Gregory IX: Liber II

A contumacious person, in not appearing or not responding, can be excommunicated; however, he ought not to be deprived of a benefice. H. d. The Sicilian Abbot.

Ex concilio Africano.

From the African council.

De Quodvultdeo Centurensi episcopo, quem, quum adversarius ipsius eum petisset ad concilium nostrum introduci, interrogatus, an cum eo vellet apud episcopos experiri, primo id promiserat, et altera die respondit, hoc sibi non placere, atque discessit. Placuit omnibus episcopis, ut nullus eidem Quodvultdeo communicet, donec satisfactione praemissa fuerit absolutus. Nam adimi sibi episcopatum ante causae eius exitum nulli potest iure videri.

Concerning Quodvultdeus, bishop of Centurensis, whom, when his adversary had requested that he be introduced to our council, and he was asked whether he wished to try the case with him before the bishops, he had at first promised this, and on the next day replied that this did not please him, and departed. It pleased all the bishops that no one should communicate with the same Quodvultdeus until, satisfaction having been first made, he shall have been absolved. For that his bishopric be taken from him before the outcome of his case can seem lawful to no one.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Laici ecclesiastica negotia tractare non debent, sed praelatorum iudicio disponuntur. Hoc dicit. Abbas.

Laymen ought not to handle ecclesiastical business, but are arranged by the judgment of the prelates. The Abbot says this.

Sic.

Thus.

Ex synodo Eugenii Papae.

From the synod of Pope Eugenius.

Decernimus etiam, ut laici ecclesiastica tractare negotia non praesumant. Sed episcopi, abbates, archiepiscopi et alii ecclesiarum praelati de negotiis ecclesiasticis, maxime de illis, quae spiritualia esse noscuntur, [aliquorum] laicorum iudicio non disponant, nec propter eorum prohibitionem ecclesiasticam dimittant iustitiam exercere.

We decree also, that laymen not presume to handle ecclesiastical business. But bishops, abbots, archbishops, and other prelates of the churches, concerning ecclesiastical affairs, especially those which are known to be spiritual, are not to arrange by the judgment of [some] laymen, nor, on account of their prohibition, are they to abandon the exercise of ecclesiastical justice.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Causa iuris patronatus spectat ad iudicium ecclesiae. H. dicit specifice et ad literam.

The case of the right of patronage pertains to the judgment of the church. H. says [this] specifically and to the letter.

Alexander III. illustri Regi Angliae.

Alexander 3. to the illustrious King of England.

Quanto te divina gratia [summaque providentia maioris gratiae privilegio decoravit, tanto viros religiosos maiori debes caritate diligere, et in iustitiis suis manutenere propensius et fovere.] Causa vero iuris patronatus ita coniuncta est et connexa spiritualibus causis, quod non nisi ecclesiastico iudicio valeat definiri, et apud ecclesiasticum iudicem solummodo terminari.

The more divine grace has adorned you [and the highest providence with the privilege of greater grace, by that much the more you ought to love religious men with greater charity, and to uphold them more readily in their rights and to favor them.] The cause of the right of patronage is, moreover, so joined and connected to spiritual causes that it can be defined only by ecclesiastical judgment, and be terminated only before an ecclesiastical judge.

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Clericum convictum vel confessum de crimine coram iudice saeculari ex eo non punit episcopus; sed coram se convictum vel confessum punit poena debita, nisi cum illo dispenset, quod potest in adulterio et minoribus; depositum vero non statim tradit curiae saeculari. H. de usque ad fin. Abbas Siculus.

A cleric convicted or confessing of a crime before a secular judge is not on that account punished by the bishop; but one convicted or confessing before himself he punishes with the due penalty, unless he dispenses with him, which he can do in adultery and in lesser matters; but one deposed he does not immediately hand over to the secular court. H., from ... up to the end. The Sicilian Abbot.

1. Summatus est iste §. supra in princ. c., tamen quia habet materiam separatam et notabilem, ideo dic aliter: In adulterio et minoribus potest cum clericis peracta poenitentia episcopus dispensare; depositum autem pro suis excessibus non tradit indifferenter curiae saeculari. H. d. Abbas Sicul.

1. This §. has been summarized above at the beginning of the chapter, yet because it has separate and notable matter, therefore say otherwise: In adultery and lesser matters the bishop can, with clerics, once penance has been completed, dispense; but the deposed person, for his excesses, he does not hand over indiscriminately to the secular curia. H. d. Abbot Siculus.

Idem Salernitano Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Salerno.

At si clerici coram saeculari iudice convicti fuerint vel confessi de crimine, non sunt propter hoc a suo episcopo aliquatenus condemnandi. Sicut enim sententia a non suo iudice lata non tenet, ita nec facta confessio coram ipso. Si vero coram episcopo de criminibus in iure confessi sunt, seu legitima probatione convicti, dummodo sint talia crimina, propter quae suspendi debeant vel deponi, non immerito suspendendi sunt a suis ordinibus, vel ab altaris ministerio perpetuo removendi.

But if clerics shall have been convicted before a secular judge or have confessed to a crime, they are not on that account to be condemned in any measure by their own bishop. For just as a sentence delivered by a judge not his own does not hold, so neither does a confession made before him. But if, in truth, they have confessed in law before the bishop concerning crimes, or have been convicted by legitimate proof—provided they are such crimes on account of which they ought to be suspended or deposed—they are not without cause to be suspended from their orders, or to be perpetually removed from the ministry of the altar.

2. De adulteriis vero et aliis criminibus, quae sunt minora, potest episcopus cum suis clericis post peractam poenitentiam dispensare,ut in ordinibus suis deserviant; sed non debet quemlibet depositum pro suis excessibus, quum suo sit functus officio, nec duplici debeat ipsum contritione conterere, iudici tradere saeculari. [Porro si clericus etc. (cf. c.1.de cler. pugn.

2. Concerning adulteries indeed and other crimes, which are lesser, the bishop can dispense with his clerics, after penance has been accomplished,that they may serve in their orders; but he ought not to deliver to a secular judge anyone deposed for his excesses, when he has performed his own office, nor ought he crush him with a double contrition. [Moreover if a cleric etc. (cf. ch.1.on cler. fighting

in duell. V. 14.)]

on duels 5. 14.)]

