Oliva 10 
Table of contents -- Previous section -- Next section -- Edition 
Siglorum conspectus -- Main menu

[10. HOW TITLES OF PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS ARE COMPOSED]

[10.1] Although by means of the above-said <papal> form any clever dictator can easily invent material for composing ecclesiastical privileges, yet for the sake of greater certainty I propose briefly to assign a means for composing the privileges of patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops.

[10.2] Because their privileges are quite like the aforesaid <papal privileges> in form and full knowledge of them can be had with only a slight change, in this present treatise I treat them before the emperor and kings, who should deservedly be placed first due to their imperial and royal excellence. Nevertheless, it does not disagree with the path of reason162 that the ecclesiastical order should be uniform and separated from the institutes of earthly princes.

[10.3] Thus let me begin to say about the genus <of ecclesiastical privileges> that which could be easily extended to the species. Just as I have often said in my treatises, I cannot know the customs of everyone,163 and even if I could discuss them, I should not, because prolixity of words always generates tedium.

[10.4] For there are some archbishops and bishops who place In the name of the holy and individual Trinity before the title in privileges. Before <this invocation>, they place an embellished cross.164 The archbishop of Ravenna does this, and I believe that his suffragan bishops imitate him in this and in other instances. There are others who say In the name of the Lord. Amen. Others also say, May the grace of the holy Spirit be with us, and all of them place an embellished cross first.

[10.5] For those who place such things first are led by the Spirit of the Lord, and they observe the Lord's precept, where it is said 'Whatever you do in speech or in works, do so in the name of the Lord'.165 A cross is placed for protection; what follows is placed for observing the Lord's precept; 'Amen' is placed for the confirmation of the invocation. 

[10.6] Nevertheless only those who say 'In the name of the Lord' or 'In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' are accustomed to use 'Amen'. For many notaries in various regions of Italy are accustomed to place 'In the name of the Lord' or 'In the name of the Father and of the Son etc.' at the beginning of their instruments. But Bolognese notaries should not place Dominical invocations in their chirographs, due to of the detestable crime of usury.166 

[10.7] Moreover, there are many who place nothing before the title, but begin with a proper name as does the pope. Yet the approved custom of the land should be maintained everywhere, whatever it may be, and dictators should strive mightily to satisfy the will of their lords, in these matters and in others.

[10.8] After that invocation, the Ravenna archbishop places a title in this manner: William,167 archbishop of the holy church of Ravenna, by the grace of God, servant of the servants of God. His suffragan bishops can also use a title, because just as the archbishop imitates the pope in calling himself 'servant of the servants of God', so his bishops can imitate the archbishop. But there are very few who call themselves servants of the servants of God. 

[10.9] Nevertheless, both the archbishop as well as his suffragan bishops place a different title in letters, because there should always be some difference between privileges and letters, although privileges are contained under the epistolary style. For in letters they do not call themselves servants of the servants of God, but they use or ought to use a title like those contained in the third of my Tables of Salutations.168 

[10.10] Thereafter, some patriarchs, archbishops and bishops say in the titles of privileges 'of the holy see of...', placing the name of the city according to the custom whereby the archbishop of Ravenna says 'of holy Ravenna'. Some may well say <'see'>, others abuse this word.

[10.11] For the first see is the Roman church, the second Antioch. The third was formerly Alexandria,169 and so it was said that there were three principle sees, the others being secondary.

[10.12] But today some say that it should be Jerusalem, others Constantinople, others Ravenna,170 still others Milan,171 and so it may be doubted which should be the third see.172 

[10.13] But, so I may conclude briefly, any patriarch, archbishop, or bishop can say 'holy see' in his titles. Nor would he sin if he wishes to do so, because 'Wherever is the episcopal see, there is the bishop'173 or ought to be. And 'see' may be used fuguratively174 there instead of 'church'. Thus anyone can say 'holy see', because a church of the Lord is 'holy', for whose use the term 'see' is there used figuratively.

