[18.1] The signs of the narrations following preambles of these <ecclesiastics> are or can be those given above,205 namely 'Hence it is' or 'Thence it is' or similar words, if these can be invented.
[18.2] One should distinguish how narrations may be continued after these signs. I know that in nearly all privileges vocatives are customarily placed after these signs, as in 'Hence it is, O venerable brother' or 'O beloved son' or 'O beloved sons'. After the vocatives one can continue according to that said above in the narration of the pope, changing those things which I will teach to change.
[18.3] But first one should distinguish which of the aforesaid <ecclesiastics> grants the privilege.
[18.4] One should know that some patriarchs have archbishops and bishops under them, such as the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople. Others do not, such as the patriarchs of Aquileia and Grado. Nevertheless the patriarch of Grado says that the archbishop of Zadar is subject to him.206
[18.5] The archbishop of Pisa has several archbishops beneath him in Sardinia by right of legation,207 not by metropolitan right. Whence he calls himself a primate, because neither he nor anyone else would legally call himself a primate in titles, unless he should have archbishops below himself under some specie of right, whatever it might be.208
[18.6] Patriarchs who have archbishops or bishops under themselves say in the first part of the narration, after the preamble, 'Whence it is' or 'Thence it is' or 'Whereas it is, O venerable brother' or 'O venerable brother in Christ.' However, if it should happen that the archbishop of Pisa or perchance another archbishop should have archbishops beneath himself by right of legation, he will retain the same style.
[18.7] And after 'O brother' they ought to proceed: we receive under our protection, and under the protection of blessed John, that church of blessed Mary over which you are known to rule, by the Lord's authority, establishing etc. He will then continue to the end of the privilege, following the form of papal privileges, changing those things which should fittingly be changed.
[18.8] But a question might be asked: Behold, the pope or some patriarch or archbishop or bishop privileges some church, which may be called the church of S. Mary. He says 'We receive the church of S. Mary under the protection of blessed Peter' or 'under our protection, and under the protection of blessed Apollinaris, establishing...' But the blessed Mary does not need Peter's protection, because she is the mother of the Lord, nor does Peter need the protection of S. Apollinaris,209 because he was Peter's disciple, and similar objections could be raised in many cases.
[18.9] I respond briefly to this question. When the pope says 'We receive the church of blessed Mary under our protection and under the protection of blessed Peter etc.', or when any patriarch or archbishop or bishop says 'We receive the church of blessed Peter under the protection of S. Peter' or of another saint, it should not be understood that blessed Mary herself is taken under the protection of Peter, but instead a church, that is, a congregation of the faithful210 located at some place in honor of blessed Mary or of Peter.
[18.10] Whence the pope says to those who function in the office of patriarch, archbishop or bishop: 'the church of blessed Mary, over which you are known to rule, through God's doing', that is, 'the congregation of blessed Mary, over which congregation you are known to rule'. And sometimes he says to inferiors 'the church of blessed Mary', that is, 'the congregation of blessed Mary, to which you are bound in divine service' and such an interpretation should be taken in similar cases.211
[18.11] Next, if a patriarch privileges archbishops, he will specify their spiritual and temporal jurisdictions and will name all and each in precise words.
[18.12] But the dictator should always strive to place first the more worthy things in the text of a narration, because in this regard dictators customarily offend most of all. That which should be placed first in the series of the narration is fully contained in the above part of the present work.212
[18.13] For instance, a patriarch should name those dioceses which he grants to an archbishop in privileges, as in 'We grant to you and to your successors the diocese of Tripoli'213 or 'the diocese of Monopoli,214 with all its appurtenances', and so he names all the dioceses which that archbishop has, yet certain spiritual jurisdictions are placed first if the privilege is ordered according to rule.
[18.14] Then the patriarch names each possession just as the pope does, namely castles, villages and estates, because the right of the recipient is strengthened through this in no small amount. And although patriarchs may not have a full power for granting <such things> from this,215 yet their assent is favorable. All archbishops and patriarchs maintain this style in their letters and in other documents, fittingly varying those things which should be varied. Bishops also maintain this style toward their inferiors.
[18.15] Yet all these say within the privilege, after the general and special grants: 'reserving the right of the church' over which they rule. When the patriarch of Jerusalem grants a privilege to his archbishops, or to bishops who are beneath him with no intermediaries, he says 'reserving the right of the church of Jerusalem'. He also maintains this style toward all churches and hospitals established in his patriarchy, which are directly subject to him, with no intermediary.
[18.16] Should the patriarch should make a privilege for the suffragan bishops of his archbishops, or for churches or hospitals which are beneath him with other archbishops or bishops interposed, he says for these bishops 'reserving the right of the church of Caesarea' or 'of the church of Tyre'216 or 'of the metropolitan see' or 'church'.
[18.17] The patriarch speaks similarly for those churches or hospitals which seem to be subject to the archbishops, with no bishops interposed. For churches and hospitals which are subject to suffragan bishops he says 'reserving the right of the diocesan bishop'. All patriarchs and archbishops maintain this style toward their suffragan bishops and toward all churches established in their patriarchate or archdiocese.