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Vasallus coram domino feudi conveniendus est, etiamsi dominus feudi sit ecclesiastica persona, dummodo ibi actor possit suam iustitiam consequi; alias loci ordinarius poterit adiri. Et secundum hoc est casus notabilis. Abbas Sicul.

The vassal is to be convened before the lord of the fief, even if the lord of the fief is an ecclesiastical person, provided that there the actor (plaintiff) can obtain his justice; otherwise the local ordinary may be approached. And according to this there is a notable case. Abbot Sicul.

Idem.

The same.

Ceterum quia quandoque, sicut accepimus, in eos, quos ab ecclesia tua constat possessiones tenere in feudum, occasione ipsarum excommunicationis seu interdicti sententia promulgatur, nos id districtius inhibemus, quamdiu parati fuerint super his in tua praesentia iustitiam exhibere. Quod si fuerit a quoquam temerario ausu praesumptum, liceat tibi eandem sententiam sublato appellationis remedio revocare. Nulli ergo hominum fas sit, hanc paginam nostrae concessionis etc.

Moreover, because at times, as we have received, against those who are known to hold possessions in fief from your church, on the occasion of those same things a sentence of excommunication or interdict is promulgated, we do more strictly inhibit this, so long as they shall be prepared to render justice concerning these matters in your presence. But if this shall have been presumed by anyone with rash daring, let it be permitted to you to revoke the same sentence with the remedy of appeal removed. Therefore let it be lawful to no human being to infringe this page of our concession, etc.

CAP. VI.

CHAPTER 6.

Nomen actionis in libello exprimere para non cogitur; debet tamen factum ita clare proponere, ut ex eo ius agendi colligatur. Hoc dicit quoad intellectum. Abbas.

The party is not compelled to express the name of the action in the libel; nevertheless he ought to set forth the fact so clearly that from it the right of bringing an action may be inferred. He says this as regards the understanding. Abbot.

Idem Exonensi Episcopo et Capitulo Londonensi.

The same to the Bishop of Exeter and to the Chapter of London.

Dilecti filii nostri prior et clerici de Guiseburnen. contra Eboracensem archiepiscopum apostolicae sedis legatum gravem admodum et difficilem nobis querimoniam transmiserunt. [Et infra: (cf. c.1.de app.

Beloved sons of ours, the prior and clerics of Guiseburnen. against the archbishop of York, legate of the apostolic see, have transmitted to us a grave and exceedingly difficult to us querimony. [And below: (cf. ch.1.on appeals

II. 28.)] Provideatis attentius, ne ita subtiliter, sicut a multis fieri solet, cuiusmodi actio intentetur, inquiratis, sed simpliciter et pure factum ipsum, et rei veritatem secundum formam canonum et sanctorum Patrium instituta investigare curetis.

2. 28.)] See to it more attentively, that you do not inquire so subtly, as is wont to be done by many, what sort of action is being attempted, but that you take care to investigate simply and purely the deed itself, and the truth of the matter, according to the form of the canons and the institutes of the holy Fathers.

CAP. VII.

CHAPTER 7.

Excommunicatus in iudicio, nisi tanquam reus, stare non potest.

An excommunicated person, in judgment, cannot stand, unless as a defendant.

Idem Paduano Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Padua.

Intelleximus ex literis tuis, quod, quum filia cuiusdam nobilis viri parochiani tui cum quodam viro matrimonium contraxisset, comperto postea, quod idem vir pro nece bonae memoriae Vicentini episcopi vinculo tenebatur excommunicationis adstrictus, in tua proposuit praesentia quaestionem. Unde Quia postulasti a nobis, utrum excommunicatus in iudicio stare possit, respondemus, quod conveniri potest, et debet per alium in iudicio respondere, ne videatur de sua malitia commodum reportare, si ex ea fuerit ab eorum impetitione securus.

We have understood from your letters, that, when the daughter of a certain noble man, your parishioner, had contracted marriage with a certain man, it being later discovered that the same man, for the killing of the bishop of Vicenza of good memory, was held bound by the bond of excommunication, he proposed a question in your presence. Whence Because you asked of us whether an excommunicated person can stand in judgment, we answer that he can be convened, and ought to respond in court through another, lest he seem to reap a benefit from his own malice, if by it he should be secure from their prosecution.

CAP. VIII.

CHAPTER 8.

Clericus de omni crimine debet coram ecclesiastico iudice conveniri, nec valet consuetudo contraria.

A cleric, for any crime, ought to be summoned before an ecclesiastical judge, nor is a contrary custom valid.

Lucius III. Strigonensi Archiepiscopo.

Lucius 3. To the Archbishop of Esztergom.

Clerici vero, maxime in criminalibus, in nullo casu possunt ab alio, quam ab ecclesiastico iudice condemnari, etiamsi consuetudo regia habeat, ut fures a iudicibus saecularibus iudicentur. Quum imperator dicat quod etiam leges eorum non dedignantur sacros canones imitari, in quibus generaliter traditur, ut de omni crimine clericus debeat coram ecclesiastico iudice conveniri, non debet in hac parte canonibus ex aliqua consuetudine praeiudicium generari.

Clerics indeed, especially in criminal matters, in no case can be condemned by anyone other than an ecclesiastical judge, even if the royal custom holds that thieves are judged by secular judges. Since the emperor says that even their laws do not disdain to imitate the sacred canons, in which it is generally handed down that for every crime a cleric ought to be summoned before an ecclesiastical judge, no prejudice ought in this matter to be generated to the canons from any custom.

CAP. IX.

CHAPTER 9.

Iudex ex officio providere debet, ut debitae solennitates serventur in iudiciis, quibus omissis iudicium redditur frustratorium. H. d. Abbas Siculus.

The judge ex officio ought to provide that the due solemnities be observed in proceedings, the omission of which renders the judgment frustratory. H. d. the Sicilian Abbot.

Clemens III.

Clement III.

Causam, quae vertitur inter fratres Dulmensis monasterii et monachos sancti Albani super ecclesia de Cantinz., audiatis et appellatione remota terminetis. Provideas illud inter cetera specialiter, ut fratres Dulmensis monasterii cum auctoritate et accessu episcopi sui ingrediantur negotium, ne, si fratres sancti Albani obtineant, episcopus idem, abbatem monasterii se proponens, litem sopitam valeat suscitare.