[10.14] Indeed, because it would be extraordinary to respond individually to each question which might be raised in such matters, I may therefore subsume into a single class the titles, preambles and narrations of all these privileges under one name.175 

[10.15] The patriarch of Jerusalem places or can place a title in his privileges as follows: Monachus,176 by the grace of God patriarch of Jerusalem or of the holy Jerusalem see or of the holy Jerusalem church. Nevertheless he himself places in his titles patriarch of the church of the holy Resurrection, to the venerable brother O.,177 archbishop of Caesarea, and to his canonically appointed successors, in perpetuity. 

[10.16] Thus he places all his archbishops and bishops and he calls only them 'venerable brothers', but all others 'beloved sons'. 

[10.17] Sometimes he writes a letter to some canon or chaplain, and simply says: 'To the canon of Tyre'178 or 'To chaplain R. of S. Mary's'179 or 'To his beloved son'. But he always says or ought to say 'beloved son' or (if he addresses two in the plural) 'beloved sons' to whomever he grants a privilege.

[10.18] For in letters he sometimes does not call an addressee 'beloved son', either because he believes him unworthy, or because he has transgressed or is not taking proper care in some matter. But when he grants a privilege, he is seen to grant a special dispensation to those seeking <it> and to show them no little love. Whence he ought to call these 'beloved sons', because that grant proceeds from love. But the pope hardly ever, or never, varies a title for any recipients, unless he does so because of their guilt.180 

[10.19] There are some patriarchs and archbishops who are always legates of the apostolic see in their own patriarchies or archdioceses.181 Therefore they title themselves 'legates of the apostolic see' in their privileges and letters. But if they should be legates for a limited time, they should not call themselves 'legates' in privileges, although they should mention this legation in their letters.

[10.20] One who is always a legate of the apostolic see should not place a copulative conjunction or a comma182 between 'legate of the apostolic see' and his own office. Those who function in a legation for a limited time183 ought to place a copulative here.184 

[10.21] The patriarch addresses collegial churches in the title of privileges in this manner: Monachus, by the grace of God patriarch of the church of the holy Resurrection, to the beloved son G.185 provost of Tyre, and to his present and future canonically appointed brethren, in perpetuity. 

[10.22] And so that I may briefly expedite what I have begun: All patriarchs, archbishops and bishops can address in titles all those to whom they grant privileges just as the pope does, changing the proper names and the offices.

[10.23] Nevertheless, I believe that in their letters and privileges bishops ought to call archpriests, parish priests, abbots, priors and canons of a greater church 'venerable brothers', because they have none worthier than these under themselves. It is necessary that these bishops have some brothers, because sometimes they say 'we have done this with the common counsel of our brothers'186 and they would say it ineptly, 'We have done this with the common counsel of our sons'.

[10.24] For all prelates of churches can rightly call any Christians 'brothers', since the Apostle expressly said: We are all brothers in Christ.187 Therefore the pope can rationally do this if he wishes, because he is not greater than Paul.

[10.25] Nevertheless it was afterwards so ordained by the holy fathers, that only patriarchs, archbishops and bishops would be called 'brothers' by the pope and all others should be called 'sons'. This institution is not detrimental, because it does not contradict religion, since the Apostle himself, in one and the same letter, first called some men 'brothers' and later called them 'sons', and even sometimes 'godsons'.188 


Top of page -- Table of contents -- Previous section -- Next section -- Edition Siglorum conspectus -- Main menu 



162 Boncompagno here borrows a tag from the papal preamble 'Iustis petentium desideriis dignum et nos facilem prebere consensum et vota que a rationis tramite non discordant effectu prosequente complere', analyzed by JANE E. SAYERS Papal Government and England during the pontificate of Honorius III (Cambridge 1984) 110-113. See above, Oliva 7.11, 7.14, 8a.4, below 15.1, but also see Boncompagnus 3.9.4.

