simpson, Registrum xxxvif.: ‘The Church of St. Paule had, before the time of the Conquerour, two Cardinalls, which office still continues. They are chosen by the Dean and Chapter out of the number of the twelve Petty Canons, and are called Cardinales Chori. Not any Cathedral Church in England hath Cardinalls besids this, nor are any beyond seas to be found to be dignified with this title, sauing the Churches of Rome, Rauenna, Aquileia, Millan, Pisa, Beneuent in Italy, and Compostella in Spayn.'—Cf. also 〈Maria Hackett,〉 Correspondence and Evidence Respecting the Ancient Collegiate-School Attached to St. Paul's Cathedral (s. 1. 1832) app. p. xi: ‘This ancient and very important office is peculiar to St. Paul's throughout the Protestant World.'Google Scholar

83 There is no mention of cardinales in the Early Charters ed. Gibbs, nor in such texts as Constit. Henrici de Cornhill (1243–54), Stat. de residencia canonicorum (13th cent.), De oblacionibus ad episcopum pertin. (c. 1218–27) of Simpson's Registrum (cf. pp. 181–90).Google Scholar

84 Stat. 3, 34 (48 Simpson). Parts of this text are repeated in Urban VI's bull of confirmation, but with the words ‘qui cardinales vocantur’ inserted, cf. n. 80 supra.—Also in the account for the year 1283 of the custos bracini, Thomas Coulyng, on the daily allotments in bread to the clergy of the cathedral, we find tres parvi prebendarii de choro set over against the other novem parvi prebendarii and as receiving double rations, without any qualification as subdean or cardinals (ed. Hale, W H., The Domesday of St. Paul's, Camden Soc. 69, London 1858, p. 170; cf. Hale's introd. p. xlix). See also the distributions in bread and beer for the year 1286 (pp. 172, 174) and Hale's chart for monetary distributions from the Statuta maiora: ‘To the 30 vicars of the 30 canons—10d each; to the 3 minor canons and the scriptor tabulae—10d each; To nine minor canons—5d each’ etc. (p. xlvii). Simpson, Registrum 173 n. 1 inexactly reports some of these accounts and budgets, substituting ‘the subdean and two cardinals’ for the three minor canons.Google Scholar

85 Stat. 6, 18, in the Iniunctio of 1289: ‘ Item volumus quod quatuor canonici minores [scil. duo cardinales et duo alii] diligenter chorum de die et de nocte custodiant, ita quod defectus ministrantium in ecclesia scribant et decano referant’ (103 Simpson). Stat. 7, 6, in the Constituciones et statuta et declaraciones edite tempore magistri Radulphi de Disceto decani s. Pauli: ‘ set tarnen prima die illius mensis quo absentare se voluerit, sit in prima, et decano et capitulo absenciam intimet, [et camerario vel cardinalibus]’ (127 Simpson). The passages included by the present writer in brackets are in his opinion interpolated. In the first case, we have to do with a gloss, in the second, with an afterthought caused by the precept of the Iniunctio. Also apart from the words, vel cardinalibus, the entire Constituciones in Stat. 7, 6 reflect a language and factual situation of a much later period than that of Ralph de Diceto. Their authenticity was denied as early as 1399 by Bishop Braybrooke, cf. Stubbs, W, Radulphi de Diceto decani Lundoniensis opera historica (Rolls Series, London 1876) I, lxviif. The genuine statute on the canons’ residence issued under Ralph's deanship in 1192 (ed. Stubbs, op. cit. II, lxix–lxxiii) is entirely different and does of course not mention any cardinales. Lisieux evidently delighted in attributing undatable ordinances of the past to Diceto, cf. Stat. 6, 28; 7, 3 (109, 124 Simpson) etc.—On Lisieux as continuator of Baldock see Simpson, Registrum xxi.Google Scholar

86 See the variants to Stat. 3, 34: duo minores prebendati] qui cardinales appellantur add. A, cardinales BF in marg.—listed without comment by Simpson 48 n. 2.Google Scholar

87 For details see Bresslau, Urkundenlehre I, 211ff.Google Scholar

88 The contrary is suggested, though very cautiously, by Klewitz, Entstehung 132.Google Scholar

89 For the distinction between the septem and the forenses see ch. III at n. 31 supra. Klewitz 133 assumes that the Seven were a sort of standing committee of the provincial synods; but any special role of the cardinal bishops in synods is not warranted by the sources before the eleventh century, cf. the examples in Sägmüller, Cardinäle 40f. See also Dumas, A. in Fliche-Martin, Histoire de l'Église 7 (1940) 156.Google Scholar

90 Cf. note 38 supra for instances under Hadrian II and John VIII.Google Scholar

91 Cf. ch. V at nn. 74ff. infra. Google Scholar

92 See e.g. Brooke, Z. N., introduction to CMH 5 (1929) viii; Whitney, J. P., ‘The Reform of the Church,’ ibid. 30; Dumas, op. cit. 159.—Already Le Cointe, Instil. et rang 34, considered the Roman cardinalate since Leo IX an institution entirely different in its scope from the functions of earlier cardinales, in Rome or elsewhere.Google Scholar

93 Bonizo, Liber ad amicum 5: ‘Interea Romae episcopi et cardinales et abbates, per simoniacam haeresim ordinati, deponebantur. Et ibi ex diversis provinciis alii ordinabantur’ etc. (ed. Dümmler, E., MGH Libelli de lite 1, Hannover 1891, p. 588 lines 18–20). Cf. Sägmüller, Cardinäle 25; Brooke loc. cit. Google Scholar

94 Cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 117Google Scholar

95 See the studies of Sägmüller and Klewitz, passim. The embittered controversy between Wenck, K. and Sägmüller is more concerned with the later evolution, especially of the thirteenth century. See the various criticisms, rebuttals and rejoinders: Wenck, in Theologische Literaturzeitung 23 (1898) 113–6; 205; Götttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 1900, pp. 139–75; Sägmüller, in Theol. Literaturzeit. 23, 204–5; Theologische Quartalschrift 80 (1898) 596–614; 83 (1901) 45–93; 88 (1906) 595–615.Google Scholar

96 Lateran Synod of 1059 (ed. Weiland, L., MGH Const. 1, Hannover 1893, pp. 539–41) The chief prerogatives of the cardinal bishops were: designation of the candidate (cc. 3–4); in cases of emergency, election of the Pope at any place outside of Rome, together with whatever number of Roman clerics and laymen they might be able to muster (c. 7). The old controversy as to whether the ‘papal’ or the ‘royal’ text (541–6 Weiland) of the decree is the genuine one has long since been settled in favor of the former. For a summary of arguments see Fliche, A., La réforme grégorienne I (Louvain-Paris 1924) 314–22; Whitney, CMH 5, 37 Other problems of textual criticism, as e.g. those discussed by Michel, A., Papstwahl und Königsrecht (Munich 1936); id. ‘Zum Papstwahlpactum von 1059,’ Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 59 (1939) 290–351; Holtzmann, R., ‘Zum Papstwahldekret von 1059,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 27 (1938) 135–53, may be passed over for the purposes of the present study.Google Scholar

97 For the right of subscription see Sägmüller, Cardinäle 70f. 216f.; Bresslau, Urkundenlehre II, 52; 54; Klewitz, Entstehung 167 (An allegedly older example, JL 3802 [A.D. 980], cited by Sägmüller 46 n. 1 and Bresslau 52 n. 2, is however spurious: see Kehr, IP 5, 133 num. 1).—Advisory functions, esp. assent to alienation of church property: Sägmüller 74; Klewitz 139 n. 5; Zema, D. B., ‘The Houses of Tuscany and of Pierleone in the Crisis of Rome,’ Traditio 2 (1944) 160.—Judicial rights: see the Descriptio sanctuar. Later eccl. as quoted at n. 111 infra. Google Scholar

98 Cf. Sägmüller 41; 235f.; Kehr, P, ‘Zur Geschichte Wiberts von Ravenna II,’ Sitzungsber, der Preuss. Akad. der Wiss. 1921, II, 973–88; and in particular Klewitz 167–75.Google Scholar

99 Anselm of Lucca, Coll. can. 6, 12–3 (272–3 Thaner); Deusdedit, Coll. can. 1, 168–9 (107 Wolf von Glanvell). Cf. Sägmüller 133f.; Klewitz 165 (with incorrect references in n. 3); Michel, Papstwahlpactum 336, 354. The alterations made by Anselm and Deusdedit do not affect the Lateran decree of 1059 (as Klewitz 165 and 175 seems to assume, confusing them with the ‘royal’ or Guibertine forgery), but a synodal letter sent out by Nicholas II after the council (Synodica generalis JL 4405–6) and the Lateran Synod of 1060 (JL 4431a). The significant variants in the two canonists are: Syn. gen. c. 1 (547, 9 Weiland): eorum (sc. cardinalium episcoporum)] cardinalium eiusdem Ans. Deusd.—Conc. Lat. 1060 c. 4 (551, 5 Weiland): cardinalium episcoporum] cardinalium Ans. Deusd. (see also Weiland's remarks, ed. cit. 546, 550). The texts as altered by Anselm were adopted by Bonizo, Vita chr. 4, 87 (156, 14–5 Perels) and Gratian D. 79 cc. 1 and 9, not however by Ivo, Decretum 5, 80 (PL 161, 352B).Google Scholar

100 Contra philargyriam c. 7 (PL 145, 540B); see also ep. 1, 20 (PL 144, 258D). Cf. Sägmüiler, Cardinäle 160.Google Scholar

