Olivia Robinson
The origin of this chapter is in my curiosity about some borrowing by “my” bishop, and its implications.1 Now, bishops, like other men, needed money. But bishops, like other mediaeval great men, kings, princes, magnates, prelates, and lords, mostly lived off their own; in other words, they mostly lived off the fruits of their manors. And the bishop of Exeter held some 24 manors; he was not as rich as Winchester, but he was not poor. For example, Bronescombe’s next-butone successor, Bishop Bytton, could afford to give a regular £124–18s–8d p.a. to the cathedral Fabric Fund, doubling the dean and chapter’s contribution of half their prebendal salaries—£62–9s–4d p.a.2 Yet Bytton died with a reasonable credit balance; the dean and chapter, his residuary legatees, received some £600, after generous obit payments, etc.3 However, we do know that Bronescombe inherited significant debts from his predecessor (26).4
What then did the bishop want money for? And the answer I came to is that it was frequently for expenses at the curia romana. These were not the only cash outlays needed, for attendance at the Court of Arches might also need money up front, and there were also taxes both papal and royal, but the requirements of the curia seem to have been dominant. What is marked, in Bronescombe’s and other contemporary registers, is the correlation between procurators appointed to the curia romana, and procurators authorized to borrow money from Italian merchants.
What sort of expenses?—legal fees, and also sweeteners. Admittedly two centuries later—but the pace of change was slow—we hear of a canon of Lübeck who in 1462 spent six months at the curia (including a move to Viterbo for the summer) at a cost of nearly 1,000 ducats, of which some 135 was spent on taxes and fees, and more than 350 on tips and gifts.5 At a more mundane level, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries at the court of the Sacred Rota, we find an apparently standard fine of one ducat for the absolution of litigants, or their representatives, from canonical censure for procedural lapses.6
From whom did a bishop borrow? Italian merchants, as we shall see, and probably particularly those classed as followers of the papal court, campsores camere.
In what court would he be liable on these debts?—properly an ecclesiastical court. Celestine III (1191–1198) laid down that clergy should not be haled before lay courts.7 The tone of papal legislation was much firmer by the end of the thirteenth century, as with Boniface VIII (1294–1303):8 “Secular judges, although they have no jurisdiction in this matter, compel with damnable presumption ecclesiastical persons to pay debts, concerning which letters are shown or other proofs led before these judges against such persons; we decree that they be restrained from such rash conduct by ecclesiastical censure through the local ordinaries [the bishops].” We see some debts being duly enforced among lesser folk. For example, in 1258 Bronescombe wrote a letter from Paris “arousing, warning and threatening,” addressed to the archdeacon of Totnes on behalf of John, tailor of Paris, against John, rector of Widdecombe, on account of 18 marks borrowed in Paris 12 years before (61). In 1279 Archbishop Pecham wrote to Bishop Sutton of Lincoln to enforce the payment, despite his frivolous excuses, of William de Segrave’s debt to Sir Henry de Nottingham; he also authorized the excommunication of certain executors for not paying a debt of 13 marks due to one Chino, citizen and merchant of Florence.9 For prelates’ debts, however, the problems were on a different, and larger, scale; the bishop himself was properly the judge ordinary, and could hardly be judge in his own cause. (Further, the oddity here seems the extreme unlikelihood of actually using legal process. So why the renunciation of defences and privileges? And the answer is probably that it was a game, though a seriously played game. As I concluded in Index [1994] due process was not necessarily used to solve legal problems if there was another dimension.) On the other hand, and contrary to canon law, we find in 1294 the writ precipimus addressed to the sheriff of Herefordshire to have Bishop Richard de Swinfield summoned before the Barons of the Exchequer to answer for a debt of 30 marks owed to a Florentine merchant.10 We shall come back to the question of forum.
So I shall proceed to a rapid survey of the texts in Bronescombe’s register which have led me to these conclusions. (There are not many for a period of more than 20 years, but there is no good reason to suppose that the register in its random way mentioned them all.) Here then is a list of Bronescombe’s borrowings and appointments of procurators.
In May 1258, two months after his consecration, the bishop received a loan of 50 marks from Sir Mauger de St Aubyn (37); a month later, on June 23, he borrowed 16 and one-half marks from Girardus Ricchobaldi—apparently an Italian merchant—to be repaid at the feast of the Assumption, which he paid as a procuration for M. Arlotus, the papal nuncio (49), and he admitted on the same day that he had also borrowed 100 marks from the same Girard, to be repaid in London on the feast of St Peter ad Vincula (51).11 Also in June, in an appointment dated from London, Bartholomew de Lardario was appointed the bishop’s procurator-general; the appointment was twice repeated, dated from Paris, a couple of weeks later (57, 59–60). Nothing was said about money, nor indeed about where he was to exercise this power. On July 31, 1258 in Paris William de Capella, the bishop’s confidant,12 received letters of credit for 100 marks from the Florentine merchants to be paid at the curia romana (62); he also received a procuratorship for borrowing up to 50 marks (63), and another for borrowing 40 marks—these were returned a year later to the bishop in London (64). On the same day William was made the bishop’s procurator “ad impetrandum, contradicendum et substituendum in curia romana” (65). On September 8, 1258 the bishop gave a bond for 40 marks borrowed from William de Petersfield to be repaid at Easter (67), and on November 1, he gave one William, quite likely the same man, letters patent about 40 marks due on the feast of the Purification (172).