163 Although Boncompagno more commonly states what an orator should know, he sometimes also drew boundaries of the knowable: Quinque tabule salutationum 4.31, Palma 11, Mirra 5.1, De amicitia 22, Boncompagnus 1.2.9 (consignificationes harum interiectionum nemo scire valeret, nisi per mores hominum et diversas consuetudines terrarum), 1.20.13, 1.23.3 §7, 1.26.1 (Consuetudines plangentium nemo plenarie scire valeret, etiam si circuiret totum orbem terrarum, quoniam in una et eadem patria diverse consuetudines observantur) and Rhetorica novissima 9.3.14.

164 For another 'pointed cross', see above, Oliva 9.9; for a littera punctata, see below, Oliva 19.5.

165 Col. 3.17, cf. I Cor. 10.31.

166 See Cedrus 6.28: in principio cuiuslibet generalis statuti ponenda est dominica invocatio, nisi statutum fieret pro usure solucione aut aliqua specie mali. A hatred of usury is vividly expressed in Boncompagnus 3.16.14. For another specific denunciation of Bolognese usurers, see Bernardus Papiensis Summa decretalium 5.15 §9 (ed. LASPEYRES 238).

167 Willelmus, archbishop of Ravenna (1190-1201).

168 Quinque tabule salutationum 4, especially 4.6. Boncompagno here cites from an earlier recension of this text, a version not transmitted by the surviving manuscripts. This version featured a different, 'Gregorian', arrangement of the tables (the present table 4 appeared in the third place and vice versa) maintaining a strict separation between ecclesiastics and laypersons. See above, Oliva 1.10, 7.6, 10.2.

169 I have not seen A. FURIOLI "I patriarchi di Alessandria" Nicolaus (Bari 1986) 179-241.

170 See Boncompagnus 3.16.1: Quare calamitosa clamitat ad pedes Simonis Barione, qui Apollinari noscitur ex maioris dilectionis prerogativa dixisse, 'Surge, accipe Spiritus Sanctum simulque pontificatum et perge ad urbem, que vocatur Ravenna'. Unde 'secunda sedes' meruit appelari. 

171 For the strife between the archbishops of Milan and Ravenna over their respective ranks and the privilege of sitting at the pope's right hand, see John of Salisbury's Historia pontificalis 21 (CHIBNALL ed. 50) and Nicholas of Dunstable's De Pace Veneta Relatio ed. RODNEY M. THOMSON "An English Eyewitness of the Peace of Venice, 1177" Speculum 50 (1975) 21-32 at 31, with discussion at 25.

172 Cf. Rufinus Summa Decretorum D.99 pr.; Stephen of Tournai Summa Decretorum D.99 pr.; Huguccio Summa Decretorum D.99 pr.; all cited in P. ERDö L'ufficio del primate nella canonistica da Graziano ad Uguccione da Pisa Pontificia Universita Lateranense (Rome 1986) originally in Apollinaris 54 (1981) and 55 (1982). See also the review of ERDö's book by JEAN GAUDEMET in ZRG kan. Abt. 105 (1988) 587-590.

173 Boncompagno adapts here an old ecclesiological maxim, whose history has been traced by MICHELE MACCARONE "Ubi papa ibi Roma" in Aus Kirche und Reich...Festschrift für Friedrich Kempf ed. HUBERT MORDEK (Sigmaringen 1983) 371-82. This maxim may have also exerted influence above, Oliva 7.34.

174 For transumptio, see Rhetorica novissima 9.2.1-9.2.24, 9.3.1-14; TERENCE TUNBERG "What is Boncompagno's 'Newest Rhetoric'?" Traditio 41 (1986) 299-334 at 317-19; FIORENZO FORTI "La transumptio nei dettatori bolognesi e in Dante" in Dante e Bologna (Bologna 1967) 127-49; WILLIAM M. PURCELL "Transsumptio: A Rhetorical Doctrine of the Thirteenth Century" Rhetorica 5 (1987) 369-410. Boncompagno's concept of metaphor has been recently discussed in PETER DRONKE Dante and medieval Latin traditions (Cambridge 1985) 14-20.

175 For the remaining discussion of ecclesiastical privileges (to Oliva 18.35), patriarchs will henceforth exemplify all prelates.