The case which is pending between the brothers of the Dulmen monastery and the monks of Saint Alban concerning the church of Cantinz., you should hear and, appeal being removed, bring to a conclusion. See to it that among other things particularly, that the brothers of the Dulmen monastery, with the authority and presence of their bishop, enter upon the matter, lest, if the brothers of Saint Alban should prevail, that same bishop, putting himself forward as abbot of the monastery, be able to revive the dormant suit.

CAP. X.

CHAPTER 10.

Clericus depositus incorrigibilis excommunicandus est et successive anathematizandus. Et si sic non resipuerit, per iudicem saecularem comprimendus est. H. d. Abbas Siculus.

A deposed incorrigible cleric is to be excommunicated and successively anathematized. And if thus he does not come to his senses, he is to be restrained by the secular judge. H. d. the Sicilian Abbot.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine III.

Quum non ab homine (Et infra:) A nobis itaque fuit ex parte tua quaesitum, utrum liceat regi vel alicui saeculari personae iudicare clericos cuiuscunque ordinis, sive in furto, sive in homicidio, vel periurio, seu quibuscunque fuerint criminibus deprehensi. Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod, si clericus in quocunque ordine constitutus in furto, vel homicidio, vel periurio, seu alio mortali crimine fuerit deprehensus legitime atque convictus, ab ecclesiastico iudice deponendus est. Qui si depositus incorrigibilis fuerit, excommunicari debet, deinde contumacia crescente anathematis mucrone feriri.

Since not by man (And below:) It was, therefore, asked of us on your part, whether it is permitted for a king or any secular person to judge clerics of whatever order, whether in theft, or in homicide, or perjury, or in whatever crimes they may have been apprehended. We thus respond to your consultation, that, if a cleric set in any order shall have been lawfully apprehended and convicted in theft, or homicide, or perjury, or any other mortal crime, he is to be deposed by an ecclesiastical judge. And if, once deposed, he should be incorrigible, he ought to be excommunicated, then, as contumacy increases, to be struck by the edge of anathema.

Postmodum vero, si in profundum malorum veniens contempserit, quum ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat, ne possit esse ultra perditio plurimorum, per saecularem comprimendus est potestatem ita, quod ei deputetur exsilium, vel alia legitima poena inferatur.

Afterwards indeed, if, coming into the depth of evils, he should contemn, since the Church has nothing further it can do, lest there be any further perdition of many, he must be restrained by the secular power in such wise that exile be appointed to him, or another legitimate penalty be inflicted.

CAP. XI.

CHAPTER 11.

Per rescriptum impetratum contra violentum convenitur qui scienter succedit in vitium. H. d. secundum communem modum, qui mihi placet. Panorm.

By a rescript obtained against a violent person, he who knowingly succeeds into the fault is proceeded against. Here it is said according to the common manner, which pleases me. Panorm.

Idem.

The same.

Quia V., qui violenter dicebatur ecclesiam P. clerici occupasse, defunctus est, ut accepimus, et R. eam postmodum est ingressus, praecipimus, ut secundum formam priorum literarum inter ipsos R. et P. sub eisdem iudicibus mediante ratione, sicut inter eundem P. et praefatum V., si viveret, negotium terminetur.

Because V., who was said to have violently occupied the church of the cleric P., has died, as we have learned, and R. has thereafter entered it, we command that, according to the form of the prior letters, between R. and P. themselves, under the same judges, with reason mediating, just as between that same P. and the aforesaid V., if he were alive, the matter be terminated.

CAP. XII.

CHAPTER 12.

Solus Papa cognoscit de dubiis privilegiorum apostolicae sedis, et non inferior.

Only the Pope takes cognizance of doubts regarding the privileges of the apostolic see, and not an inferior.

Innocentius III. S. Sergii et S. Georgii Abbatibus.

Innocent 3. To the Abbots of St. Sergius and St. George.

Quum venissent (Et infra:) Quum enim super privilegiis sedis apostolicae causa vertatur, nolumus de ipsis per alios iudicari.

When they had come (And below:) When indeed the case turns upon the privileges of the apostolic see, we are unwilling that they be judged by others.

CAP. XIII.

CHAPTER 13.

Iudex ecclesiasticus potest per viam denunciationis evangelicae seu iudicialis procedere contra quemlibet peccatorem, etiam laicum, maxime ratione periurii vel pacis fractae.

An ecclesiastical judge can proceed by the way of evangelical or judicial denunciation against any sinner, even a layman, especially by reason of perjury or of a peace broken.

Idem Praelatis per Franciam constitutis.

The same, to the Prelates established throughout France.

Novit ille, qui nihil ignorat, qui scrutator est cordium ac conscius secretorum, quod clarissimum in Christo filium nostrum Philippum regem Francorum illustrem de corde puro et conscientia bona et fide non ficta diligimus, et ad honorem ac profectum et incrementum ipsius efficaciter adspiramus, exaltationem regni Francorum sublimationem sedis apostolicae reputantes, quum hoc regnum benedictum a Deo semper in ipsius devotione permanserit, et ab eius devotione nullo, sicut credimus, tempore sit discessurum; quia, licet interdum hinc inde fiant immissiones per angelos malos, nos tamen, qui satanae non ignoramus astutias, circumventiones ipsius studebimus evitare, credentes, quod idem rex illius seduci fallaciis non se permittet. Non ergo putet aliquis, quod iurisdictionem aut potestatem illustris regis Francorum perturbare aut minuere intendamus, quum ipse iurisdictionem et potestatem nostram nec velit nec debeat etiam impedire, quumque iurisdictionem propriam non sufficiamus explere, cur alienam usurpare vellemus? Sed quum Dominus dicat in evangelio: si peccaverit in te frater tuus, vade et corripe eum inter te et ipsum solum. Si te audierit, lucratus eris fratrem tuum; si te autem non audierit, adhibe tecum adhuc unum vel duos, ut in ore duorum vel trium testium stet omne verbum. Quod si non audierit eos, dic ecclesiae; si autem ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus, et rex Angliae, sicut asserit, sit paratus sufficienter ostendere, quod rex Francorum peccat in ipsum, et ipse circa eum in correctione processit secundum regulam evangelicam, et tandem, quia nullo modo profecit, dixit ecclesiae: quomodo nos, qui sumus ad regimen universalis ecclesiae superna dispositione vocati, mandatum divinum possumus non exaudire, ut non procedamus secundum formam ipsius, nisi forsitan ipse coram nobis vel legato nostro sufficientem in contrarium rationem ostendat?