[18.18] Bishops say for all those whom they grant privileges 'reserving the right of the church of Bologna' or 'of Modena', so that anyone may place the name of his city in the same manner.
[18.19] After having named each particular, all shall put a certain species of excommunication toward the end, such as: 'If any ecclesiastical or secular person etc.',217 or 'If anyone should rashly attempt to knowingly contravene the tenor of this decree (let it not be so!)' or 'constitution, he shall suffer danger to his office and to his honor' or 'he shall be subject to the punishment of excommunication, unless he shall correct his presumption by a worthy satisfaction'.218
[18.20] A question could arise here and above: To what extent and to whom does this species of excommunication apply?
[18.21] I will respond: Behold, a patriarch, archbishop or bishop says 'we grant the right to be free from all persons' and sometimes 'no one whatsoever may legally disturb your church or take away its possessions, or keep those possessions which were taken away, or in any way diminish its possessions'. And a little later 'Whosoever shall presume to act against this constitution etc.' 219
[18.22] For these are universal signs: 'all', 'no one', 'whosoever' and similar words.220 It would thus seem that an excessively general ban is made here by placement of universal signs. To this objection it should be known that the meaning of any universal sign is restricted in three ways, namely: by position, by conjunction, and by demonstration.
[18.23] By position, as when any patriarch, archbishop or bishop places his title in privileges or in letters. The meaning of any universal sign is restricted through the position of a title with respect to those whom the patriarch, archbishop or bishop can command, who is placed in the title. And so it should be understood according to the position of 'all' those who rule over some people and are subject to others, according to the relationship of greater or lesser.221
[18.24] Nevertheless universal signs sometimes retain in their position a natural and integral meaning, as when they are placed in privileges, confirmations and letters of the pope and emperor. For both men can generally command or prohibit 'all', one in spiritualities and the other in temporalities. And unless a latent or manifest condition is added, their decrees as well as their prohibitions are general.
[18.25] But all universal signs undergo a restriction in innumerable ways by position with respect to various types of offices. And this is a position of truth and not of falsehood, because I am not in a false position.222
[18.26] By addition,223 as when some words are added to a universal sign in the same sentence or clause, in this manner: Whoever shall have confessed the murder of the archbishop of Canterbury224 are excommunicated by the law itself. For every restriction made through addition can be easily recognized.
[18.27] By demonstration,225 as when it is said 'All these are Galileians', other things being designated and so a restriction is made from demonstration in innumerable ways.
[18.28] Then one makes a sign at the end of a privilege, which his predecessors were accustomed to make, and he subscribes or ought to subscribe next to that sign, in this way: 'I, William, archbishop SS'. All patriarchs, archbishops and bishops ought to subscribe, because the pope subscribes in his privileges.
[18.29] When the patriarch of Jerusalem grants a privilege to anyone, if his archbishops or his bishops should have been present, they ought to subscribe in the first place. If one should be there, one subscribes, and if there are two or more, in the same manner. Otherwise, a patriarch's privilege can be properly confirmed by an archdeacon's or provost's subscription, or by the subscriptions of all the cathedral church canons, or a majority of them. That which I have said concerning the patriarch should be understood concerning all archbishops.
[18.30] Nevertheless, patriarchs and archbishops sometimes grant privileges for which it is fitting that they seek the counsel, assent and subscription of their suffragan bishops.226
[18.31] In privileges of bishops the prelate of the cathedral church subscribes after the bishop, then all canons or the majority of them. Sometimes archpriests or parish priests or even abbots subscribe in the aforesaid privileges, if the opportunity arises, as when these are present there.
[18.32] Some patriarchs and archbishops have chancellors, such as the patriarch of Jerusalem and the archbishop of Ravenna, who subscribe after all other subscriptions in this manner: Dated by the hand of Peter,227 cardinal priest of the holy church of Ravenna, in the year 1196 of the Lord's incarnation, in the tenth indiction228 and the fifth year of the pontificate of lord William.229 The chancellor of Jerusalem speaks in the same manner, changing those things which should properly be changed, and so all chancellors can do likewise.
[18.33] Nor should anyone be amazed at that which I have said 'cardinal priest of the holy church of Ravenna', because twelve cardinals are there and as many cantors. Some of these are priests and others are not.230 And if a cardinal should be a deacon, they would call him a 'cardinal deacon'.
[18.34] Those who do not have chancellors or vice-chancellors shall similarly make that person subscribe, who presents the privilege at their command, because the right of the recipient may be strengthened through this in no small way.
[18.35] One should proceed according to custom in applying the seal, because one should always defer to any approved custom.
205 Above, Oliva 8b.1, 8b.6.
206 Zadar, in Croatia (Dalmatia). On 17 October 1154 pope Anastasius IV raised bishop Lampridius of Zadar to archbishop: ALFRED FELBINGER "Die Primatialprivilegien für Italien von Gregor VII bis Innocenz III (Pisa, Grado und Salerno)" ZRG kan. Abt. 37 (1951) 95-163 at 134-157.
207 See FELBINGER "Die Primatialprivilegien..." and JOHN C. MOORE "Pope Innocent III, Sardinia and the Papal State" Speculum 62 (1987) 81-101.