101 See ch. III at nn. 35–9 supra. Google Scholar

102 Montecassino: Abbot elect Frederic (the future Pope Stephen IX) is made cardinal priest with the title of St. Chrysogonus in 1057 (Kehr, IP 8, 138 num. 77); Abbot elect Desiderius (the future Victor III), cardinal priest with the title of St. Cecilia in 1058 (ibid. 141 num. 87); Abbot Oderisius, cardinal with the same title in 1088 (ibid. 151 num. 132). Abbot Odoric of Vendǒme becomes cardinal priest with the title of St. Prisca in 1066 (JL 4594); and Cardinal Richard (title unknown) is made Abbot of St. Victor, Marseille, in 1079 (JL 5143–4).—Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 333, 335; Gregory VII, Reg. 7, 7–8 (ed. Caspar, MGH Epp. sel. 2, 468–70); Klewitz, Entstehung 117, 162, 173, 213, 218. Note however that the older opinion, according to which all abbots of Vendǒme since the days of Odoric were ‘born’ cardinals of the Roman Church (thus e.g. Hinschius I, 334; Sägmüller 200), was based on the spurious privileges which Abbot Geoffrey had fabricated early in the twelfth century: cf. Meinert, H., ‘Die Fälschungen Gottfrieds von Vendǒme,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung 10 (1928) 232–325; Klewitz 205. The arrogated ‘inheritable’ cardinalate became a reality only in 1205 under Innocent III who, deceived by the forged evidence presented to him, granted a privilege to this effect (Potthast, Regesta pont. Rom. Berlin 1874, num. 2628; cf. PL 215, 749A–B).Google Scholar

103 Klewitz 117.—But genuine appointments of foreign bishops or archbishops as Roman cardinal priests did not occur before Alexander III, in 1165 (cf. Hinschius I, 335). Allegedly earlier instances must be rejected. When Benedict VIII in 1012 (JL 3989) granted to Archbishop Waltrad of Magdeburg the distinction to have ‘inter cardinales episcopos nostre sedis consortium', this meant but equal rank with the cardinal bishops and precedence before any other bishop, not appointment to a suburbicarian see (Hinschius I, 332f.; contra Sägmüller, Cardinäle 200 n. 3). When Leo IX appointed Archbishop Hermann of Cologne in 1052 (JL 4271) chancellor of the Roman Church—Hermann's predecessor, Archbishop Pilgrim, had held the same office, cf. Bresslau, Urkundenlehre I, 219—and gave him the church of St. John before the Latin Gate in benefice, this did not involve any cardinalate; the said church was not even among the twenty-eight tituli (Hinschius I, 333, Sägmüller 200. Moreover, JL 4271 is suspect of copious interpolations, cf. Bresslau I, 220 n. 2; 231f.). Also the grant in benefice of the cella of Ss. quatuor coronati to Archbishop Theodoric of Treves in 975 (Benedict VII JL 3779: PL 137, 318C) did not make the archbishop a priest of this title nor a cardinal. If any foreign bishop ever was cardinal before the time of Alexander III, this could only have been Bishop Stephen of Metz, cf. Gesta episcoporum Metensium, contin. I an. 1120: ‘. Hic Calixti (II) ex sorore nepos in urbe Romana ab eodem pontifice summo consecratus est et tarn pallii dignitate quam cardinalis titulo honoratus’ (ed. Waitz, MGH Script. 10, Hannover 1852, p. 544 lines 14–7; cf. Hinschius I, 637). But the reliability of the Continuator I of the Gesta, who wrote after 1180, is often marred ‘sive negligentia sive nimio Metensis ecclesiae studio’ (Waitz 532).Google Scholar

104 Subscriptions etc. of archpriests of Roman (parish) churches from 1017 to 1160 are listed by Hinschius I, 378 n. 5. Among these, we find e.g. (1081) ‘Johannes archipresbyter de s. Caecilia’ This was one of the tituli belonging to St. Peter's basilica. For parishes which were not cardinal titles see also the documents of Urban II in Kehr, IP 1, 72 num. 3 (cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 122f.) and ibid. 7 num. 11: ‘tituli et diaconiae et parrochiae’ (ed. Kehr as cited n. 7 supra).Google Scholar

105 JL 4736; Kehr, IP 1, 7 num. 9. Cf. ch. III n. 36 supra. Google Scholar

106 Pseudo-Anacletus (JK °4): ‘Haec vero apostolica sedes cardo et caput ut factum est a Domino et non ab alio constituta, et sicut cardine hostium regitur, sic huius sanctae sedis auctoritate omnes ecclesiae Domino disponente reguntur’ (éd. Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et capitula Angilramni, Leipzig 1863, p. 84). Cf. Phillips, Kirchenr VI, 45f. Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 315 n. 2. The canon passed on into Gratian: D. 22 c. 2 §6.Google Scholar

107 JL 4302 c. 32: ‘ Et sicut cardo immobilis permanens ducit et reducit ostium, sic Petrus et sui successores liberum de omni ecclesia habent iudicium .; unde clerici eius cardinales dicuntur, cardini utique illi quo cetera moventur vicinius adhaerentes’ (Mansi 19, 653B). Almost all authors who wrote on cardinals have quoted this passage.Google Scholar

108 We do not mean to say that interpolations and alterations of texts are rare in Deusdedit. The contrary has been shown by P Fournier, ‘Les collections canoniques romaines de l'époque de Grégoire VII,’ Mémoires de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 41 (1920) 353 n. 2; 354–7 But if we look in Fournier's list for interpolations which have the nature of an author's personal dicta, the number is very low and the passage here quoted is the most conspicuous among them.Google Scholar

109 Deusd. 2, 160: ‘ Vnde deriuatiue sacerdotes et leuite summi pontificis cardinales dicuntur eo, quod ipsi quasi forma facti gregi sacris predicationibus et preclaris operibus populum Dei regant atque adregant atque ad regni celestis auditum moueant et inuitent. Sicut a basibus, que sunt fulture columnarum a fundamento surgentes, basilei idest reges dicuntur, quia populum regunt: ita et cardinales deriuatiue dicuntur a cardinibus ianue, qui tarn regunt et mouent, quod plebem Dei, ut superius diximus, doctrinis Sanctis ad amorem Dei moueant ’ (267–8 Wolf von Glanvell). This goes far beyond St. Peter Damian, who was wont to emphasize chiefly the pre-eminence of the cardinal bishops, cf. epp. 1, 20; 2, 1 (PL 144, 258D–259B; 253–5). The signal difference of Deusdedit's from Pope Leo's definition was pointed out by Sägmüller, Cardinäle 124; Hirsch, E., ‘Die rechtliche Stellung des Papstes und der römischen Kirche nach Kardinal Deusdedit,’ AKKR 88 (1908) 621; Grauert, H., ‘Magister Heinrich der Poet,’ Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akad. der Wiss. phil.-hist. Klasse 27 (1912) 235–42.Google Scholar

110 Some instances of this attitude are cited by Sägmüller 114, 133f. 185, 227, 239; Hirsch, op. cit. 596, 621f. Here follows a more complete list: In the prologue, Deusdedit points to the significance of the correspondence between St. Cyprian and the Roman priests and deacons during the vacancy of the Roman See (p. 2 lines 3–12 Wolf von Glanvell; the texts of the letters in Coll. 2 cc. 121–4; 126–9). Many programmatic theses are found in the capitula preceding the collection proper: ‘Eosdem esse presbiteros quos episcopos, testimonii Petri et Pauli et Iohannis; Quod episcopi magis consuetudine quam dominica dispensatione presbiteris sint maiores; Quod apostoli presbiterorum usi sint consilio; Quod presbiteri, qui presunt, habeant ligandi et soluendi potestatem’ (p. 16 lines 9–13; 16 Wolf von Glanvell; cf. Coll. 2, 138–43, quoting the well known texts of St. Jerome); ‘Quod Romani pontifices presbiteros suos fratres et compresbiteros appellant’ (p. 16, 26–7; cf. Coll. 2, 46 from Pseudo-Isidore); ‘Quod Sardicense concilium Romane ecclesie presbiteros appellet laterales iudices’ (p. 16, 30–1; in fact, the Council of Serdica c. 3b [al. 6 or 7] has only: ‘mouerit episcopum Romanum ut e latere suo praesbyterum mittat': ed. Turner, Monum. 1, 2, iii, p. 461, 16–7; cf. Deusd. Coll. 1, 27); ‘Quod Romani pontifices tantum cum concilio cleri sui damnauerunt sepe quos oportuit’ (p. 16, 32–3; cf. Coll. 2, 49; 106); ‘Quod absente Romano pontifice clerus eius quorumlibet causas diiudicet’ (p. 17, 1–2; referring to St. Cyprian, see supra); ‘Quod in principalibus festis cum Romano pontifice cardinales presbiteri missam celebrent’ (p. 17, 20–1; cf. Coll. 2, 114 on concelebration: see ch. III at n. 30 supra); ‘Inde Romani clerici locum antiquorum habent patriciorum’ (p. 17, 27; cf. Coll. 4, 1: Donation of Constantine); ‘De presbiteris qui non sunt cardinales; Quod hi qui non sunt presbiteri cardinis in sinodo cathédrales sedes non habeant; Quod cardinalibus non debeat preponi non cardinalis’ (p. 17, 36–9; cf. Coll. 2, 14: Conc. Neocaes. c. 13, see nn. 5–7 supra); ‘Quod absque episcoporum concilio cardinalis urbis Rome remoueri non debet’ (p. 19, 10–1; as contrasted with the thesis: ‘Quod [Romanus pontifex] absque sinodo episcoporum damnauerit episcopos,’ p. 10, 10 [cf. Coll. 1, 126; 2, 60; 106; 155]).—In the collection itself, we note: the alteration of Nicholas II's decrees on elections, in favor of the entire cardinal clergy (Coll. 1, 168–9; see n. 99 supra); the rubric of Coll. 2, 41: ‘Quod singule Romane ecclesie singulis cardinalibus ab initio commisse sint’ (p. 205); the inclusion of the spurious Constitutum Silvestri on trials of cardinals (Coll. 2, 43–4; cf. Appendix D infra); a signal interpolation in the papal profession of faith, LD 83 (p. 181 Rozière, 92 Sickel): ‘. Si qua uero emiserint contra canonicam disciplinam, [filiorum meorum consilio] emendare ’ (Coll. 2, 110; interpolation not noticed by Wolf von Glanvell 236, 21); the definition of the cardinalate as quoted above (Coll. 2, 160); the revival of Stephen Ill's decree on elections (Coll. 2, 161–3; see ch. III n. 24 supra).Google Scholar