On August 29, 1259 a procuratorship at the curia was issued to Richard de Honiton and Robert de Albo Monasterio through the hands of the Florentine merchants (120). Luke de Paignton and Richard de Honiton, again, were appointed the bishop’s procurators at the curia in November 1259 (180); no mention of money was made. Richard de Honiton was still resident at the curia in March 1261, because he was then given powers to collate benefices there on the bishop’s behalf (296–297). Other loans are recorded: on July 24, 1260 the bishop issued a bond for the payment of £15 at Lyons to the nephew of the archbishop of Tarentaise—Peter de Vienne—at the hands of the Florentine merchants; otherwise his caution to the London branch was to be returned and the £15 was to be paid there on All Saints (249). On May 21, 1261 Master Bartholomew de Lardario was made procurator for conferring benefices within the bishop’s collation at the curia that might fall vacant while he was there (323); on the same day Bartholomew had letters for receiving at the curia 100 marks paid in London, and another 100 marks lent in London (324), and also power to borrow 50 marks at the curia, and a procuratorship “ad impetrandum et contradicendum” (325).
In December 1266 Richard de Honiton again received an appointment as the bishop’s procurator at the curia, with powers to appoint or substitute other procurators (645). It is, of course, possible that he was a professional lawyer who had been there all the time, but in these sealed letters he was told to take the advice of MM. Berardus of Naples, papal chaplain and notary, and Philip de Cancellis, papal subdeacon and chaplain, and to fix a salary for such a procurator or procurators, in accordance with the customs of the court. When, on February 5, 1270, Nicholas de Honiton was made the bishop’s procurator at the curia, the power of borrowing was specifically withheld (802). In April 1271 M. Alured, son of Milo, was made procurator at the curia, and also given power to contract a loan of up to £100 there from any merchants whomsoever, as long as it was with the advice of John of Toledo and the ex-legate Cardinal Ottobuono (855–856).
In October 1273, when the bishop was in Bayonne—he seems to have stayed in France until after the Second Council of Lyons, which he attended—William de Capella was made his procurator anywhere in the province of Canterbury (958). Presumably in relation to this, he received a letter of credit for 40/-, at need, from the Florentines based in Paris (963). In November, still in Bayonne, the bishop wrote to Nicholas Bonivicini and James Bonacursi, citizens and merchants of Florence based in Paris, appointing Peter de Montagu his procurator for borrowing from them 115 marks and Robert de la Hallelond procurator for £50 (964–965); these loans were presumably for the bishop’s own use in France. At the end of December 1273 the bishop was in Bordeaux. There he made M. Richard de Carswell his procurator at the curia, for ordinary legal business, and also for claiming and receiving from the executors of M. Alured, formerly the bishop’s procurator, any debts, obligations, contracts with merchants, etc., and also for recovering from Philip Rodulphi and his partners, Florentine merchants, up to 20 marks from the money which had been paid them by M. Alured (968–970). Three months later, on March 18, 1274, Richard de Carswell and Philip de Exeter were appointed to receive on the bishop’s behalf and for his business at the curia 30 marks from John Gerardini and Philip Spina of Pistoia (973).13 In Paris on April 7, the bishop acknowledged receipt of 790 marks from various merchants of Florence (975).14 On May 11, by this time in Lyons, the bishop made Nicholas de Honiton and Philip de Exeter his procurators at the curia for the case pending between himself and Thomas de Carvenal (976). In July, still in Lyons, the bishop made Edmund de Warefeld (clearly a professional canonist) his procurator at the curia, revoking all other appointments (982).
A later appointment as procurator at need for the Court of Arches was issued to Richard Paz (1017). Other procuratorships for the court of Canterbury were issued in October 1275 to Richard de Kingston and Ralph de la Pole—again, with no mention of money (1113); others were issued to Nicholas de Musele in February 1276 (1149) and in August 1276 to Richard Paz (1181). Ralph de la Pole was still, or again, the bishop’s procurator in January 1278 (1243–1244). I guess that it was also for Canterbury that Ralph de la Pole and William de Essex were made the bishop’s procurators “in all causes howsoever touching our person” (1306), but they may have been the bishop’s personal law agents.