He knows, who is ignorant of nothing, who is the scrutator of hearts and the conscious witness of secrets, that we love our most illustrious son in Christ, Philip, the illustrious king of the Franks, from a pure heart and a good conscience and an unfeigned faith, and we efficaciously aspire to his honor and profit and increase, reckoning the exaltation of the kingdom of the Franks the exaltation of the Apostolic See, since this kingdom, blessed by God, has always remained in its devotion to it, and, as we believe, will at no time depart from its devotion; because, although from time to time there arise inroads here and there by evil angels, we, however, who are not ignorant of Satan’s wiles, will strive to avoid his circumventions, believing that the same king will not allow himself to be seduced by his deceits. Let no one therefore think that we intend to perturb or diminish the jurisdiction or power of the illustrious king of the Franks, since he neither wishes nor ought even to impede our jurisdiction and power; and since we do not suffice to fulfill our own jurisdiction, why would we wish to usurp another’s? But since the Lord says in the Gospel: if your brother sins against you, go and correct him between you and him alone. If he hears you, you will have gained your brother; if, however, he does not hear you, take with you yet one or two, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. But if he does not hear them, tell it to the Church; but if he does not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican, and let the king of England, as he asserts, be prepared sufficiently to show that the king of the Franks sins against him, and that he himself proceeded in correction toward him according to the evangelical rule, and finally, because he made no progress in any way, said to the Church: how can we, who are called by heavenly disposition to the governance of the universal Church, fail to hear the divine mandate, so as not to proceed according to its form, unless perhaps he, before us or our legate, should show sufficient reason to the contrary?

Non enim intendimus iudicare de feudo, cuius ad ipsum spectat iudicium, nisi forte iuri communi per speciale privilegium vel contrariam consuetudinem aliquid sit detractum, sed decernere de peccato, cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura, quam in quemlibet exercere possumus et debemus. Non igitur iniuriosum sibi debet regia dignitas reputare, si super hoc apostolico iudicio se committat, quum Valentinianus inclitus imperator suffraganeis Mediolanensis ecclesiae dixisse legatur: Talem in pontificali sede constituere procuretis, cui et nos, qui gubernamus imperium, sincere nostra capita submittamus, et eius monita, quum tanquam homines deliquerimus, suscipiamus necessario velut medicamenta curantis. Nec sic illud humillimum omittamus, quod Theodosius statuit imperator, et Carolus, innovavit, de cuius genere rex ipse noscitur descendisse: Quicunque videlicet litem habens, sive petitor fuerit sive reus, sive in initio litis vel decursis temporum curriculis, sive quum negotium peroratur, sive quum iam coeperit promi sententia, si iudicium elegerit sacrosanctae sedis antistitis, illico sine aliqua dubitatione, etiamsi pars alia refragetur, ad episcoporum iudicium cum sermone litigantium dirigatur.

For we do not intend to judge concerning the fief, the judgment of which pertains to him, unless perhaps something has been detracted from the common law by a special privilege or a contrary custom, but to decide concerning sin, whose censure without doubt pertains to us, which we can and ought to exercise upon anyone. Therefore the royal dignity ought not to reckon it injurious to itself, if it commits itself to apostolic judgment in this matter, since Valentinian, the renowned emperor, is read to have said to the suffragans of the Church of Milan: See that you procure to establish such a one in the pontifical see, to whom even we, who govern the empire, may sincerely submit our heads, and whose admonitions, when we have transgressed as men, we may necessarily receive as the medicaments of one caring for us. Nor let us in like manner omit that most humble enactment which the emperor Theodosius established, and Charles renewed, from whose lineage the king himself is known to have descended: Whoever, namely, having a suit—whether he be plaintiff or defendant—whether at the beginning of the suit or with the courses of times elapsed, or when the case is being pleaded, or when the sentence has already begun to be pronounced—if he shall choose the judgment of the prelate of the sacrosanct see, immediately without any hesitation, even if the other party resists, let the case be directed to the judgment of the bishops, together with the pleading of the litigants.

Quum enim non humanae constitutioni, sed divinae legi potius innitamur, quia potestas nostra non est ex homine, sed ex Deo: nullus, qui sit sanae mentis, ignorat, quin ad officium nostrum spectet de quocunque mortali peccato corripere quemlibet Christianum, et, si correctionem contempserit, ipsum per districtionem ecclesiasticam coercere. Quod enim debeamus corripere ac possimus, ex utraque patet pagina testamenti, quum clamet Dominus per Prophetam: Clama, ne cesses, quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam, et annuncia populo meo scelera eorum, et subiungat ibidem: Nisi annunciaveris impio impietatem suam, ipse in iniquitate, quam operatus est, morietur; sanguinem autem eius de manu tua requiram. Apostolus quoque nos monet corripere inquietos, et alibi dicit idem: Argue, obsecra, increpa in omni patientia et docirina.

Since indeed we rely not on human constitution, but rather on the divine law, because our power is not from man, but from God: no one who is of sound mind is unaware that it pertains to our office to rebuke any Christian for whatever mortal sin, and, if he should despise the correction, to coerce him by ecclesiastical constraint. For that we ought to correct and are able to is evident from both pages of the Testament, since the Lord cries through the Prophet: Cry out, do not cease, lift up your voice like a trumpet, and announce to my people their crimes; and he subjoins in the same place: Unless you announce to the impious man his impiety, he himself shall die in the iniquity which he has wrought; but his blood I will require at your hand. The Apostle also admonishes us to correct the unruly, and elsewhere the same says: Reprove, beseech, rebuke with all patience and doctrine.

Quod autem possimus et debeamus etiam coercere, patet ex eo, quod inquit Dominus ad Prophetam, qui fuit de sacerdotibus Anathot: Ecce constitui te super gentes et regna, ut evellas et destruas, et dissipes, et aedifices, et plantes. Constat vero, quod evellendum, destruendum et dissipandum est omne mortale peccatum. Praeterea quum Dominus claves regni coelorum B. Petro tradidit, dixit ei: Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis, et quodcunque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis.

