[10. HOW TITLES OF
PATRIARCHS, ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS ARE COMPOSED]
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
[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
[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
[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
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
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).
archbishop of Ravenna (1190-1201).
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
punctuation in charters, see above, Oliva 8b.10.
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.
copulative conjuctions: Tractatus virtutum §21, §58, Notule auree 12, 17 and Palma 44. The
substantive verb is discussed below, Oliva 19.13.
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 188.8.131.52.28,
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