In October 1276 Edmund de Warefeld, Nicholas de Honiton and Richard Carswell were all made the bishop’s procurators at the curia (1197). In January 1277 the bishop made John de Pontissara and Richard de Carswell his procurators at the curia for his dispute with the abbot of Ford; this appointment also mentioned the existence of M. Mathias de Thiatynus as his permanent defensor at the papal court (1215); again, no money was mentioned. This appointment was revoked as far as Richard de Carswell was concerned in January 1278 (1245); on the same day, those of Edmund de Warefield and Nicholas de Honiton were renewed (1246). Just over a week later the bishop was acknowledging a loan to himself and his church of 100 marks from Duracius Huberti and Jacobus Scoldi and their Florentine partners; he promised to repay the money in London on June 5 (1247). It was presumably the same Duracius who was made the bishop’s attorney to receive £100 in reparation from the earl of Cornwall, in accordance with the settlement brought about by the Queen and Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells (1414).15
Now, by no means all appointments of procurators are linked to borrowing money, but the majority of loans are linked to procuratorships. There are, in Bronescombe’s Register, slightly more than half as many references to loans and letters of credit than there are appointments. We may compare briefly with some contemporary bishops.
In Pecham’s register M. Richard de Needham, who was clearly a permanent procurator at the curia, was appointed in May 1278 to borrow 400 marks from Peppo of the Florentine Pulci; a year later he was to borrow what he needed from any merchants; and in 1280 he was to borrow £40 for the archbishop’s business at the curia from merchants based there or elsewhere.17 In 1281 M. Reynerius de Vichio, a Florentine and canon of Lichfield, had been appointed the archbishop’s procurator at the curia; in 1288 he borrowed 40 marks from merchants of Pistoia for the archbishop’s business at the curia.18 In 1282 M. Anselm de Estria, who was Pecham’s procurator for dealing with Kilwardby’s estate, was authorized to borrow up to £20 from any merchants.19 On the other hand we learn of no borrowing by Philip de Pomonte and James de Trebys, the archbishop’s resident procurators at the curia, nor by Pontissara, then still archdeacon of Exeter, who was also resident there.20 In 1283 John de Beckingham and M. William de Sardinia were procurators at the curia, given authority to borrow respectively £40 and 40 marks.21
Bishop Sutton of Lincoln in February 1297 borrowed £100 from Lapo Bonichi and his fellow merchants of the società of the Amantini [Amannati] at Pistoia, promising to repay by the following Easter.22 In July of that year Sutton appointed a procurator to the curia, with powers inter alia to borrow £40.23 In the register of Bishop Reynolds of Worcester, the only listed procuratorship to Rome (in July 1313) includes powers to borrow.24
I think the link between procuratorships to the curia and the need for money has been established. And our second question concerns the nature of the bishop’s expenses at the curia. We get no hard information from Bronescombe’s register, although it seems highly unlikely that Berardus of Naples and Philip de Cancellis would give their advice for nothing (645), any more than the cardinals John of Toledo and Ottobuono (855–856). But a glance at a few contemporaries of Bronescombe is suggestive. Godfrey Giffard, bishop of Worcester, received a detailed list of expenses from his procurator at the curia in 1286: to the mercatores “for exchange,” 15 marks; to the English cardinal who spoke to the pope, 30 marks; to Berard de Neapoli, 100/-; to Bernard, secretary of the pope, a black palfrey worth 12 marks and an orphrey of 30/-value; to Galgano, the pope’s writer, three gold florins; further, there were the living expenses of the procurator and his household, and things given to the doorkeeper, and others.25
Thomas Cantilupe of Hereford was heavily involved in costly litigation at the papal court, as we learn from his register, where his editor remarks that such expenses were a constant drain.26 Advocates and procurators such as Edmund de Warefeld, who was retained by him between 1275 and 1282 on a retainer of four marks a year,27 had to be paid, and presents given to the cardinals and others whose favours were necessary.28 We hear of borrowings from Roman and Luccan merchants, a procuratorship for borrowing £100 from any merchant at the curia, and another loan of £100 from the Spina partnership of Pistoia.29 It was possible to agitate about a payment of one mark to someone who was not a properly appointed procurator, but another procurator had spent all but three marks from a total of £106–13s–4d.30 One entry is very specific about the possible ways usefully to lay out the rather inadequate sum of £100 to expedite Cantilupe’s business; more must be borrowed if necessary, and the Pistoians would be willing to lend, but the bishop wished to avoid giving presents to the pope himself. The suggestion was that Cardinal Hugo Anglicus was to have 30 marks, Cardinal Gerard, auditor noster, was to have £5 and his familia five marks, Cardinal Matthew Ruffus ten marks, Cardinal Jordan (who had a 20 mark annual retainer from archbishop Pecham) ten marks, the vicechancellor £15, the auditor contradictorum ten marks, Berard de Neapoli and “alius notarius magis excellens et domino pape magis specialis” 20 marks each, the papal doorkeeper 40/-; variations on these distributions were suggested.31