But that we can and ought also to coerce is evident from this, that the Lord says to the Prophet, who was of the priests of Anathoth: Behold, I have constituted you over nations and kingdoms, that you may pluck up and destroy, and scatter, and build, and plant. It is clear indeed that every mortal sin is to be plucked up, destroyed, and scattered. Moreover, when the Lord handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven to B. Peter, he said to him: Whatever you bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Verum nullus dubitat, quin omnis mortaliter peccans apud Deum sit ligatus. Ut ergo Petrus divinum iudicium imitetur, ligare debet in terris quos ligatos esse constat in coelis. Sed forsan dicetur, quod aliter cum regibus, et aliter cum aliis est agendum. Ceterum scriptum novimus in lege divina: Ita magnum iudicabis, ut parvum, nec erit apud te acceptio personarum, quam B. Iacobus intervenire testatur, si dixeris ei, qui indutus est veste praeclara, tu sede hic bene; pauperi autem, tu sta illic, aut sede sub scabello pedum meorum.

But in truth no one doubts that everyone sinning mortally is bound before God. Therefore, that Peter may imitate the divine judgment, he ought to bind on earth those whom it is agreed are bound in the heavens. But perhaps it will be said that one must proceed otherwise with kings, and otherwise with others. Moreover we know it is written in the divine law: Thus you shall judge the great as the small, and there shall not be with you acceptance of persons, which B. James testifies to occur, if you should say to him who is clothed with a splendid garment, you, sit here well; but to the poor man, you, stand there, or sit beneath the footstool of my feet.

Licet autem hoc modo procedere valeamus super quolibet criminali peccato, ut peccatorem revocemus a vitio ad virtutem, ab errore ad veritatem, praecipue tamen quum contra pacem peccatur, quae est vinculum caritatis, [de qua Christus specialiter praecepit Apostolis: In quamcunque domum intraveritis, primum dicite: Pax huic domui, et si fuerit ibi filius pacis, requiescet super illum pax vestra. Quicunque autem non receperint vos, nec audierint sermones vestros, exeuntes foras excutite pulverem de pedibus vestris in testimoniun illis. Quid enim est a talibus exire foras Apostolos, nisi communionem eis apostolicam denegare?

Although we are able thus to proceed in regard to any criminal sin, so that we may call the sinner back from vice to virtue, from error to truth, especially yet when one sins against peace, which is the bond of charity, [about which Christ gave a special command to the Apostles: Into whatever house you enter, first say: Peace to this house; and if there is there a son of peace, your peace will rest upon him. But whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, going out, shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony to them. For what is it for the Apostles to go out from such men, if not to deny to them apostolic communion?

Quid est excutere pulverem de pedibus suis, nisi districtionem ecclesiasticam exercere? Hic est etenim pulvis ille, qui Moyse cinerem de camino spargente fuit ad plagam ulceris super omnem terram Aegypti. Quam gravis autem districtionis sententia in ultimo sint examine feriendi qui non recipiunt pacis nuncios, nec audiunt sermones eorum, per se ipsa veritas consequenter ostendit, non simpliciter, sed cum quadam affirmatione proponens: Amen dico vobis, tolerabilius erit terrae Sodomorum et Gomorheorum in die iudicii quam illi civitati; in civitate cives intelligens, a quibus non excepit ipsos reges.

What is it to shake off the dust from their feet, if not to exercise ecclesiastical severity? For this is that dust which, when Moses scattered ash from the furnace, became for the plague of ulcers over all the land of Egypt. And how grave a sentence of severity at the last examination is to be dealt upon those who do not receive the envoys of peace nor hear their words, Truth itself accordingly shows, not simply, but proposing with a certain affirmation: Amen I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of the Sodomites and the Gomorraeans on the day of judgment than for that city; by “city” understanding the citizens, from whom he did not exempt the kings themselves.

Porro quum secundum legitimas sanctiones quod quisque iuris in alterum statuit alius eo uti valeat contra illum, et sapiens protestetur: Patere legem, quam ipse tuleris, et rex ipse Francorum contra clarae memoriae R. quondam Anglorum regem, qui, ut salva ipsius regis pace loquamur, quia non ad confusionem eius, sed ad excusationem nostram hoc dicimus, non eo erat deterioris conditionis, in bello fuit officio et beneficio nostro usus, quomodo quod pro se adversus illum admisit contra se pro alio non admittet?] Numquid apud nos debet esse pondus et pondus, mensura et mensura, quorum utrumque est abominabile apud Deum? Postremo quum inter reges ipsos reformata fuerint pacis foedera, et utrinque praestito proprio iuramento firmata, quae tamen usque ad tempus praetaxatum servata non fuerint, numquid non poterimus de iuramenti religione cognoscere, quod ad iudicium ecclesiae non est dubium pertinere, ut rupta pacis foedera reformentur? Ne ergo tantam discordiam videamur sub dissimulatione fovere, dissimulare religiosorum locorum excidium, et stragem negligere populi Christiani, dilecto filio abbati Casemarii praedicto legato dedimus in praeceptis, ut, nisi rex ipse vel solidam pacem cum praedicto rege reformet, vel treugas ineat competentes, vel saltem humiliter patiatur, ut idem abbas et venerabilis frater noster archiepiscopus Bituricensis de plano cognoscant, utrum iusta sit querimonia, quam contra eum proponit coram ecclesia rex Anglorum, vel eius exceptio sit legitima, quam contra eum per suas nobis literas duxit exprimendam, iuxta formam sibi datam a nobis procedere non omittat. Ideoque universitatibus vestris per apostolica scripta mandamus, et in virtute obedientiae districte praecipimus, quatenus postquam idem abbas super hoc mandatum fuerit apostolicum exsecutus, sententiam eius, imo nostram verius recipiatis humiliter et vos ipsi servetis et faciatis ab aliis observari, securi, quod si secus egeritis inobedientiam vestram puniemus.