111 MS Vatic. Reg. 712, fol. 87v: ‘ praedicti VII episcopi debent assistere cum XXVIII cardinalibus totidem ecclesiis infra muros urbis Romae praesidentibus, qui potestatem obtinent iudicium faciendi super omnes episcopos totius Romani imperii in omnibus conciliis vel synodis quibuscunque accersiti vel praesentes fuerint’ (ed. Klewitz, Entstehung 123 n. 1; cf. 186).Google Scholar

112 For the gradually developing requirement of consent to papal acts see Sägmüller, Cardinäle 216f.; Bresslau, Urkundenlehre II, 55–61; for the beginnings of the Consistory, Sägmüller 46–58, 97f. (the earliest example under Paschal II: Klewitz, Entstehung 202f.). The right of papal election became reserved to the cardinals by Alexander III in 1179, Conc. III Later. c. 1.Google Scholar

1 Cf. the list of signatories in JL I, 657; Klewitz, Entstehung 184. For details see at nn. 100–1 infra. Google Scholar

2 Only few authors can be cited as exceptions from the rule: Buenner, L'ancienne liturgie rom. (ch. IV n. 68 supra) 270, who however puts the origin of the deacons’ cardinalate too late; Martin, V, Les cardinaux et la curie (ch. I n. 10 supra) 15; Molien, A., ‘Cardinal,’ Dictionn. de droit can. 2, 1312; Klewitz 183f.Google Scholar

3 Incorrect are the reasons advanced by Buenner loc. cit. (the deacons lacked the right of liturgical concelebration) and Klewitz loc. cit. (the deacons did not belong to any of the main basilicas of Rome). These opinions are connected with the two authors’ respective explanations of the term cardinalis, cf. ch. III, nn. 28, 30.Google Scholar

4 See the summaries of the early history of the diaconate and archdeaconate, with bibliographical references, in Forget, J., ‘Diacres,’ DThC 4, 703–31; H. Thurston, ‘Deacons,’ Cath. Encycl. 4, 647–53; Amanieu, A., ‘Archidiacre,’ Dictionn. de droit can. 1, 948ff. Kurtscheid, Hist. iur can. 53–6; 160–4. On the ancient diaconus episcopi in particular, A. Leder, Die Diakonen der Bischöfe und Presbyter (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, ed. Stutz 23–4, Stuttgart 1905).Google Scholar

5 Act. 6, 2–3. The are not expressly called deacons in the Acts, but already by the early Fathers, with regard to Act. 6, 1; 2: The earliest canonical statute limiting the deacons’ number to seven for each diocese is Conc. Neocaes. c. 14.—Cf. J. Zeiller, in Fliche-Martin, Hist. de l'Égl. 1, 379; 2, 392.Google Scholar

6 LP I, 148.—The often advanced opinion that Pope Fabian's seven regiones comprised each two of the fourteen Augustan (civil) regiones does not agree with the topographical facts; cf. Duchesne, LP I, 148 n. 3; Halphen, L., Études sur l'administration de Rome au moyen ǎge, 751–1252 (Bibliothèque de l'École des Hautes Études 166, Paris 1907) 7f.; Poole, R. L., Lectures on the Papal Chancery (Cambridge 1915) 8; Harnack, Anfänge der inneren Organis. (ch. III n. 4 supra) 963f. 967–9. Cf. also Leder, op. cit. 178.Google Scholar

7 Cf. the often cited Conc. Rom. 499: ‘Cyprianus diaconus ecclesiae s. Romanae regionis VII his subscripsi’ etc. (653f. Thiel; Mansi 8, 237C).Google Scholar

8 Ordo I Rom. num. 1: ‘Primo omnium observandum est septem esse regiones ecclesiastici ordinis urbis Romae; et unaquaeque regio singulos habet diaconos regionarios’ (3 Mabillon). Cf. Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 322 n. 4; Klewitz, Entstehung 179.Google Scholar

9 Duchesne, LP I, 364 n. 7; Zeiller, op. cit. 2, 392; Harnack, op. cit. 967f.Google Scholar

10 See the convincing deductions of Duchesne, ‘Les titres presbytéraux et les diaconies,’ Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 7 (École française de Rome 1887) 218. Cf. H. Leclerq, ‘Diaconies,’ DACL 4, 1 (1920) 735. Klewitz, Entstehung 183 missed this fundamental point (cf. n. 3 supra).—If not ancient, at least medieval testimonies exist to the intitulatio of the seven deacons in the Lateran, e.g. the Descriptio sanctuar Later. eccl. and Benedict VIII JL 4024 (notes 40, 91 infra).Google Scholar

11 Leder, Die Diakonen der Bischöfe 179f. 196 n. 1.Google Scholar

12 U Stutz, ‘Die römischen Titelkirchen und die Verfassung der stadtrömischen Kirche unter Papst Fabian,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 9 (1919) 310.Google Scholar

12a But Kirsch, Titelkirchen (ch. III n. 5 supra) 204ff. has shown that the cemeterial administration was rather in the hands of the presbyterate of the titles.Google Scholar

13 Cf. the Councils of Arles 314 c. 15; I Nicaea c. 18: Laodicaea c. 20; the Statuta ecclesiae antiqua cc. 37–41 (1, 145 Bruns); Gelasius I JK 636 c. 7 (366 Thiel); the well-known complaints of Jerome, St., e.g. ep. 146 (ed. R. Hilberg, CSEL 56 [1918] 308–10); and Pseudo-Augustine, Quaest. vet. et novi testant. c. 101 (ed. Souter, A., CSEL 50 [1908] 193–8).—Harnack, op. cit. 972 tries to use some of these texts as arguments for his and E. Hatch's theory of the two types of constitution (diaconal-episcopal as against presbyteral) in the Ancient Church.Google Scholar

14 See e.g. Jerome, St., Comm. in Ezech. 14, 48: ‘Certe qui primus fuerit ministrorum iniuriam putat si presbyter ordinetur’ (PL 54, 484B); Leo the Great JK 487 c. 2; 489 c. 1; 493 c. 4; 509 c. 2; Greg. Reg. 2, 20–2 (JE 1173–5).—On the case of the archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople in the correspondence of Leo the Great see Silva-Tarouca, C., ‘Nuovi studi sulle antiche lettere dei Papi,’ Gregorianum 12 (1931) 583–90 who advances serious arguments against the authenticity of JK 487–9 (= epp. 111–3 Ballerini).Google Scholar

15 This was affirmed in passing by Mabillon, Mus. ital. II, xvii; cf. also H. Achelis, ‘Diakonen,’ Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche 4 (1897) 602; Forget, ‘Diacres,’ DThC 4, 711; Bilz, J., ‘Diakon,’ LThK 3, 274; Kurtscheid, Hist. iur. can. 54.—Forget (followed by Bilz and Kurtscheid) claims that these deacons were called stationarii and that about the year 520 their total number was one hundred (source? the reference to Mabillon loc. cit. is not to the point).Google Scholar

16 Harnack, Anfänge der inneren Organis. 987 For criticism see Stutz, op. cit. 303f.Google Scholar

17 Sacram. Gelas. 1, 20 (ed. Wilson, H. A., The Gelasian Sacramentary, Liber sacramentorum Romanae ecclesiae, Oxford 1894, p. 22); cf. Muratori, Liturgia Romana vetus (Venice 1748) I, 512.Google Scholar

18 E.g. those edited by Martène, De antiq. eccl. rit. 1, 8, 11, nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 11 (II, 92, 108, 118, 140, 176 Antw.; II, 33, 38, 42, 50, 63 Ven.); Muratori, op. cit. II, 408; Gerbert, M., Monumenta veteris liturgiae Alemannicae (S. Blasii 1777–9) II, 40f. (= PL 138, 1004); also in the Codex s. Eligii and the related MSS, on which Dom Ménard based his edition (Paris 1642) of the Gregorian Sacramentary (= PL 78, 220f.—see also Ménard's annotations nn. 737–9). Variants from Gerbert and from Martène's Ordines 2–4 are given by Wilson, Gelasian Sacr 24f. It may be regretted that M. Andrieu has excluded the ‘Gelasian’ Ordo of ordination and its offsprings from his investigations on the early medieval Ordines Romani, with the exception of Gerbert's text and of Martène's Ordo VIII (cf. Andrieu, Ordines 21, 104, 180, and the numerous MSS referred to in the Index initiorum s.v. ‘Mensis primi, quarti, septimi'). But in the latter, the entire annuntiatio is missing (cf. Martène, op. cit. II, 142 Antw.; II, 51 Ven.). A critical appreciation of the various forms of the annuntiatio must therefore await further research; the reprint of Ménard's text and the synoptic table of the Gelasian and some other texts in P de Puniet, Le Pontifical Romain I (Louvain-Paris 1930) 282–5, 286–90, are no sufficient substitute for a critical discussion.Google Scholar

19 These prayers are derived from the so-called Missale Francorum (ed. Muratori, Lit. Rom. vet. II, 667), cf. Wilson, op. cit. 22, 24f. For Gallican elements in general see Wilson's introduction and all modern writers on the Sacr. Gelas. Google Scholar

20 Its historical and chronological relation to the considerably different Ordo of Saint-Amand (ed. Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien app. vii: a recueil excentrique in the words of Andrieu, Ordines 492) cannot be studied here.Google Scholar