Pecham appointed M. Salvagius de Florentia his procurator at the curia for paying 40/- p.a. to domino Pozrine and Masters Reyner, his brother, and Raphael de Bologna, advocates at the curia romana, as long as they should serve him there; also four marks a year to M. Bardus de Podiobonizi, presumably a permanent procurator at the curia.32 In 1282 he had available at the curia another 500 marks borrowed from the Luccans, which he wished to be distributed as 200 marks for his necessary costs, and 300 for the “common service” of the pope and cardinals, suggesting 30 marks for Cardinal Benedict Gaetano (later Boniface VIII),33 and 20 marks each for three other cardinals; Brother Matthew [?de Theatino], papal chaplain, was to have 100/- for his necessities, and his procurators Reynerius de Florence and Philip de S Augustino [or St Austell] were to have 30 and 20 marks respectively.34 In 1285 Pecham was paying annual pensions to various cardinals of £20 or 20 marks, as well as £10 to the vicechancellor of the Roman Church and 40/- to Raymond Hispano, advocate.35
John de Pontissara, after he had become bishop of Winchester, issued a receipt for 100 marks to the executors of his predecessor for all the services he, John, had earlier performed as bishop Nicholas’ procurator at the curia.36 Soon afterwards a report was sent to Pontissara by M. Petrus de Theano, papal subdeacon and chaplain, corrector of the papal letters, archdeacon of Palermo, and substitute for the absent auditor contradictarum by the special mandate of the pope, informing him that John of Ancona, formerly procurator of the bishop of Winchester, was satisfied as to the salary due to him after he had been substituted by M. John Fleming—unfortunately the sum is not mentioned.37
It is clear that the majority of loans were made by Italian merchants, bankers in effect.38 Many of them, as we know from other sources, were attached to the papal household, mercatores curiam romanam sequentes; this is hardly surprising when loans were for expenses at the curia. We do, of course, hear of other loans. I mentioned that Bronescombe borrowed money from Mauger de St Aubyn and from William de Petersfield. For other examples, in September 1279 Pecham owed Sir Henry Wallensis £108–3–1 for wine and 20 marks for oxen, and also 50 marks to John, rector of Lewknor, and £100 to M. William de Luda.39 Pontissara owed a Bordeaux merchant £37–10–00 for wine, to be paid within a year, and with the usual terms, just like a money loan—on the security of all his property, moveable and heritable; the creditor’s additional expenses, losses, and interest were to be paid together with the principal debt, “renouncing all defence, cavilling, royal writ of prohibition, and all remedy of law by which we or ours could try to hinder the said merchants.”40 And he had at some time lent the bishop of London £100.41
But the Italians were the most convenient, and they were well-established in England before the middle of the thirteenth century as agents of papal collectors. Sometimes we hear of them without specification, sometimes as individuals, but often as members of partnerships. The great majority seem to have been in the fairly wide group to whom Gregory IX gave the title campsores camere, and we find them sometimes listed among the household in the papal registers,42 such as that of Gregory X, describing Andreosius Angeli Rozi as mercator curiae. Such firms usually pledged their whole property to the papal camera. When it became customary by the later thirteenth century for them to receive monies on deposit from the collectors, they would not only give a receipt but also a bond, assuming all risk, submitting to the jurisdiction named by the collector, excluding the use of any privileges and promising to deliver the sum deposited within a specified time of demand;43 in this way they had free use of the money. The Italian merchants had become by this time the normal channel of transmission from England to the curia of the sums raised, because they need not necessarily transport specie but could pay off papal creditors. Clement V was frightened off by the failure of the Buonsignori in 1307, but the practice soon resumed. Popes in turn borrowed money from their bankers on the surety of revenues to be collected; popes also were prepared to assist their bankers to recover loans made to prelates with “an executory process enforced with ecclesiastical censures and by ecclesiastical law.”44
Bronescombe borrowed from Girard Ricchobaldi, almost certainly of Florence, since his nephew was described as a scholar of that city (and may also appear in Pontissara’s register as a partner in the firm of Pullici and Rembertini). Duracius Huberti and Jacobo Scoldi are described as Florentines. Nicholas Bonivicini and James Bonacursi, also Florentines, were linked with the Rembertini (975).45 On four occasions there is no identification of the bankers with whom the bishop was dealing other than as Florentine merchants. On another occasion, however, he was borrowing from the merchants of Pistoia (973).46
Pecham was dealing with the Florentine firm of Pullici, and also the merchants of Pistoia;47 on other occasions the choice of which firm of merchants was specifically left open, but the Florentines seem to have been used more often than those from other cities.