176 Haymar Monachus, patriarch of Jerusalem (1187-1194). He was archbishop of Caesarea 1182-1197, holding both offices for three years. From 1171-1177 Monachus was magister and chancellor of patriarch Amalrich of Jerusalem. See above, Oliva 7.1, and below Oliva 37.1.

177 Not identified.

178 See HANS EBERHARD MEYER "Das Hofkapelle der Könige von Jerusalem" DA 44 (1988) 489-509 and above, Oliva 8b.22.

179 The chapel of S. Maria de Oliveta, Montevecchio (diocese Bologna). See below, Oliva 59.3, 60.1-5 (written confirmation of P. in the chapel of S. Maria de Oliveto, by G., archpriest of Montevecchio, Bologna).

180 For titles without a salutation, see Quinque tabule salutationum 1.25, 1.31, Palma 17.4.

181 On the legatus natus, see KNUT WALF Die Entwicklung des päpstlichen Gesandtschaftswesens in dem Zeitabschnitt zwischen Dekretalenrecht und Wiener Kongress (1159-1815) (Munich 1966) 28-35. Boncompagno discusses the archbishops of Canterbury and York as examples of legati nati in Quinque tabule salutationum 4.7.

182 On punctuation in charters, see above, Oliva 8b.10.

183 Boncompagno's terminology is unusual. For the terms used by decretalists: ROBERT C. FIGUEIRA "The Classification of Medieval Papal Legates in the Liber Extra" Archivum Historicae Pontificiae 21 (1983) 211-228; on the legatus missus, see KNUT WALF Die Entwicklung des päpstlichen Gesandtschaftswesens in dem Zeitabschnitt zwischen Dekretalenrecht und Wiener Kongress (1159-1815) (Munich 1966) 12-17; for temporary privileges, see below, Oliva 35.7. Boncompagno discusses salutations used by the legatus a latere (cardinal legate) in Quinque tabule salutationum 4.20-22.

184 On copulative conjuctions: Tractatus virtutum §21, §58, Notule auree 12, 17 and Palma 44. The substantive verb is discussed below, Oliva 19.13.

185 Not identified. On the church of Tyre, see above Oliva 8b.22, below 37.6 and GIORGIO FEDALTO La chiesa latina in Oriente 2.234 (1976). FEDALTO's work must be used with caution, see the review article by RUDOLF SCHIEFFER in DA 49 (1993).

186 On the college of cardinals as a deliberative and legislative body, see WERNER MALECZEK Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191-1216 (Vienna 1984) 313-320. Boncompagno's argument here seems much like that of Tractatus virtutum §44, discussed by RONALD G. WITT "Boncompagno and the Defence of Rhetoric" Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 16 (1989) 1-31 at 21-23. On majority-rule voting see PIER V. AIMONE-BRAIDA "Il principio maggioritario nel pensiero di glossatori e decretisti" Apollinaris 58 (1985) 209-285; JEAN LULVES "Die Machtstrebungen des Kardinalats bis zur Aufstellung der ersten päpstlichen Wahlkapitulationen" QFIAB 13 (1910) 73-102 at 74-81.

187 Gal. 1.2. See also Phil. 4.22; I Thes. 3.7; II Tim. 4.21.

188 Gal. 4.19. For a lengthy discussion of kinship terminology in papal diplomatic, see Quinque tabule salutationum 4.11-14. The diminutive filioli is used by Christ of his disciples in Marc. 10.24 and Joh. 13.33; in Galat. 4.19 and throughout I Ioh. (seven times) it is used to denote 'the baptized' (I Ioh 2.1.12.18.28, 3.7.18, 4.4, 5.21). In medieval Latin, filiolus, filiola meant 'spiritual child' or 'godchild'. For Boncompagno's role as godfather (confirmation sponsor or Firmpaten) to Guido Guerra III's son Marcualdo, see Epistola mandativa ad comites palatinos §1 and Boncompagnus 1.25.11.


***
© Steven M. Wight, Los Angeles 1998

Scrineum © Università di Pavia 1999