21 Const. Silv. c. 6 (ed. Coustant, P, Epistolae Romanorum pontificum, Paris 1721, app. col. 48; Mansi 2, 625). For details see at nn. 57ff. infra. Baronius, Annales ecclesiastici an. 112 num. 9, though mistaken about the authenticity of the canon, gives a correct interpretation of its meaning.Google Scholar

22 LP I, 364. Cf. Duchesne ibid. n. 7; id. Les titres presbyter aux et les diaconies (n. 10 supra) 236; Sägmüller, Cardinäle 10.—Outside of Rome, diaconiae are found as early as the time of Gregory the Great, cf. Reg. 5, 25 for Pesaro (JE 1338); 10, 8 for Naples (JE 1775); 11, 17 for Ravenna (JE 1806) See Lestocquoi, J, ‘Administration de Rome et diaconies du VIe au IXe siècle,’ Rivista di archeologia cristiana 7 (1930) 265f. Google Scholar

23 LP I, 504 lines 18–9; 505, 27–506, 6; 509, 29–30; cf. Duchesne's commentary I, 364 n. 7; 519 n. 70; 520 nn. 79–81; 522 n. 110; Sägmüller loc. cit. and Lestocquoi op. cit. 262, 284–8.Google Scholar

24 LP II, 18ff. Cf. Duchesne's commentary II, 42 n. 74 and 43 n. 79; Les titres 237ff. Lestocquoi 288.Google Scholar

25 Thus the earlier writers and Phillips, Kirchemr. VI, 67–72; Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 322f.; Sägmüller, Cardinäle 10 and Cath. Encycl. 3, 334.Google Scholar

26 This was Duchesne's fundamental discovery, cf. LP I, 364 n. 7; ‘Les régions de Rome au moyen-ǎge,’ Mélanges d'archěol. et d'hist. 10 (1890) 144. It has been adopted since by Lestocquoi, op. cit. 267, 273; Klewitz, Entstehung 180f. 185f.; A. Dumas in Fliche-Martin, Hist. de l'Ěgl. 7, 158.Google Scholar

27 Duchesne, LP I, 364 n. 7 (a topographical survey is found in Les titres 237ff.).Google Scholar

28 Ordo I Rom. num. 4 (6 Mabillon); LD 95 (231 Rozière; 123 Sickel). Cf. Duchesne loc. cit.; Lestocquoi, op. cit. 276f. Klewitz, Entstehung 180. Earlier writers usually held that the pater or dispensator was only an assistant of the deacon in charge of the diaconia, cf. e.g. Mabillon, Mus. ital. I, 150; II, xvii; Phillips VI, 68f.; Hinschius I, 322. But the Ordo I Rom. clearly speaks of the pater diaconiae cum subdito sibi presbytero et mansionario.Google Scholar

29 Lestocquoi, op. cit. 281–3 goes too far, however, in deducing from certain inscriptions that the dispensatores or patres were originally laymen: their liturgical functions are unmistakably described in the Ordo 1 Rom. cit. See also the objections of Klewitz, ‘Montecassino in Rom,’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 28 (1937–8) 43 n. 2.Google Scholar

30 The only instance is found in a short list of the Popes from John X to John XV, by Archbishop Sigeric of Canterbury (c. 990): ‘ Item Iohannes tituli (sic) s. Mariae qui vocatur in Domnico (sic) sedit annos VIIII m. I d. V’ (John XII: 955–64); ‘Item Benedictus diaconiae s. Theodori sedit annos I et dimidium, dies XII’ (Benedict VI: 972–4), published by Duchesne, LP II, xv; cf. also Dumas loc. cit. (n. 26 supra).Google Scholar

31 Examples in Klewitz, Entstehung 186f.; also Quellen und Forsch. 28, 42f. Note also a document of 1017 in Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 378 n. 5.: ‘Petrus archipresbyter de diaconia s. Christi martyris Eustachii.'Google Scholar

32 Kehr, IP 1, 7 num. 11; text quoted from ed. Kehr (cf. ch. IV n. 7 supra) by Klewitz 187Google Scholar

33 Cf. Lestocquoi, op. cit. 262f. 267, 270.Google Scholar

34 Klewitz, Entstehung 181 (with references in n. 2); 185 n. 3 (for the time of Gregory VII).Google Scholar

35 Cf. Nicetas Paphlago, Vita s. Ignatii Constantinop.: (PG 104, 1225B)—both quoted by Phillips, Kirchenr, VI, 72 nn. 34–5; Hinschius I, 323 n. 4.Google Scholar

36 Duchesne, Les régions de Rome (n. 26 supra) 144. Klewitz, Entstehung 182f. tentatively suggests that this development may have begun at the time of Stephen III (but admits p. 185f. that this remains uncertain). Lestocquoi, op. cit. 273 puts the decisive period too late, at the twelfth century.Google Scholar

37 See the text from MS Vat. Reg. 712, fol. 87v in Klewitz, Entstehung 176.Google Scholar

38 ‘Isti XVIII diaconi totidem ecclesias habent infra muros civitatis’ (ibid.); fol. 88v: ‘Diacones sunt X et VIII. S. Mariae in Domnica, ubi est archidiaconatus ’ (120 Klewitz; Kehr, IP 1, 4).Google Scholar

39 Cf. Klewitz 176, 189f.—Consequently, the Descriptio fol. 88v classifies only five deaconries as palatine (palatii), the sixth being merged with the archdeaconate; the five are St. Lucia in Septisolio, Sts. Cosmas and Damian, St. Hadrian, St. George in Velabro, St. Mary in Cosmedin (in schola Graeca). The emendation ‘S. Theodori palatii', made by Kehr, IP I, 4 and Klewitz 120 (for the faulty reading ‘S. Theodorici’ in the MS) in order to bring up the number to six, is not warranted.Google Scholar

40 Descriptio fol. 87v: ‘qui in palatio legere debent evangelium et in ecclesia Lateranensi’ (176 Klewitz). The attempt of Fabre, P, Étude sur le Liber censuum de l'Église romaine (Paris 1892) 153 n. 1, to identify the palatine deacons with the seven iudices palatini is unfounded. Cf. Sägmüller, Cardinale 27 n. 1.Google Scholar

41 Klewitz 178–81; Dumas loc. cit. (n. 26 supra).Google Scholar

42 See e.g. Phillips VI, 71f.; Hinschius I, 323; Sägmüller, Cardinäle 10; Cath. Encycl. 3, 334. All these writers start from the incorrect assumption that originally there had been one diaconia in each of the seven regiones (see also Phillips VI, 67; Hinschius I, 312). Entirely gratuitous is an assertion by Panvini, De episcopatibus (ch. I n. 2 supra) 63; Victorelli in A. Chacon's Vitae et gesta summorum pontificum (ed. Ughelli, Rome 1630) I, 46; Tamagna, Origini I, 145, and others, to the effect that there had been fourteen (!) regional deacons and that Gregory III (731–41) had added four (!) palatine deacons.Google Scholar

43 On these twelve new regiones and their probable origin in the scholae militum of the Byzantine era see Duchesne, Les régions de Rome 126–34; LP II, 253 n. 7; Poole, Papal Chancery (n. 6 supra) 173–5; Halphen, Etudes sur l'admin, de Rome (n. 6 supra) 10–5. On the other hand, the addition of twelve regionarii might be simply the result of a policy of filling up the remaining diaconiae after six of them had been assigned to the diaconi palatini.Google Scholar

44 Vita s. Greg. 3, 7 (PL 75, 133).Google Scholar

45 Thus e.g. Hinschius, Kirchenr, I, 312, 323; Kurtscheid, Hist. iur can. 244.Google Scholar

46 As suggested by Achelis, Realencykl. (n. 15 supra) 4, 602. Caspar, E., Geschichte des Papsttums II (Tübingen 1933) 404 n. 8 wrongly refers this remark to diacones regionarii.Google Scholar

47 Kleiner, De orig. et antiq. card. (ch. I, n. 2 supra) §19 (p. 454 Schmidt); Nardi, Dei parrochi II (Pesaro 1830) 403 n. 1; Caspar, Papsttum II, 777; Klewitz, Entstehung 183.Google Scholar

48 The phrase ‘quorum cum decern consecravit’ is awkward Latinity, to say the least. Grammatically, the translation ‘of whom he ordained, while he had as many (redundaret) as nineteen if taken all together (plenitudine)’ cannot be challenged. The entire passage, however, is badly composed and invites misinterpretation: in the preceding paragraphs, John the Deacon speaks of various Roman priests, subdeacons and monks whom St. Gregory promoted to the episcopate, adding that in this respect the Pope spared his deacons ‘somewhat’ (quodammodo). Now, if no full stop is made after that statement—the Maurist edition has a colon—the reader is invited to believe that the words ‘ipse Bonifacium consecravit’ likewise refer to episcopal consecrations and modify the quodammodo (in this way they are understood by Sägmüller, Cardinäle 194). But if that were true, the sentence ‘solis diaconibus parcebat’ would lose its sense, because also for each of the other classes of clerics promoted to bishoprics not more than three or four names are mentioned (three priests, four subdeacons, three monks). Besides, there are no historical records of a bishop Florentius or a bishop Epiphanius under St. Gregory, and the deacon Boniface became Pope in 607 (see the following chart, num. 11). Therefore, either the entire passage of the Vita on the deacons has to be discarded as untrustworthy, or it must be read as referring to the promotions of the three said clerics to deaconship (as is done by Peitz, Lib. diurn. 61; Caspar, Papsttum II, 404 n. 8). This interpretation is borne out in fact by St. Gregory's register; see the following chart.Google Scholar

49 The figures in the chart indicate the first and the last mention of the several deacons in the letters, with year and number. The period during which any one belonged with certainty to the college of deacons is indicated by a straight line; dots (‥) are used where the duration of a diaconate after its last (or before its first) mention in the Register remains unascertainable.Google Scholar