Thomas de Cantilupe borrowed from the merchants of Lucca, as well as the Spina partnership of Pistoia, and perhaps other merchants from that city, as well as unspecified bankers at Rome.48 Pontissara also borrowed from the Florentines; we hear of a loan to him and other bishops from Hubertus Dogy and Abrachio Gerardi as well as from members of the Pullici & Rembertini firm.49 He was also involved with the Pullici & Rembertini and the Frescobaldi, as well as others, such as the Mozi, in his capacity as special collector (along with Bishop Sutton) of the tenth of 1291;50 Pistoian merchants were also involved, the Ammanati among others.51
The final topic to be considered here is the problem of the enforcement of these debts.
In 973:
We also promise to return and repay the said money to the aforesaid … or their alternate … in London, before Pentecost [May 20], binding as to this ourselves, our successors, our see and all our property present and future, renouncing the defence of fraud, of instant action, of forum or of Cross, and the benefit of any privilege which is alleged to have been granted to the prelates or clergy of England that they be not liable to summons overseas.
In 975 (which seems to concern a concealed debt, perhaps evading usury) the language is even stronger:
We call ourselves paid and quit, renouncing totally the defence of money not received, not counted over, not delivered to us. … desiring that all obligatory letters, instruments and promises which might subsequently be discovered should be null and void and possess no force … And on this account we bind ourselves, our successors, the church and see of Exeter, jointly, together with all our property and theirs, moveable and heritable, present and future, spiritual and temporal, all incomes and rents, to the aforesaid merchants … And we renounce, on behalf of ourselves, our successors, our church and see, jointly in these matters, the defence that the matter was not done thus, the privilege of clergy and forum, and of assistance from the Cross, the constitution on the two diets published in the General Council,52 and all the other objections which could be raised against the aforesaid or any of them.
In 1247:
We quitclaim this 100 marks and avow ourselves to have been paid in full, renouncing the defence of money not counted out, not paid and not delivered. Which 100 marks, reckoned at the aforesaid rate and number, we promise in our own name and in that of our church and our successors, and are bound by lawful stipulation to return and pay to the said merchants at New Temple at Pentecost [June 5] fully, faithfully and without further delay. But if, which Heaven forfend, we should fail to pay the said money on the said day, we promise and are liable, in our own name and in that of our successors, through the aforesaid stipulation to refund and restore to the same merchants all the losses, interest and expenses they have sustained, made or incurred in any way, in court or outside it, on account of the failure to pay the aforesaid money. Concerning which expenses, we promise and intend to put our trust in these same merchants through their simple word, without any oath or burdens of proof. That all and each of these things should be firmly and faithfully observed and fulfilled, we bind ourselves, our church and successors and all our property and that of our church and our successors, moveable and heritable, spiritual as well as temporal, present and future, wherever they may be found, to the said merchants and their heirs, to be seized at their will and held until full satisfaction shall have been made. And we renounce concerning all the aforesaid for us, our church and our successors, all aid and remedy of canon and civil law, privilege of military service or forum, all custom and statute, all papal and royal letters whether already obtained or to be obtained, royal [writ of] prohibition, judicial settlement, constitution concerning the two diets, and all other defences, rights and protections, personal or real, which could advantage us or bar or injure the said merchants or which could be raised as an objection or opposed to the aforesaid. We also wish, as regards all the above, to be summoned to court and brought to judgment in any place whatsoever by the said merchants.
The bishop was binding himself as thoroughly as possible—like the other bishops. But where could the loan be enforced?—according to canon law only in an ecclesiastical court, which would mean for a bishop only at the curia romana or through papal judges delegate. Yet we see little of any actual enforcement; in some cases, indeed it was impracticable.53 I suspect that what went on was probably a game, a seriously played game, however. As I concluded in an earlier article,54 due process was not necessarily used to solve legal problems if there was another dimension.
Let us consider the case of Archbishop Pecham.55 In 1279 Pecham borrowed 4,000 marks from the merchants of Lucca, with the promise of repayment within a month of Michaelmas, and he could not manage to repay anything by then. His letters are full of his desperation about their threats to have him excommunicated.56 Just before his arrival in England he had borrowed 400 marks from Peppo, one of the Florentine Pullici. He borrowed 2,000 marks from the king (on release of the corn of the archbishopric), and partially repaid the Luccans from that, but then was enmeshed in his debt to the king, borrowing another 500 from the Lucca merchants at Michaelmas 1283. “On several occasions Pecham appointed proctors to contract loans in his name and on the security of all the goods in the see of Canterbury, but barring all usurious agreements. Most of these bonds were for a special purpose, to pay for his business in the Roman curia.”57 As early as July 1279 a papal bull threatened Pecham with excommunication unless he repaid, within a month of Michaelmas, the loan of 4,000 marks from Lucca; he had to appeal for a period of grace, and the threat of excommunication was withdrawn.58 Pecham blamed one Riccardi of the Luccan branch in England, but he did not actually settle his debts until May 1, 1285, when he was quitclaimed for his debts in France, England and the curia. (However, in November 1284 Henry Lovel, steward of all the lands in the see, had been able to provide 500 marks for sending to Rome.) There is no reason to believe Pecham was treated with any special tenderness, despite the awkwardness of his position as a Franciscan vowed to poverty, but he seems to have emerged from his financial difficulties without ever actually being sued.