Moreover, since according to lawful sanctions what right each one has established against another another may be able to use against him, and the wise man protests: Submit to the law which you yourself have enacted, and the very king of the Franks, against R. of clear memory, formerly king of the English, who—so that we may speak with the peace of that king saved, since we say this not to his confusion but to our excuse—was on that account in no worse a condition, made use in war of our office and benefice, how will he not admit against himself for another what he admitted for himself against him?] Ought there to be with us weight and weight, measure and measure, both of which are abominable with God? Finally, when pacts of peace between the kings themselves have been reformed, and on each side have been confirmed by their own oath, which nevertheless were not kept up to the pre-set time, shall we not be able to take cognizance of the sanctity of the oath, which without doubt pertains to the judgment of the Church, so that the broken pacts of peace may be reforged? Lest therefore we seem to foster so great a discord under dissimulation, to dissemble the destruction of religious places, and to neglect the slaughter of the Christian people, to our beloved son the abbot of Casamari, the aforesaid legate we have given in charge that, unless the king himself either re-establish a solid peace with the aforesaid king, or enter into suitable truces, or at least humbly allow that the same abbot and our venerable brother the archbishop of Bourges may inquire summarily (de plano) whether the complaint which the king of the English brings against him before the Church is just, or whether his exception (plea) is legitimate, which he caused to be set forth to us by his letters against him, he should not omit to proceed according to the form given to him by us. Therefore we command by apostolic writings to your communities, and strictly enjoin in the virtue of obedience, that after the same abbot shall have executed the apostolic mandate in this matter, you humbly receive his sentence—nay, more truly ours—and that you yourselves keep it and cause it to be observed by others, being assured that if you act otherwise we will punish your disobedience.

[Dat. Lat. ŠŠ Ao. VII.1204.]

[Given at the Lateran ŠŠ Year 7.1204.]

CAP. XIV.

CHAPTER 14.

Principalis persona per se, non per advocatum debet factum proponere in iudicio, nisi sit indiscreta.

The principal person ought to set forth the fact in judgment in person, not through an advocate, unless he or she be indiscreet (undiscerning).

Idem Episcopo Heliensi.

The same to the Bishop of Ely.

Pastoralis (Et infra: cf. c.28.de off. iud. del.

Pastoral (And below: cf. ch.28.on the office of the delegated judge.

I. 29.) Statuimus praeterea, ut principales personae non per advocatos, sed per se ipsas factum proponant, nisi forte sint adeo indiscretae, ut earum defectus de iudicis licentia per alios suppleatur. [Quum autem etc. Dat.

1. 29.) We further decree that the principal persons are not to set forth the fact through advocates, but by themselves, unless perhaps they are so undiscerning that their deficiency may, by the judge’s license, be supplied by others. [When, however, etc. Given.

Rom. ap. S. Petr. XIV.

Rome, at St. Peter's, 14.

Kal. Ian. 1204.]

Kalends of Jan. 1204.]

CAP. XV.

CHAPTER 15.

Si actio et intentio sunt ineptae, vel sola intentio, debet reus absolvi ab instantia iudicii; iterum tamen actor audietur, si apte egerit. H. d. quoad intellectum.

If the action and the intention are inept, or the intention alone, the defendant ought to be absolved from the instance of judgment; nevertheless the actor (plaintiff) will be heard again, if he prosecutes aptly. Here, as to the understanding.

Idem nobili viro Matthaeo de Riparia.

The same to the noble man Matthew of Riparia.

Examinata causa, quae vertitur inter te et milites Campaniae super ecclesia S. Angeli de Casaperota, actis confessionibus et attestationibus auditis, instrumentis et allegationibus indagatis, perpendimus evidenter, arbitrium, quod T. vicedominus Sabinensis dicebatur super eodem negotio promulgasse, contra formam iuris et compromissi fuisse dictatum. Unde, non obstante confirmatione felicis memoriae Coelestini Papae praedecessoris nostri, qui confirmaverat illud, sicut provide latum fuerat, et ab utraque parte receptum, decrevimus ipsum irritum et inane. Actionem autem, quam super iure patronatus eiusdem ecclesiae contra praefatos milites intentabas, incongruentem cognovimus et ineptam, quia, quum testes induxeris ad probandum, quod, quando praefatus A. vicedominus ecclesiam eandem tanquam sequestratam accepit, tu ius patronatus ipsius ecclesiae possidebas, proiecto nec rei vindicationem intentare, nec ipsius restitutionem poteras postulare. Unde intentionem tuam in hac parte pronunciavimus non tenere, absolventes eosdem milites ab eadem, ita tamen, quod si congruentem et aptam intentare volueris actionem, respondere tibi nililominus teneantur.

The case having been examined which is in dispute between you and the knights of Campania concerning the church of St. Angel of Casaperota, the confessions and attestations having been heard, the instruments and allegations investigated, we have clearly weighed that the arbitrament which T., vicedominus of the Sabine [church], was said to have promulgated on the same matter was dictated against the form of law and of the compromise. Wherefore, notwithstanding the confirmation by our predecessor of happy memory Pope Celestine, who had confirmed it, as it had been prudently delivered and received by both parties, we have decreed it void and null. The action, however, which you were instituting against the aforesaid knights concerning the right of patronage of the same church, we have recognized as incongruent and inept; because, although you introduced witnesses to prove that, when the aforesaid A., the vicedominus, received that same church as though sequestered, you were in possession of the right of patronage of that church, yet, that being put forward, you could neither bring a vindication of the thing nor demand its restitution. Wherefore we have pronounced that your intention in this part does not hold, absolving those same knights from the same, with this proviso, however, that if you should wish to bring a congruent and apt action, they are nonetheless bound to answer you.

[Nulli ergo etc. Dat. Later.

[To none, therefore, etc. Given at the Lateran.

IX. Kal. April. Ao. X. 1207.]

9th day before the Kalends of April. Year 10. 1207.]

CAP. XVI.

CHAPTER 16.

Praeceptores templi pro domibus suis agere et defendere possunt; nec obstat eis religio, vel quod ignota sit eorum origo.

The preceptors of the Temple can act and defend on behalf of their own houses; nor does religion hinder them, nor the fact that their origin is unknown.

Idem Magistro et Fratribus militiae templi in Italia constitutis.

The same to the Master and Brothers of the militia of the temple established in Italy.

Quum deputati sitis obsequio Iesu Christi, qui, quum iustus sit, iustitiam diligit et aequitatem conspicit vultus eius, indemnitatibus vestris paterna tenemur sollicitudine praecavere, ne pro eo, quod operibus pietatis intenditis, laesionem in vestra iustitia subeatis. Accepimus plane, quod quidam tam saeculares quam ecclesiastici iudices in Italia illos, quos habetis in domibus vestris praeceptores, in causis ad prosequendam suam iustitiam non admittunt, tanquam licitum non sit eis super litigiosis negotiis curam agere, qui pacificis decrecreverunt studiis inhaerere, illud allegantes in repulsionem ipsorum, quod eorum ipsis generatio non est nota, qui undecunque locorum venerint, gratia divina vocati, dummodo laudabiliter exsequantur officium sui ordinis, ex superabundanti requiritur suae notio nationis. Ne quis igitur in prosecutione causarum praeceptores eosdem ab agendo vel respondendo sub occasione huiusmodi repellat, auctoritate apostolica inhibemus. [Nulli ergo etc.