50 As the diagram shows, the presence of seven deacons is not documented by written evidence for the years 1–2, 5–8 (9?), 10–14. Thus there would be room, theoretically speaking, for many more—under the fanciful supposition that none of those mentioned in the Register was a deacon before his first appearance in the letters, and that every one died immediately after his last mention in a letter.Google Scholar

51 The contrary, viz. that John possessed such information from archival sources lost to us, was held—not only with regard to the deacons but for every point on which the Vita is at variance with the Register—by Peitz, Lib. diurn. 58ff. esp. 60, 61 n. 2, 62 n. 3; id. Das Register Gregors I. (Ergänzungshefte zu den Stimmen der Zeit, 2nd ser. 2, Freiburg 1917). This hypothesis has been rightly rejected by most writers, cf. e.g. Posner, E., ‘Das Register Gregors I.’ NA43, 2 (1921) 288–93; Caspar, Papsttum II, 329 n. 3 (with further bibliography); 404 n. 8.—If the differences between Johannes Diaconus and the Register (which, after all, is avowedly his chief source) consisted only of a surplus of information in the Vita, Peitz’ theory could be defended. But John not only gives at times less than the Register (e.g. on the deacon Peter, see the text above) but sometimes manifestly blunders: he names e.g. (Vita 3, 7) among the Roman priests whom Gregory ordained bishops, Bonifacium Rhegii. Now, Bishop Boniface of Reggio appears in the letters from 592 on (Reg. 3, 4) and ‘Bonifatius presbyter titulo s. Xisti’ subscribes as late as 600 the acts of a Roman synod (Reg. 11, 15 275, 17 Hartmann)Google Scholar

52 See the preceding note, also ch. II n. 36; IV n. 43 supra. Google Scholar

53 For the various editions see the Bollandists’ Bibliotheca hagiographica latina I (Brussels 1898–9) num. 3641; Potthast, A., Bibliotheca medii aevi (2nd ed. Berlin 1896) II, 1349, where also some MSS are mentioned. For collations made of some MSS see the Bollandists’ Acta Sanctorum mart. II (3rd ed. Paris-Rome 1865) 121; the Maurists’ praefatio generalis to the Works of St. Gregory (= PL 75, 17–20: criticism of Goussainville's edition, Paris 1675) and their preface to the Vita (num. 12 = PL 75, 39: on MSS collated and consulted).Google Scholar

54 The classical proof of the spurious nature of the Constitutum remains the dissertation of P Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum pontificum (Paris 1721) app. cols. 37–44 (reprinted PL 8, 841–5); see also his praefatio generalis pp. lxxxvf. (num. 97–9) and, of modern authors, in particular Maassen, F, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande (Graz 1870) 411ff.; Duchesne, LP I, cxxxiii–v. The first to deny the authenticity of the decree, at least in its Pseudo-Isidorian form (n. 63 infra) was Hincmar of Reims, De presbyteris criminosis cc. 21–4 (PL 125, 1103–6). Cf. Coustant 39–40; Mansi 2, 615 n. 1.Google Scholar

55 Cf. Duchesne loc. cit.; id. L'église au VI e siècle (Paris 1925) 124; Pfeilschifter, G., Der Ostgotenkönig Theoderich der Grosse und die katholische Kirche (Kirchengeschichtliche Studien 3, 1–2, Münster 1896) 65; Silva-Tarouca, K., ‘Beiträge zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Papstbriefe des 4.–6. Jahrhunderts,’ Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 43 (1919) 665. The suggestion of a later date, seventh or eighth century, made by Gaudenzi, A., Nonantola 335, 337f. 353f. 359f. was rightly rejected by Levison, W, ‘Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvester-Legende,’ Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle (Studi e Testi 38, Rome 1924) II, 181 n. 4.Google Scholar

56 For these collections and the MSS by which they are represented, see Maassen, Geschichte 411ff. 504ff. (506); 512ff. (515); 526ff. (530); Duchesne, LP I, cxxxiv–vii (with a stemma of later MSS: p. cxxxv and n. 1); Mommsen, MGH Gesta Rom. pont. 1 (Berlin 1898) xxii; Gaudenzi, op. cit. passim; Turner, Monum. 1, 2, i, p. viii; id. ‘Chapters in the History of Latin MSS of Canons: VI,’ Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1931) 9–20; Silva-Tarouca, op. cit. 664f.; Schiaparelli, L., Il codice 490 delta Biblioteca capitolare di Lucca e la scuola scriltoria lucchese (Studi e Testi 36, Rome 1924) 15; Schwartz, Acta conc. oecum. 2, 2, ii, p. vi ff. and xv; id. book review, ZRG Kan. Abt. 20 (1931) 599f.; id. ‘Die Kanonessammlungen der alten Reichskirche,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 25 (1936) 53ff.; Lowe, E., Codices latini antiquiores 1 (Oxford 1934) 34 and 44; Wurm, H., Studien und Texte zur Dekretalensammlung des Dionysius Exiguus (Kanonistische Studien und Texte ed. Koeniger 16, Bonn 1939) 87–9; 265; id. ‘Decretales selectae ex antiquissimis Romanorum Pontificum epistulis decretalibus,’ Apollinaris 12 (1939) 44; 47Google Scholar

57 A critical edition does not exist. The parallel edition from two slightly different MSS by P Crabbe (Cologne 1538) is reprinted in Labbe, Hardouin, etc. and in Mansi 2, 217ff. The latter adds variant readings from a Codex Lucensis, probably MS Lucca 490 of the Coll. Sanblasiana. The best edition is that by Coustant, Epp. Rom. pont. app. 43–52, from MS Paris, B.N. lat. 3836 (ol. Colbert 784; cf. Coustant p. lxxix, app. 37–8). Eusebius Amort, Elementa juris canonici veteris et moderni (Ulm 1757; used ed. Ferrara 1763) I, 378–85 printed the Constitutum as part of his (generally overlooked) edition of the Coll. Diessensis (8th–9th cent.; MS Munich lat. 5508). Coustant's text is given above; of the variants recorded by him, or resulting from Mansi and Amort, only the following may be noted as they bear on the ‘cardinal’ passages:—(c. 3) cardine constructus] cardine constrictus Mansi 1, in cardine constitutus Amort, cardinalis Mansi Luc.—(c. 11) diaconus cardinalis] subdiaconus cardinalis var Coust. Mansi 2.—The Coll. Theatina omits in c. 3 the critical words and reads: ‘ diaconus autem 〈nisi〉 in XXXVII non condemnabitur’ (ed. Duchesne, LP I, exxxiv, col. 2 n. 1).Google Scholar

58 For the relation of c. 11 to c. 6 of the pseudo-Sylvestrian ‘Synod of the 275 (al. 270) Bishops’ (ed. Poisnel, Ch., ‘Un concile apocryphe du pape saint Sylvestre,’ Mélanges d'archéol. et d'hist. 6 [1886] 5; cf. Mansi 2, 1083A) and to LP I, 171, 15ff. (on St. Sylvester's decree concerning interstices) see Duchesne, LP I, pp. cxxxix and 190 n. 25 (counting Sun. c. 6 as c. 5).Google Scholar

59 See Appendix C infra. Google Scholar

60 On the latter canon (c. 7) Panvini, De episcopatibus etc. (ch. I n. 2 supra) 63 based his conviction that originally the archdeacon alone among the Roman deacons had been cardinal.Google Scholar

61 Gesta Polychronii c. 2 = Gesta de Xysti purgatione c. 8: ‘Et subscripserunt episcopi vero LXXVI et duo diacones cardinales Romani et tres presbyteri ’ (Coustant, Epp. Rom. pont. app. col. 122; Mansi 5, 1073A).Google Scholar

62 Excerpta ex synodalibus gestis s. Silvestri cc. 2–4 (449 Hinschius).—Duchesne, LP I, cxxxv n. 1 and Grisar, H., History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages (author. engl. trans. London 1911–2) III, 218 erroneously deny a transmission of the Const. Silv. in Pseudo-Isidore.Google Scholar

63 Excerpta c. 3: ‘Presbyter autem cardinal is nisi quadraginta quatuor testibus non damnabitur, diaconus cardinarius constructus urbis Romae nisi in XXXVI non condemp-nabitur. ’ For details see Appendix D infra. Google Scholar

64 Not only to the glossators and the authors of the sixteenth century, but even to some modern writers: e.g. McBride, Incard. and Excard. (ch. I n. 12 supra) 5; Pisano, P, ‘Cardinale,’ Enciclopedia Italiana 8 (1930) 989.Google Scholar

65 C. 2 q. 7 cc. 2, 10 + C. 2 q. 4 c. 2 (= Const. Silv. c. 3); D. 93 c. 5 (= Const. Silv. c. 7). The complex textual history of these canons is by no means clarified in the apparatus of Friedberg's edition. For Const. Silv. c. 3, the Pseudo-Isidorian tradition is represented by at least five different families of texts, the archetypes of which are the Coll. Anselmo dedicate, Burchard's Decretum, Ivo's Tripartita, the Coll. V librorum, and the Coll. LXXIV titulorum respectively (Gratian belongs to the last mentioned group); there are further three traditions independent from Pseudo-Isidore (Angilramnus, Cardinal Atto, and the Frankish capitularies). For Const. Silv. c. 7, three families of texts are found, headed by the Coll. Ans. dedicata, Burchard, and Anselm of Lucca respectively (the latter being the ancestor of Gratian's text). Const. Silv. c. 6 is only transmitted by Deusdedit 2, 43. See appendix D infra. Google Scholar

66 Ann. Fuld. an. 885: ‘ et omnium presbyterorum et diaconorum cardinalium scripta destinavit’ (ed. Kurze, F, MGH Script. rer. germ. Hannover 1891, p. 104; cf. Pertz, MGH Script. 1, Hannover 1826, p. 402, 48–50) The pertinent portion of the Annals was written before 888 by Meginhardus, cf. Kurze p. vii.Google Scholar