So why the renunciation of defences and privileges?—presumably so that the merchants under the protection of the pope could take matters straight to the top. The plenitude of papal power was to be exercised in their interests, rather than that of the clergy—mutual favours. In February 1295, for example, Lapo and other Pistoian merchants residing in London issued letters patent concerning the debt of £3,000 which Robert Winchelsey, when archbishop of Canterbury, had earlier contracted at the curia; they were mindful of benefits received and, if they received 2,000 marks within the year, they would not push for sentences of excommunication or suspension.59
In 1288 Nicholas IV had tried to solve the problem.60 He may have been looking back to the difficulties of collecting the tenth of 1274, as well as forward to his own taxation of 1291. He laid down, in a letter addressed to Berard, chamberlain, a ruling for the security of creditors that was to cover all loans between ecclesiastics, specifically prelates but all others too, and merchants contracting with the authority of the Roman curia.61 The prelate must be truly in need of money for the sake of his church, and would then be authorized to borrow up to a set limit62
… in his own name and in that of the same church, and his and their property, moveable and heritable, present and future, up to the given amount (all usury being excluded). He must renounce the constitution concerning the two diets which was issued by the General Council; the benefit of restitutio in integrum; all letters and indulgences obtained, as also which may be obtained, from the Holy See; the assistance of canon and civil law, and the choice of judge and forum should it happen that letters be sought from the Holy See in the name of the same creditors concerning these matters; as also all other defences whereby the said prelate and his successors might be able to defend themselves hereafter against the same creditors.
The prelate must pay his creditors, including costs if the payment is late, from the resources of his church, and the creditors bore no burden of proof other than conforming to this ruling. If the prelate failed to pay up, he was to be given a month’s warning to make satisfaction, including expenses, costs, and interest, excluding all usury (cum iustis et moderatis expensis ac debita restauratione dampnorum, et interesse, usuris omnino cessantibus), on pain of sequestration of all his temporal revenues. Within two further weeks, three-quarters of these revenues were to be realized for the benefit of the creditors although, “that he may not be compelled to go a-begging and shame his pontifical dignity,” the prelate was to be left one-quarter on which to subsist, on penalty of suspension of all rights of patronage and his powers to collate; such rights were reserved to the Holy See. The prelate was to appear in person at the curia, and not to leave without the permission of his creditors, unless full satisfaction had been made; if he should die, his successor was to incur the same liability, under the same penalty. If possible any procedure was to be summary and informal. Monastic clergy, however, were to be put under the control of executors, who would grant the community from their temporalities sufficient for their needs, assigning the remainder to their creditors.
However, as we have seen, seven years later Archbishop Pecham was being threatened by the merchants of Lucca with excommunication, something Nicholas IV had forbidden “lest the execution of their pontifical office as regards the spiritualities—which particularly touch our heart—should in some way happen to be hindered.”63 The favored banking firms—and even favored firms could fail—must have found their position weakened by the less serious penalty and, with or without formal official backing, resumed the threat of the ultimate sanction. Bishops needed money; their revenues were as much in kind as in cash, and therefore they needed to borrow money. Yet bishops quite often simply were not able to repay their debts, or to raise the expected money from taxes.64 The late thirteenth-century Church illustrates the permanent and necessary tension between debtor and creditor. If the creditor cannot generally recover his money he is unwilling to lend, and would-be debtors suffer as well; if the terms for the borrower are too harsh, he will not borrow, and would-be lenders also suffer. Nevertheless, appropriately for a church professing peace, and mercy as well as justice, due process seems seldom carried to its conclusion. Negotiation seems to have been the normal method of dispute resolution and, one must presume, usually came close to providing satisfaction for both sides.
* This chapter is dedicated with cheerfulness and gratitude to James Brundage. The first version was read to the AGM of the Canterbury and York Society in November 1999; an abbreviated version has appeared in Ius romanum-ius commune-ius hodiernum: Studies in honor of Eltjo J H Schrage (Amsterdam, 2010).
1 The italicized figures in brackets refer to the entries in the Register of Walter Bronescombe, Bishop of Exeter 1258–1280, ed. O.F. Robinson, Canterbury and York Society (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1995–2003), vols 82, 87, and 94.