208 On the title of primate, see Quinque tabule salutationum 1.7, 4.7.
209 See G. ORIOLI "La Vita sancti Apolenaris di Ravenna e gli antecedenti storici dell'organizzazione ecclesiastica ravennate" Apollinaris 59 (1986) 251-67.
210 For a similar definition of ecclesia, see Placentinus Summa Codicis 1.2 (Turin 1972) 3.
211 See Boncompagnus 5.10.5 for the patron saints of several northern Italian churches.
212 Above, Oliva 8b.12-14, 8b.19-21.
213 Tripoli, suffragen of the archbishop of Tyre, was itself supposedly subject to the patriarch of Antioch, but this was contested by the patriarch of Jerusalem. See RUDOLF HIESTAND Papsturkunden für Kirchen im Heiligen Lande (Göttingen 1985) 53-54. A legal case between the archbishop of Tyre and the bishop of Tripoli is mentioned in Breviloquium 16. See WOLFGANG ANTWEILER Das Bistum Tripolis im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert: Personengeschichtliche und strukturelle Probleme (Duesseldorf: Droste, 1991).
214 Monopoli (Apulia) was permanently exempted from the archbishop of Brindisi in a privilege granted by Urban II in 1091 (IP 9.375 no. 7, JL 5446). In 1221 the emperor Frederick II attempted to persuade pope Honorius III to reattach Monopoli. This charter is printed in AUGUSTIN THEINER ed. Codex Diplomaticus Dominii Temporalis S. Sedis 1.50-51 no. 74 (Rome 1861). As in Oliva c. 52, below, this may be another case of Boncompagno foreshadowing the historical record, or this may be yet another intentional emphasis of the fictive nature of his models.
215 This passage, in combination with Oliva 8b.27, completes an idea adumbrated in the prologue (Oliva 1.8).
216 In the Oliva Boncompagno does not, as he did in the Boncompagnus, deny to the archbishop of Tyre the title of archbishop. See RUDOLF HIESTAND and HANS EBERHARD MAYER "Die Nachfolge des Patriarchen Monarchus von Jerusalem" Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 74 (1974) 109-130 at p. 126. See above, Oliva 8b.22, below 37.6 and GIORGIO FEDALTO La chiesa latina in Oriente vol. 1 (1981) 2.234 (1976).
217 For the spiritual sanctio, see above Oliva 8b.28 and MICHAEL TANGL Päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen von 1200-1500 232 no. 24 (Innsbruck 1894)
218 MICHAEL TANGL Päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen 253 no. 7. See also below, Oliva 49.4.
219 MICHAEL TANGL Päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen 232 no. 23.
220 For the grammatical-logical analysis of syncategoricmatic terms in the twelfth century: L. M. DE RIJK Logica modernorum: a contribution to the history of early terminist logic 3 vol. (Assen, Van Gorcum, 1962) and NIES JORGEN GREEN-PEDERSON The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages: the Commentaries on Aristotle's and Boethius' Topics, c. 1100-1500 (Vienna 1984).
221 For his use of this idiom elsewhere: Palma 36, De amicitia 18, Boncompagnus 6.3.5, Prologus ad Summam Codicis Azonis and below, Oliva 35.7. Cf. Cicero De inventione 1.28.41.
222 Cf. Ioh. 8.44. For nearly identical wordplay, see Boncompagnus 1.18.4-5.
223 For adiunctio as applied to verbs: Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.38; cf. also Cicero De inventione 2.171-2.
224 St. Thomas Beckett, archbishop of Canterbury (1162-1170). A chapel for S. Thomas was founded in Bologna in the twelfth century. Beckett is also aluded to in Boncompagnus 3.3.4-5, 3.18.2 and 3.20.4.
225 For the figure of demonstratio (description so that the subject seems to pass vividly before the eyes): Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.68; cf. also Cicero De inventione 2.13.
226 For an argument against the majestic plural which refers to the deliberative function of the cardinals in their subscriptions, see Tractatus virtutum §46-§47.
227 Not identified. I have not been able to consult FANTUZZI Monumenti Ravennnati dei secoli di mezzo per la maggior parte inediti (Venice 1801-4) or A. TARLAZZI Appendice ai Monumenti Ravennati (Ravenna 1876).
228 The indiction should be 14.
229 Willelmus, archbishop of Ravenna (1190-1201), who also appears above, Oliva 10.8.
230 The standard exposition by CARL GERHARD FüRST Cardinalis. Prolegomena zu einer Rechtsgeschichte des römsichen Kardinalskollegium (Munich 1967) 164-172, severely critizes the 1956 dissertation of ANGELO DURANTI, who later published his views in "Il collegio dei cardinali di Ravenna" in Ravennatensia IV, Atti del convegno di Ferrara (1971) (Cesena 1974) 529-618. For the origin of the Ravenna cardinalate, see G. ORIOLI "La Vita sancti Apolenaris di Ravenna e gli antecedenti storici dell'organizzazione ecclesiastica ravennate" Apollinaris 59 (1986) 251-67.