67 Liudprand, Historia Ottonis c. 1: ‘ nuntios s. Romanae ecclesiae, Iohannem videlicet cardinalem diaconem et Azonem scriniarium regi destinavit’ (ed. Becker, J., Die Werke Liudprands von Cremona, 3rd ed. MGH Script. rer. germ. Hannover-Leipzig 1915, p. 159 lines 7–11; cf. ed. Pertz, MGH Script. 3, Hannover 1839, p. 340, 6–8; repeated in E. Dümmler, MGH Script. rer. germ. Hannover 1877). And so forth, we read of Roman cardinal deacons in cc. 6, 10, 20, 21, 22 (pp. 163, 1 and 13–4; 166, 26–8; 167, 5–11 and 20–1; 173, 24–5; 174, 5–7 and 23 Becker) and even in the inserted ‘original’ documents: the imperial synod of November 963 (c. 9: 166, 3–5 Becker), the speech of the Emperor (c. 11: 168, 1 Becker), his letter to Pope John XII (c. 12: 168, 33–4 Becker), and the synodal message to the Pope (c. 14: 171, 1 Becker). But we must remember that the ‘originals’ are all studded with interpolations in Liudprand's customary, flowery style; see Becker's notes, passim, and his introduction, p. xxi.Google Scholar

68 References to sources are found in Klewitz, Entstehung 181 n. 2.Google Scholar

69 It is impossible to list here every reference or address to a Roman deacon in the papal letters of the early Middle Ages. They may be easily checked in the Indices of the several volumes of Epistolae in the MGH (but it should be noted that these Indices sometimes use the incorrect lemma cardinalis diaconus). As for Roman writers, see in particular Johannes Diaconus, Vita s. Greg. 3, 7 (discussed in sect. 2 supra); see also the Greek writers quoted n. 35 supra. Google Scholar

70 Texts ch. III n. 24 supra. Google Scholar

71 Ed. Mabillon, Mus. ital. II, 89–94; Martène, De antiq. eccl. rit. 1, 8, 11, 9 (II, 151–3 Antw.; II, 54–5 Ven.).—The chronological problems connected with Ordo IX (Andrieu's no. XXXVI) are unsolved. Most authors attribute it to the early ninth century; cf. the references in Klewitz, ‘Die Krönung des Papstes,’ ZRG Kan. Abt. 30 (1941) 111 n. 50. The assumption of Kösters, J., Studien zu Mabillons römischen Ordines (Münster 1905) 2f. that its section on the papal consecration and inthronization had been inserted only at the time of Leo IX (1048–54) has been rightly rejected by most writers. The thesis is disavowed by the MSS; and particularly the clause ‘nam episcopus esse non poterit’ would hardly have been written under a Pope who formerly had been bishop of Toul. If the passage is genuine—as we must assume until the contrary be proved from the earliest MS, St. Gall 614 (9th cent. second half: Andrieu, Ordines 487)—one would be inclined to assign the text to the agitated times after the pontificate of Formosus (891–6). For the reasons which induced the later canonists, Anselm of Lucca 6, 43 (289 Thaner) and Deusdedit 2, 113 (240, 20 Wolf von Glanvell) to suppress this passage, see Wasner, F, ‘De consecratione, inthronizatione, coronatione Summi Pontificis,’ Apollinaris 8 (1935) 100 n. 59; 250 n. 251.Google Scholar

72 As is done by Buenner, L'ancienne liturgie rom. (ch. IV n. 68 supra) 270 n. 3.Google Scholar

73 Besides Conc. Rom. 769 and Ordo IX the following instances are found: LD 118 (app. IV), dating of the tenth century (cf. Garnier's note and Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 318 n. 3): ‘Ego N. s. Romanae ecclesiae diaconus vel presbyter vel episcopus cardinalis electus’ (261 Rozière; not in Sickel). In this form of papal profession of faith the addition of the word cardinalis became necessary because a suburbicarian bishop cannot be simply called S.R.E. episcopus; in earlier forms, which do not envisage the election (transfer) of a bishop to the Holy See, the adjective is lacking (see e.g. LD 83).—Clement II JL 4134 (an. 1046): ‘Totus pene mundus noverit quod specialissimas dignitates nostri episcopi ac cardinales presbyteri atque diacones habeant’ (PL 142, 580D).Google Scholar

74 JE 3366; ed. Baronius, Annal. eccl. an. 882 num. 8f. whence Mansi 17, 247–8 and all other editions are derived (cf. Kehr, IP 1, 6 num. 8).—The Constitutio should have been discussed by Klewitz, since it represents the most serious objection against his (basically correct) view, Entstehung 183: ‘Der Terminus diaconus cardinalis ist vor dem 9. Jahrzehnt des 11. Jahrhunderts aus Originalen päpstlicher Urkunden nicht zu belegen.’ If JE 3366 were genuine, it would not matter whether or not the original is lost.Google Scholar

75 ‘Item sancimus de parochiis nostris, quantumque pontifici competit, pontificali beneficio vos in perpetuum possidere et in principalibus ecclesiis iuxta primatum vestrae consecrationis vicissim officia divina peragere et earum oblationibus, salva semper cardinalium diaconorum prisca consuetudine, aequaliter participare.’ Mann, Lives of the Popes III (London-St. Louis 1906) 347 is mistaken in holding that this section of the statute ‘seemingly’ refers to the cardinal bishops. For the correct interpretation see Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 321 with n. 1.Google Scholar

76 Cf. ch. IV at nn. 38–41 supra. Google Scholar

77 See Kehr, IP 1, 5 (before num. 1). Baronius’ footnote loc. cit. is unfortunately defective: ‘ reperitur in Vaticanae bibliothecae monumentis: Liber canonum inscriptus num.'Google Scholar

78 Alexander II: JL 4736 (cf. ch. III at n. 36; IV at n. 105 supra); Urban II: Kehr, IP 1, 7 num. 11 (ed. Kehr, Gött. Nachr. 1908, p. 228 num. 3; cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 161 n. 1). It is therefore not correct when Klewitz 160 speaks of these Popes as having further developed (weitergebildet) the statute of John VIII.Google Scholar

79 Cf. ch. IV nn. 109–10 supra. Google Scholar

80 On these researches see Fournier, P and Le Bras, G., Histoire des collections canoniques en occident II (Paris 1932) 7–14; 31f. 46.Google Scholar

81 ‘Itemque vos convenire mandamus (cf. n. 83) et ob vestram et inferiorum clericorum vitam et mores et qualitates et habitus vestium perscrutando, et qualiter quilibet praepositi se erga subditos habeant, vel quod subditi suis praepositis non obediant, et ad quaeque illicita amputanda, clericorum quoque et laicorum querimonias quae ad nostrum iudicium pertinent, quantum fieri potest, definiendas.'Google Scholar

82 On the iudices palatini see Sägmüller, Cardinäle 18–24; Keller, S., Die sieben römischen Pfalzrichter im byzantinischen Zeitalter (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen ed. Stutz 12, Stuttgart 1904); Halphen, Etudes sur l'administr, (n. 6 supra) 37–48; Th. Hirschfeld, ‘Das Gerichtswesen der Stadt Rom vom 8. bis 12. Jahrhundert,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung 4 (1912) 419–562.—Halphen's assumption (p. 45 n. 6) that at times a Roman deacon might have been also primicerius notariorum, i.e. one of the palatine judges, is unfounded; cf. Bresslau, Urkundenlehre I, 199 n. 6; Becker, Liudprand (n. 67 supra) 166 n. 1.Google Scholar

83 ‘Itemque ex nostra praesenti constitutione bis in mense vel eo amplius vel apud ilium vel ilium titulum, sive apud illam vel illam diaconiam, sive apud alias quaslibet ecclesias vos convenire mandamus et ob vestram et inferiorum (rell. n. 81) definiendas.’ And then: ‘ Propter sollicitudinem autem ecclesiarum et eorum clericorum, earumdem disciplinam sive laicorum querimonias definiendas bis in hebdomada ad sacrosanctum palatium, iuxta decreta praedecessoris nostri Leonis quarti, vos convenire mandamus.'Google Scholar

84 Leo IV JE 2633: ‘Precipimus ut in nostra absentia nec ecclesiasticus nec palatinus ordo deficiat. Sed recurrentibus diebus, tamquam si nos hic fuissemus, omnes nobiles ad Lateranense palatium recurrant et quaerentibus ac petentibus legem ac iustitiam faciant’ (ed. de Hirsch-Gereuth, A., MGH Epp. 5, 599). Sägmüller, Cardinale 23 and Hirschfeld, Gerichtswesen 450 consider nobiles a collective noun for ordo ecclesiasticus and ordo palatinus, and therefore would have it include also the cardinals. This interpretation is untenable. Even Sägmüller must admit that a reference to JE 2633 in the Constitutio is not more than a slight possibility (pp. 23, 36 n. 3). In fact, JE 3366 regards the cardinal priests, but JE 2633, the palatine judges.Google Scholar

85 Among the judicial documents gathered by Hirschfeld, Gerichtswesen 456ff. there is none coming from the cardinals before the twelfth century (compare p. 456 n. 4 with 458 n. 3: iudices palatini; see also 493ff.). Nonetheless Hirschfeld 449–51 upholds judicial functions of the cardinals, even of the deacons and bishops (!), on the strength of the Constitutio. The examples given by Sägmüller 30 n. 5 for cardinals as judges side by side with the iudices palatini in the eleventh century (JL 4075; Kehr, IP 2, 66 num. 40) are not to the point, because these were judgments rendered by the Popes themselves with the several cardinals and curial officers only assisting.Google Scholar

86 ‘Item monasteria abbatibus viduata et abbatum nostra praecedente conscientia substitutionem his qui sunt inter vos vel fuerint monasticae professionis disponenda committimus.'Google Scholar

87 Text in n. 75 supra. For the interpretation see Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 320 n. 3.Google Scholar