2 The Accounts of the Fabric of Exeter Cathedral, 1279–1353, Part I 1279–1326, ed. Audrey M. Erskine, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, 24 (2 vols, Torquay, 1981), vol. 2, p. 29; see also p. 51 and p. 62.
3 Accounts of the Executors of R. Gravesend and T. Button, ed. J. Webb, Camden Society (London, 1874), vol. 10, p. 45.
4 See also 72, 78, 83, 92, 103.
5 C.L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington, IN, 1985), p. 136, citing D. Brosius, “Eine Reise an die Kurie im Jahre 1462,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, 58 (1978): pp. 411–440.
6 Private communication from J.J. Robertson of Dundee University.
7 X 2.2.9.
8 VI 2.2.2: “Saeculares iudices qui, licet ipsis nulla competat iurisdictio in hac parte, personas ecclesiasticas ad solvendum debita, super quibus coram eis contra ipsas earum exhibentur literae vel probationes aliae inducuntur, damnabili praesumptione compellunt, a temeritate huiusmodi per locorum ordinarios censura ecclesiastica decernimus compescendos.”
9 Register of John Pecham, Archbishop of Canterbury 1279–1292, ed. Decima Douie, Canterbury and York Society, 64 and 65 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1959–1968), vol. 1, p. 32; vol. 2, p. 80.
10 Register of Richard Swinfield, ed. William W. Capes, Canterbury and York Society, 6 (London, 1909), p. 307.
11 Girard’s nephew, Girarducius Maynetus, scholar of Florence, was granted a pension of two marks p.a. from the bishop’s private purse, until more generous provision should be made (53). It seems possible that he was identical with Maynetus, the Rome-based member of the Florentine partnership of Pullici and Rembertini, concerning whom Michael de Helston rendered account for £17–6–8 to Bishop Pontissara in the 1290s. See Register of John Pontissara, ed. Cecil Deedes, Canterbury and York, 19 and 30 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1915–1924), p. 803.
12 He returned the seals into the bishop’s hands on July 31 (66); he returned from Rome the following June (91), and received them back in August (116).
13 They were partners of Jacobus, Bartholomew, and Baudouin, the sons of the lord Amanati, and of Jacobus, lord of Agolens, and of Laus, lord of Anio, their fellow citizens.
14 Guelf Renaldi, Galterus Scoldi, Franco Plenaelli, and Reyner Jacobi, partners and citizens and merchants of Florence, paid on behalf of themselves and of Ubertus Renaldi, Jacobus Rembertini, Nicholas Bonevicino, and Jacobus Bonacursi and their other partners.
15 And perhaps the same man as the Durancius who, with his partners, citizens, and merchants of Florence, was to convey the present of an altar frontal from Bishop Thomas Cantilupe of Hereford to Cardinal Matthew Orsini. See Register Thomas Cantilupe, ed. Robert G. Griffiths, Canterbury and London, 2 (London, 1906–1907), p. 223.
16 Failing suitable entries in a Subject Index, I looked for references to Florence, Lucca, Pistoia, and Rome.
17 Reg. Pecham, vol. 1, p. 23, p. 27, p. 35.
18 Reg. Pecham, vol. 1, p. 4; vol. 2, p. 4.
19 Reg. Pecham, vol. 2, p. 56.
20 Reg. Pecham, vol. 1, p. 164, p. 34, p. 37, p. 39.
21 Reg. Pecham, vol. 2, p. 66, p. 74.
22 Register of Oliver Sutton, ed. Rosalind M.T. Hill, Lincoln Record Society, 60 (8 vols, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1965), vol. 5, p. 207.
23 Reg. Sutton, Lincoln Record Society, 64 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1969), vol. 6, p. 12.
24 Register of Walter Reynolds, ed. Rowland A. Wilson, Dugdale Society, 9 (Oxford, 1928), p. 68.
25 Register Godfrey Giffard, ed. J.W. Willis Bund, Worcestershire Historical Society, 30–34 (Oxford, 1902), p. 292.
26 Reg. Cantilupe, p. lxii.
27 Reg. Cantilupe, p. 12, p. 243, p. 250.
28 Reg. Cantilupe, p. 187, p. 232.
29 Reg. Cantilupe, p. 186, p. 276.
30 Reg. Cantilupe, p. 277, p. 294.
31 Reg. Cantilupe, p. 273. Spina and partners were the bankers concerned, p. 276; they also lent money to Cantilupe’s successor, Richard de Swinfield. See Reg. Swinfield, p. 8.
32 Reg. Pecham, vol. 1, p. 30, p. 31. Bardus was also procurator for Thomas Cantilupe, see Reg. Cantilupe, p. 15. Salvagius held benefices in the diocese of Lincoln, see Rotuli Richard Gravesend, ed. A. Hamilton Thompson, Lincoln Record Society, 20 (Lincoln, 1925), p. 63, p. 128, p. 135.