Since you have been deputed to the obedience of Jesus Christ, who, since he is just, loves justice, and equity is beheld by his countenance, we are bound with paternal solicitude to safeguard your indemnities, lest, for the fact that you are bent upon works of piety, you undergo a lesion in your justice. We have learned plainly that certain judges, both secular and ecclesiastical, in Italy, do not admit those whom you have in your houses as preceptors, in causes to prosecute their right, as though it were not licit for them to take care over litigious affairs—seeing that they have decreed to adhere to pacific studies—alleging, in rejection of them, that their lineage is not known to them, who, from wherever of places they may have come, called by divine grace, provided that they laudably carry out the office of their order, there is required, out of superabundance, a knowing of their nation. Therefore, lest anyone in the prosecution of causes repel those same preceptors from acting or answering under a pretext of this kind, we forbid it by apostolic authority. [Therefore let no one etc.

Dat. Rom. ap. S. Petr.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s.

IV. Id. April. Ao. IX. 1206.]

April 10. Year 9. 1206.]

CAP. XVII.

CHAPTER 17.

Praelati debent laicis de clericis, appellatione frustratoria non obstante, iustitiam facere; ad saeculare tamen forum clerici a laicis trahi non debent, etiam data ipsorum praelatorum negligentia.

Prelates ought to render justice to laypeople concerning clerics, a frustratory appeal notwithstanding; yet to the secular forum clerics ought not to be drawn by laypeople, even granted the negligence of the prelates themselves.

Idem Vercellensi Episcopo et Abbati de Toleto.

The same to the Bishop of Vercelli and to the Abbot of Toledo.

Qualiter et quando (Et infra: cf. c.17.de accus. et den. V.1.) Praecipiatis ex parte nostra praelatis, ut laicis de clericis conquerentibus plenam faciant iustitiam exhiberi, non obstantibus appellationibus frustratoriis, quas in eorum gravamen clerici frequenter opponunt, ne pro defectu iustitiae clerici trahantur a laicis ad iudicium saeculare, quod omnino fieri prohibemus,et vos, ne fiat, omnimodis satagatis et ceterum adversus haerecticorum fallacias sollicitudinem vestram vigilare volumus, monentes et obsecrantes in Domino, quatenus ad exstirpandum de agro dominico lolium haereticae pravitatis prudenter et efficaciter intendatis. [Dat.

In what manner and when (And below: cf. ch. 17 on accusations and denunciations, 5. 1.) you are to enjoin on the prelates on our part that they cause full justice to be exhibited to laymen complaining about clerics, the frustratory appellations notwithstanding, which clerics frequently oppose to their gravamen, lest for defect of justice clerics be drawn by laymen to secular judgment, which we altogether forbid to be done, and that you, lest it be done, strive in every way; and moreover we wish your solicitude to keep vigil against the fallacies of heretics, admonishing and beseeching in the Lord, that you prudently and efficaciously apply yourselves to extirpate from the Lord’s field the darnel of heretical depravity. [Given.

IV. Kal. Febr. 1206.]

4th day before the Kalends of February. 1206.]

CAP. XVIII.

CHAPTER 18.

Iudex habens ut privatus paene consimilem causam, quam habet ut iudex, a iudicando removetur. H. d.

A judge who, as a private person, has a nearly consimilar case as he has as a judge is removed from judging. H. d.

Idem.

The same.

Causam, quae inter dilectum filium abbatem et conventum Vindonensem ex parte una, et archidiaconum Carnotensem ex altera super quibusdam procurationibus vertitur, vobis, filii T. et G. et archidiacono Parisiensi meminimus commisisse. Dictus vero abbas et conventus nolentes parti alteri respondere, nisi nos primo consulerent secundum privilegia Romani Pontificis, indulta monasterio eorundem, dilectum filium W. eiusdem monasterii monachum propter hoc ad sedem apostolicam transmiserunt, nihilominus supplicantes, quatenus te, fili decane, loco Parisiensis archidiaconi supra dicti subrogare ad decisionem ipsius negotii dignaremur. Quia vero, quum eundem archidiaconum similis paene causa contingat, nimis favorabilis parti alteri videretur, nos te, fili decane, loco ipsius archidiaconi subrogantes, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, non obstantibus prioribus literis, ante adventum monachi impetratis, in causa ratione praevia procedatis.

The case, which between the beloved son the abbot and the Vindonensian convent on the one side, and the archdeacon of Chartres on the other, concerning certain procurations, is in dispute, we recall to have entrusted to you, sons T. and G. and to the archdeacon of Paris. The said abbot and convent, however, not wishing to answer the other party unless they should first consult us according to the privileges of the Roman Pontiff granted to their monastery, sent the beloved son W., a monk of the same monastery, for this reason to the apostolic see, nonetheless beseeching that we would deign to substitute you, son dean, in the place of the above-said archdeacon of Paris for the decision of that business. But since, as almost the same cause touches that same archdeacon, he would seem too favorable to the other party, we, substituting you, son dean, in the place of that archdeacon, command to your discretion through apostolic writings that, notwithstanding the earlier letters obtained before the monk’s arrival, you proceed in the case upon a prior consideration.

CAP. XIX.

CHAPTER 19.

Si iudices de principali et exceptionibus praeiudicialibus simul cognoscunt, vel super principali lite non contestata testes recipiunt, licite ab eis appellatur.

If judges take cognizance of the principal matter and of prejudicial exceptions at the same time, or receive witnesses on the principal suit before it has been contested, an appeal lawfully lies from them.

Honorius III. Archidiacono Remensi et Decano Brimensi Coloniensis dioecesis.

Honorius 3. To the Archdeacon of Reims and the Dean of Bremen of the diocese of Cologne.