88 Text in n. 75 supra. Google Scholar

89 Perhaps even later: one clause of the statute compares the cardinal priests to the seventy elders in Num. 11, 16; otherwise this simile is not applied before St. Bernard of Clairvaux, De considerations 4, 4 (PL 182, 778B).Google Scholar

90 Cf. ch. IV nn. 9ff. and for the liturgical cardinals, ibid. nn. 50 (Magdeburg), 52 (Aachen); no cardinal deacons were created, however, for Treves, Besançon, Cologne, Compostella.Google Scholar

91 JL 4024 (cf. the text in PL 139, 1621B; some editions—e.g. Bullarium Taurinense 1, 527—omit the words ‘cardinalis presbyter vel'). The privilege was later confirmed by John XIX and Leo IX (JL 4067, 4163). Klewitz, Entstehung 183 (cf. n. 74 supra) overlooks this text; but even if the original is lost, we have the authenticated transcript made from it under Gregory IX (Auvray, Les registres de Grégoire IX, Paris 1890ff. num. 3553), cf. Kehr, IP 2, 20 n. 10.Google Scholar

92 JL 4076, including the possession of monasteries and churches; ordaining powers for St. Peter and the civitas Leonina; the right to pontificate in Holy Week and to baptize on Holy Saturday in St. Peter's; jurisdiction and judicial powers in all these churches, etc. (see Hinschius, Kirchenr. I, 330f.). Later confirmed by Benedict IX and, to a limited extent, by Victor II (JL 4110, 4366).Google Scholar

93 The controversy broke out about the insula Lycaonia, which was mentioned in both privileges. Leo IX in 1049 decided in favor of Porto (JL 4163; cf. Kehr, IP 2, 20f. num. 12–3). However, some seventy years later (c. 1120–4) Silva-Candida, which had been vacant since 1074 because of the depopulation resulting from malaria (cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 138ff.), was united by Calixtus II to Porto (Kehr, IP 2, 21 n. 14).Google Scholar

94 See e.g. John XIX JL 4076 to the Cardinal bishop of Silva-Candida: ‘ aliquem diaconorum nostrorum ministrare’ (PL 141, 1130B); references to synodal subscriptions are found in Klewitz, Entstehung 181 n. 2.Google Scholar

95 See Klewitz 190f. (references in n. 3) who also shows that Sägmüller, Cardinäle 11 nn. 1–2, is wrong in assuming that the appellative, cardinalis, was occasionally used by Roman acolythes, and by the mansionarii of St. Peter's. Klewitz fails however to discuss the following isolated instances of cardinal subdeacons: Urban II in 1088 to Lanfranc of Canterbury (JL 5351): ‘ dilectissimus filius noster Rogerus cardinalis ecclesiae nostrae sub-diaconus’ (PL 151, 287A; cf. Hinschius I, 320 n. 1—although cardinalis may here belong to ecclesiae) and Calixtus II in 1123 (JL 7045): ‘Data per manum Hugonis S.R.E. subdiaconi cardinalis’ (PL 163, 1280C; cf. Sägmüller 11 n. 1; on the subdeacon Hugo see Bresslau, Urkundenlehre I, 246). Note also that among the liturgical cardinals created in other metropoles by papal privilege there were twenty-four cardinal subdeacons in Magdeburg (ch. IV n. 50 supra).Google Scholar

96 References in Klewitz 183 n. 5. It may be added that the letters JL 5079 (‘Data per manum Johannis S.R.E. diaconi cardinalis') and 5256 (‘Data p.m. Cartan’ S.R.E. diaconi cardinalis et cancellarii') are not genuine, cf. Bresslau, Urkundenlehre I, 239 n. 6.Google Scholar

97 Cf. nn. 37–8 and ch. III n. 38 supra. Klewitz, Entstehung 183, 186.Google Scholar

98 This may also be connected with, and was at least supported by, the revival of the Constitutum Silvestri in the canonical collections (Coll. LXXIV tit.; Anselm; Deusdedit) of the Gregorian era. Deusdedit was the first to speak of the levitae summi pontificis as cardinals, ch. IV n. 109 supra. Google Scholar

99 Kehr, Zur Geschichte Wiberts (ch. IV n. 98 supra) 987; Klewitz, Entstehung 184.Google Scholar

100 Cf. the list of subscriptions in JL I, 657; Klewitz loc. cit. and p. 185 n. 3.—In announcing his election to the Archbishop of Salzburg, Urban II still contrasts omnes cardinales with omn es diaconi (JL 5348, cf. Klewitz 184); but in the simultaneous letter to Abbot Hugo of Cluny (JL 5349) he already mentions among his electors: ‘S.R.E. episcopi et cardinales, abbas vero Casinensis cardinalis diaconus ceterorum diaconorum, P (leg. R.) quoque cardinalis tituli s. Clementis omnium cardinalium’ (PL 151, 285A).Google Scholar

101 Also for this step the fashion had been set by Guibert, cf. Kehr loc. cit.; Klewitz 184, 189. Subscriptions of cardinal deacons with the diaconia appear in Paschal II's letters from the beginning of his pontificate (cf. the list in Klewitz 218–21 nos. 2, 3, 4, 14, also JL I, 702f.), not only in 1116 (thus Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 322 n. 2). But the new style was not yet firmly established: subscriptions reading simply diaconus cardinalis are numerous as well under Pope Paschal (see JL loc. cit.; also Klewitz 187 for the deacon Theobald). The deacon Johannes of St. Mary in Cosmedin (the future Gelasius II) occasionally used even to sign as ‘Johannes diaconus de titulo (!) Cosmidin’ (1107, February 24–September 1: JL I, 702).Google Scholar

102 E.g. Ravenna, Naples (Hinschius I, 319 n. 7); the cardinals of Compostella even after the statute Non mediocri of Pius V (February 17, 1567) which reserved the name of cardinal to the Sacred College: Gonzalez Tellez, Commentaria decretalium Greg. IX (Lyons 1673) 1, 24, 2 ad v. sacerdotum cardinalium treats the dignity as still persisting. For the non-catholic cardinals of London see ch. IV n. 81 supra.Google Scholar

103 Johannes Teutonicus, Glossa ordinaria on C. 32 q. 2 c. 1 ad v. principem mundi: ‘… vel ad derisionem dicitur (diabolus scil.) princeps talium, sicut dicitur rex schacorum, vel cardinalis Ravennas, non tarnen simpliciter est rex vel cardinalis '; frequently repeated, e.g. by Prospero Fagnani, Commentaria in libros decretalium (Rome 1661) 1, 5, 3 num. 14: ‘ dicuntur cardinales sicut dicitur rex scaccorum, ut inquit glos. in c. Pudorem in ver. Principem mundi, 32 q. 2’ (I, 277).Google Scholar

1 Cf. ch. II n. 43 supra. Google Scholar

2 To name only the more recent representatives of the opinio communis: Phillips, Kirchenr. V, 459 n. 8; 462 n. 15; also VI, 57; Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 313 n. 4; Ewald in his summaries (JE 1596, 1855); Hartmann, MGH Epp. 2, 90 n. 2; Peitz, Lib. diurn. 76; Kehr, IP 4, 311 num. 1–2; Lanzoni, F, Le origini delle antiche diocesi d'Italia (Studi e Testi 35, Rome 1923) 257 Google Scholar

3 MGH Epp. 2, 90 n. 2.Google Scholar

4 JE 1855, Hartmann 2, 350 and Kehr incorrectly use this form in calendaring the letter.Google Scholar

5 Cf. ch. II n. 43 supra. Google Scholar

6 MGH Auct. antiquiss. 12, 505: ‘parum liquet. 'Google Scholar

7 Op. cit. 261, wrongly ascribing in note 4 his own opinion to Mommsen.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Gams, Series episcop. 730; Kehr, IP 4, 18.Google Scholar

9 The lost letter (Kehr, IP 4, 311 num. 4) is mentioned in the same Pope's letter JE 3310 (Kehr 312 num. 5); ed. Caspar, MGH Epp.7, 204, 13.Google Scholar

10 Not. dign. Or 6, 70; 7, 59 (24 and 28 Böcking; 18 and 22 Seeck).Google Scholar

11 Not. dign. Or 5, 67 (first Master in Presence: 20 Böcking; 14 Seeck); 8, 54 (magister mil per Thracias: 32 Böcking; 25 Seeck); 9, 49 (magister mil. per Illyricum: 35 Böcking; 30 Seeck).Google Scholar

12 Stein, E., Geschichte des spätrömischen Reiches I (Wien 1928) 367; contra Grosse, R., Römische Militärgeschichte (Berlin 1920) 186f. See also Stein's review in Byzantinisch Zeitschrift 25 (1925) 386f.Google Scholar

13 Gothofr. Comm. Cod. Th. 12, 6, 7; and, more recently, Boak, A. E. R., ‘Officium,’ PWK 17, 2 (1937) 2049.Google Scholar

14 Gothofr. loc. cit.; Böcking, Not. dign. I, 205 n. 50; Mommsen, ‘Ostgothische Studien,' NA 14 (1888–9) 472; O. Kariowa, Römische Rechtsgeschichte I (Leipzig 1885) 877; Boak loc. cit. Google Scholar

15 Karlowa, op. cit. 881; Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire (London 1923) I. 31f.; Boak, ‘The Master of the Offices in the Later Roman and Byzantine Empires,’ in Two Studies in Later Roman and Byzantine Administration (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 14, New York 1924) 72; id. PWK 17, 2054; and in particular Stein, Geschichte I, 367, citing Marchi, in Studi giuridici in onore di C. Fadda 5 (1906) 381f. 393f. See also Stein, ‘Untersuchungen zum Staatsrecht des Bas-Empire,’ ZRG Rom. Abt. 41 (1920) 195ff. 212.Google Scholar

16 Bury, op. cit. 32. It is not correct when Mommsen loc. cit. asserts that the two magistri militum in question had ‘einen eigenen Princeps'Google Scholar