33 To whom Pecham had written in 1279 asking for advice about his debts, see Reg. Pecham, vol. 1, p. 49.
34 Registrum Epistolarum John Peckham, ed. Charles T. Martin, Rolls Series, 77 (3 vols, 1882–1885), vol. 1, p. 276.
35 Reg. Ep. Peckham, vol. 3, p. 872.
36 Reg. Pontissara, p. 263.
37 Reg. Pontissara, p. 271.
38 See R.A. Goldthwaite, The Economy of Renaissance Florence (Baltimore, MD, 2009), chap. 3 especially.
39 Reg. Pecham, vol. 1, p. 12, p. 13, p. 16.
40 Reg. Pontissara, p. 252.
41 Reg. Pontissara, p. 765.
42 William E. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 (Cambridge, MA, 1939), xii.8. See also Reg. Pontissara, p. 501.
43 Lunt, Financial Relations, xii.5.
44 Reg. Pontissara, p. 602.
45 See the list in fn. 13
46 See fn. 13.
47 Reg. Pecham, vol. 1, p. 23; vol. 2, p. 4.
48 Reg. Cantilupe, p. 15, p. 18, p. 19, p. 276.
49 Reg. Pontissara, p. 495, p. 483.
50 Reg. Pontissara, p. 501, p. 803, p. 578.
51 Reg. Pontissara, p. 504, p. 505, p. 506.
52 The constitution on the two diets runs: “Some persons, abusing the grace of the apostolic see, rely upon requesting its letters to distant judges so that the defendant, exhausted by labours and expenses, may be forced to abandon his case or to buy off the importunity of the pursuer. But since an approach [to the court] ought not through the judicial process be open to injustices (which observance of the law forbids), we have laid down that nobody can be haled to court more than two days’ journey outside his own diocese by apostolic letters, unless they shall be requested with the consent of the parties or they make express mention of this ruling (Lateran IV c.37 = X 1.3.28).”
53 We find that Pope Celestine V instructed the bishop of Durham to compel, per censuram ecclesiasticam, appellatione remota, Bishops Sutton of Lincoln and Pontissara of Winchester to pay over the 30,000 marks they should have raised from collecting the special tenth of 1291. We hear from Pontissara that there remained various debtors owing sums “which hitherto no ecclesiastical censure has been able to release, nor is it thought likely that it can be levied in the future; partly on account of the poverty of many rectors and ecclesiastics who can hardly sustain life on their ecclesiastical goods in these days; partly through the death of some ecclesiastics since the tax was made, they before their death having no means to pay.” There had also been murrain among the cattle, troubles with the French, wars with the Welsh, … (Reg. Pontissara, p. 504, p. 791).
54 “Canon Law in Theory and Practice: Insights from a Thirteenth Century Diocese,” Index, 21 (1994): pp. 473–480.
55 I am obliged here to the excellent article by D. Sutcliffe, “The Financial Condition of the See of Canterbury, 1279–1292,” Speculum, 10/1 (1935): pp. 53–68.
56 Reg. Ep. Peckham, vol. 1, p. 21, p. 34, p. 49, p. 105.
57 Sutcliffe, “The Financial Condition,” p. 56.
58 Cardinal Benedict Gaetano may have had something to do with this, see Reg. Pecham, vol. 1, p. 49, already cited.
59 See Register of Robert Winchelsey, ed. Rose Graham, Canterbury and York Society, 51 and 52 (London, 1952–1956,) pp. 56, 519; also Reg. Pontissara, p. 505.
60 Les Registres de Nicolas IV, ed. E. Langlois (Paris, 1887), folio 34, 7202–7203, pp. 977–978, dated October 25, 1288.
61 Ibid.: “Cum super mutuis inter patriarchas, archiepiscopos et episcopos ac [alios] inferiores prelatos seu quascumque alias personas ecclesiasticas et mercatores romane curie auctoritate apostolica contrahendis, quoad executorias litteras pro cautela creditorum a sede apostolica concedendas, infrascriptam formam servari velimus ….”
62 Ibid.: “prelato exponente quod, tam pro suis necessariis quam pro ecclesia sue negotiis apud sedem apostolicam expediendis utiliter, ipsum subire magna onera expensarum oportebat, et supplicante ut usque ad summam librarum … turonensium parvorum mutuum contrahendi sub infrascriptis modis et formis, sine quibus creditores se putabat invenire non posse, sibi licentiam largiremur ….”
63 Ibid.: “non per excommunicationis vel suspensionis sententiam, ne pontificalis officii executio circa spiritualia, que specialius insident cordi nostro, valeat quomodolibet impediri.”
64 Reg. Pontissara, p. 791, already cited.