17 For the civil nature of the service rendered by a princeps officii, even of a military official, see Stein, ZRG 41, 198 (‘Die Stellung ist durchaus die eines friedlichen Kanzleibeamten'); for parallel instances in which military-administrative positions were filled, not by officers from the ranks, but by members of the schola agentium, see ibid. 213f.Google Scholar

18 Ed. Mommsen, MGH Auct. antiquiss. 12, 218, 23–6.Google Scholar

19 Hinschius, Kirchenr I, 319 n. 9 speaks of him as praefectus urbis. Google Scholar

20 Mommsen, Ostgothische Studien 470f. Cf. also Gothofr. loc. cit. and Muratori, Antig. 5, 156 (he understands the ‘cardinal’ principate as stabilis dignitas and ordinaria auctoritas, contrasted with mere vicarious power). Mommsen's view on the comitiaci is shared by Bury, op. cit. I, 458 n. 2 and by Stein, cf. the following note.Google Scholar

21 Stein, ZRG 41, 219f. 226; 232–4; id. Untersuchungen zum Officium der Prätorianer-präfektur seit Diokletian (Wien 1922).Google Scholar

22 Seeck, O., ‘Comitiaci,’ PWK 4, 1 (1900) 715–6; Boak, Master of the Offices 73. Contra Stein, book review, Byzant. Zeitschr. 25 (1925) 174.Google Scholar

23 Cf. Bury, op. cit. I, 413; 457f. Assunta Nagl, ‘Theoderich,’ PWK 2nd ser 5, 2 (1934) 1749.Google Scholar

24 Cassiod. Var. 11, 4–5; 12, 25. Cf. Mommsen, Ostgoth. Stud. 463; Boak, Master of the Offices 43.Google Scholar

25 For these locutions see ch. II nn. 61–2 supra. Google Scholar

26 On these Gesta see Coustant, Epp. Rom. pont. p. lxxxiv f.; app. col. 27f. Duchesne, LP I, cxxxiii f. The text given above is Coustant's, app. col. 31ff. Chief variants from Mansi 1, 1253ff. (cf. also Coustant 34 note i):—(c. 6) hos] horum.—praesentia] in praesentia.—et] aut.—reparationem] in reparationem.—(c. 12) unciae] unciis.—sensus] census.—comparatus] comparentibus.Google Scholar

27 On libra occidua cf. Gothofr. Comm. Cod. Th. 11, 36, 20 (V, 308 Lugd.; IV, 322 Lips.); Binius’ note d in Mansi 1, 1260; Coustant 30 note b. See also Gesta Marcell. c. 3: ‘Hi omnes electi sunt viri libra occidua qui testimonium perhibent videntes eum (se vidisse eundem Mansi) Marcellinum thurificasse’ (30 Coustant; 1252D Mansi).Google Scholar

28 Chron. Pasch. Olymp. 285 (ed. Dindorf, Corpus Script. Histor. Byzant. Bonn 1832, p. 294 = PG 92, 736).Google Scholar

29 Ed. Mommsen-Meyer (Berlin 1905) I, 651. Cf. Gothofr. loc. cit.; Hinschius, Kirchenr. IV, 794, n. 6.Google Scholar

30 Petschenig, Ed. M., CSEL 53 (1910) 75. Cf. Gothofr. loc. cit. Google Scholar

31 Thus Wolf von Glanvell, Deusdedit 609 n. 27, confusing moreover Chronopius with the notorious Chromatius, and the Conc. Cp. of 360 (on which see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des conciles I, 2, Paris 1907, pp. 956–9) with the Ecumenical Synod of 381.Google Scholar

32 Ed. Dümmler, MGH Epp. 5, 2 (Berlin 1899) 593, 34–594, 5. Cf. Gratian, C. 2 q. 4 c. 3.Google Scholar

33 Ed. Perels, MGH Epp. 6, 2, i (1912) 621, 1–6.Google Scholar

34 466, 24–9 Perels and passim; cf. Coustant, app. cols. 37–8; Perels 464 n. 3, 465 nn. 1–3 etc.Google Scholar

35 Deusd. 4, 431 (609, 14–5 Wolf von Glanvell).Google Scholar

36 Reference is made once for all to P Fournier and G. Le Bras, Histoire des collections canoniques en occident depuis les fausses décrétales jusqu'au Décret de Gratien (Paris 1931–2).Google Scholar

37 Duchesne, LP I, cxxxix; 190 n. 25.Google Scholar

38 Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae 450.Google Scholar

39 Cf. ch. V n. 56 supra.—Still less can we enter here upon a discussion of the peculiar, abridged form which the Collection of Chieti (6th cent.) gave to the pseudo-Sylvestrian statutes (ed. Duchesne, LP I, cxxxiv col. 2 n. 1; for one signal variant, the omission of ‘cardine constructus’ in CS c. 3, see ch. V n. 57 supra). The text of the Theatina had a medieval tradition of its own which is largely unexplored. It influenced a passage of the LP (see n. 42 infra) and c. 51 of the so-called Poenitentiale II Vallicellianum (cf. E. Seckel, ‘Studien zu Benedictus Levita: VII,’ NA 35 [1909] 139 n. 5); it even reappeared, transmitted by channels unknown, in a southern French law book of the early twelfth century, i.e. in the respective appendices of the London and Cambridge MSS of the Liber Tubingensis (cf. Kantorowicz, H., Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law, Cambridge 1938, p. 120f. with bibliography; ed. p. 270). Unfortunately, both Kantorowicz's discussion and edition of this piece suffer from his failure to take cognizance of the full text of the canon in Coll. Theat. as published by Duchesne.Google Scholar

40 CS c. 14: ‘Testimonium clerici adversus laicum nemo recipiat.’ c. 15: ‘Nemo enim clericum quemlibet in publico examinet, nisi in ecclesia.’ c. 16: ‘Nemo enim clericus vel diaconus aut presbyter propter causam suam quamlibet intret in curiam, quoniam omnis curia a cruore dicitur et immolatio simulacrorum est: quoniam si quis clericus in curiam introierit, anathema suscipiat, nunquam rediens ad matrem ecclesiam. A communione autem non privetur propter tempus turbidum’ (50f. Coustant; 629–30 Mansi).Google Scholar

41 Further reprints from Petit's spurious publication: F Kunstmann, Die lateinischen Pönitentialbücher der Angelsachsen (Mainz 1844) 121; Royal Record Commision, Ancient Laws and Institutions of England (London 1840) 311. The true origin of the forgery, composed on Frankish soil more than two centuries after Theodore's death, has been demonstrated by Wasserschieben, F W H., Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche (Halle 1851) 16f. and, with a detailed analysis, by Seckel as cited above, NA 20, 296–301; 328–51. See also Fournier, P, ‘De l'influence de la collection irlandaise .,’ Nouv. Revue histor de droit français et étr 23 (1899) 46.Google Scholar

42 For the sources which in turn were used in LP, see Duchesne I, 189 n. 20 (for ‘Hic constituit ut nullus laicus—audeat inferre'): Coll. Theatina: ‘Placuit eis et ad omnem Cstianorum populum Romanorum ut nullus laicus audeat clerico crimen ingerere '; and ibid. 190 n. 23 (for ‘Hic constituit ut nullus clericus—causam diceret nisi in ecclesia'): CS c. 16 and Syn. 270 episc. c. 4 (c. 5 Poisnel).—Incidentally, we observe that the note on Pope Julius I in LP I, 205, 5: ‘Hic constitutum fecit ut nullus clericus causam quamlibet in publico ageret (al. diceret) nisi in ecclesia’ is also composed on the same basis (CS cc. 15–6; Syn. c. 5; LP Silv.).Google Scholar

43 No specific source can be assigned to another passage in Bonizo, in the course of his catalogue of Roman Pontiffs (4, 33): ‘ hic constituit ut Romanus presul a nullo iudicetur, et ut presbiter non condempnetur nisi sub quadraginta (sic) testium certa comprobatione, et ut minoris ordinis aliquis maiorem se non possit accusare, et ut clericus ante laicos non iudicetur ’ (124, 16–9 Perels), which may be a free summary of CS cc. 3, 15, or (as Perels 124 n. 3 suggests) of PsI cc. 2, 3, 5. (PsI c. 3) quadraginta quatuor] in quadr. quat. cardinarius constructus] cardinalis constitutus (PsI c. 4) praedicantes] timentes [praedicantes] (sic ed.)Google Scholar

44 Ex conc. Trib. is a pseudepigraph of Burchard's invention, cf. Krause, V, ‘Die Akten der Triburer Synode von 895,’ NA 17 (1892) 82; Seckel, ‘Zu den Akten der Trib. Syn. 895: I,’ NA 18 (1893) 408. The canon itself is inspired by Angilr. or PsI.Google Scholar

45 Cf. Klewitz, Entstehung 165, who thus narrows the time limit, 1104–13, assumed by Fournier-Le Bras II, 170.Google Scholar

46 PsI c. 3 rubr.: ‘Quot (Quod Hinsch.) testibus damnari possint singuli ordines ecclesiastici.’ Ans. Luc. 3, 43 rubr.: ‘Ut inferiores gradus superiores non accusent et in quot testibus episcopus, presb. diac. subdiac. et ceteri condempnandi sunt’ (variant as recorded in Thaner 136 note b). Ivo, Decr. 6, 334 rubr.: ‘Sub quot testibus cuiusque ordinis accusatio fieri debeat.’ Pan. 4, 91 and Grat. 2 q. 4 c. 2 rubr.: ‘Quot testibus episcopus vel presb. vel reliqui clerici sint convincendi (sunt communicandi Pan. ed.).'Google Scholar

47 For an example of methodical criteria to be followed see also the study of E. Perels, ‘Die Briefe Papst Nikolaus I.', NA 39 (1914) 43ff. esp. 125–30.Google Scholar