Exhibita nobis dilecti filii R. Virdunensis electi petitio declaravit, quod, quum super facto electionis suae ipsius et H. archidiaconi ac quorundam canonicorum Virdunensium adversariorum suorum procuratores ad nostram olim audientiam accessissent, nos, audita petitione partis adversae, et quae proposita fuerunt ab ipsa, venerabili fratri nostro Parisiensi episcopo et coniudicibus suis sub certa forma literas nostras direximus, inter alia continentes, ut, vocatis qui forent evocandi, super propositis et aliis negotium contingentibus inquirerent veritatem, et testes, quos nominari contingeret iuxta consuetam formam, ad testimonium compellendo, et praefigendo partibus terminum competentem, quo per se vel per procuratores idoneos nostro se conspectui praesentarent, iustam sententiam recepturae. Partibus ergo citatis, non fuit processum in aliquo prima die, quumque decem de parte adversa secundo termino comparuissent, et fuissent, si electo se opponerent, in iure requisiti, septem eorum respondere nolentibus, ad agendum tres se residui obtulerunt. Quum autem idem electus quibusdam ex his, qui contra eum agebant, conspirationem, et quibusdam excommunicationem in modum exceptionis obiiceret, se id offerens probaturum, praefati iudices interlocuti fuerunt, quod de his et principali negotio simul inquirerent, a quibus videretur ipsis iudicibus inquirendum, nolentes, quasi non iudices, sed inquisitores exsisterent, super dictis exceptionibus ipsius electi probationes admittere, sed pervertendo iuris ordinem de praemissis exceptionibus et principali negotio pariter per se inquirere intendentes, et procedentes etiam ad receptionem testium, lite nondum super eodem negotio contestata, quare praefatus electus nostram audientiam appellavit, humiliter supplicans, ut, quum literae ad ipsos iudices obtentae non inquisitionem, sed commissionem sapiant, prout apparet ex continentia earundem, quod ab eis factum est post appellationem ipsius revocare in irritum, et causam alii comittere dignaremur. Quia vero non in modum inquisitionis, sed commissionis negotium exstitit delegatum, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, convenientes ad locum idoneum et partibus competentem, si ex dictis gravaminibus vel aliquo ipsorum appellatum constiterit, revocato in irritum quicquid post appellationem huiusmodi inveneritis attentatum, in causa ipsa iuxta priorum continentiam literarum, appellatione remota, ratione praevia sine morae dispendio procedatis.

The petition of our beloved son R., the elect of Verdun, presented to us, declared that, when, concerning the matter of his election, the procurators of himself and H., the archdeacon, and of certain canons of Verdun, his adversaries, had formerly come to our audience, we, the petition of the opposing party having been heard, and the things which had been proposed by the same, to our venerable brother the bishop of Paris and his co-judges, under a certain form, directed our letters, containing among other things, that, those who ought to be called having been summoned, they should inquire the truth concerning the matters proposed and others touching the business, and by compelling the witnesses, whom it should chance to be named according to the accustomed form, to testimony, and by prefixed to the parties a competent term, on which they should present themselves before our sight by themselves or by suitable procurators, to receive a just sentence. The parties therefore having been cited, nothing was proceeded on the first day, and when ten from the opposing party had appeared at the second term, and had been asked in law whether they opposed the elect, seven of them being unwilling to answer, the remaining three offered themselves to act. But when the same elect objected by way of exception conspiracy against some of those who were proceeding against him, and excommunication against others, offering that he would prove it, the aforesaid judges interlocuted that they would inquire into these and the principal business together, from whom it would seem to the judges themselves that inquiry should be made, being unwilling, as though they were not judges but inquisitors, to admit proofs upon the said exceptions of the elect himself, but, perverting the order of law, intending to inquire equally by themselves concerning the aforesaid exceptions and the principal business, and even proceeding to the reception of witnesses, the suit not yet contested concerning the same business; wherefore the aforesaid elect appealed to our audience, humbly supplicating that, since the letters obtained to those judges savor not of inquisition but of commission, as appears from their contents, we would deign to revoke into nullity what was done by them after his appeal, and to commit the cause to another. Because in truth the business was delegated not in the mode of inquisition but of commission, we mandate to your discretion by apostolic writings, that, convening to a place suitable and competent for the parties, if it shall have been established that appeal was made from the said grievances or any of them, having revoked into nullity whatever you shall have found attempted after an appeal of this sort, in the case itself according to the tenor of the prior letters, the appeal being removed, reason going before, without delay’s detriment you proceed.

CAP. XX.

CHAPTER 20.

Lapsu triennii non obstante potest delegatus in causa sibi commissa procedere.

Notwithstanding the lapse of three years, a delegate can proceed in the cause committed to him.

Idem Magistro Tancredo Canonico Bononiensi.

The same to Master Tancred, Canon of Bologna.

Venerabilis frater noster archiepiscopus Ravennas proposuit coram nobis, quod, quum decisio causae, quae inter ipsum ex parte una, et communitatem Cerviae ex altera super iurisdictionis civitatis Cerviae et quibusdam aliis articulis vertitur, sit per subterfugia et cavillationes eorum per triennium prorogata, et tandem post litis contestationem et commissiones varias tibi dedimus in mandatis, ut eam ad nos remittas sufficienter instructam, dicti Cervienses asserentes, instantiam iudicii per decursum triennii periisse, respondere sub tuo examine recusaverunt. Nolentes igitur, ut eiusdem causae decisio ulterius prorogetur, praesentium tibi auctoritate Mandamus, quatenus, exceptione huiusmodi non obstante, in negotio isto, appellatione remota, ratione praevia procedas iuxta traditam tibi formam. [Dat.

Our venerable brother, the archbishop of Ravenna, laid before us that, since the decision of the cause, which is being turned between himself on the one part and the community of Cervia on the other concerning the jurisdiction of the city of Cervia and certain other articles, has been prorogated for three years by their subterfuges and cavillations, and at length, after the contestation of the suit and various commissions, we gave you by mandate that you remit it to us sufficiently instructed, the said Cervians, asserting that the instance of the judgment has perished by the course of a three-year period, refused to respond under your examination. Not willing, therefore, that the decision of the same cause be prorogated further, by the authority of these presents we command you that, the exception of this kind notwithstanding, in this business, with appeal removed, after prior reasoning, you proceed according to the form delivered to you. [Given.

Later. X. Kal. Mai Ao. VIII. 1224.]

Lateran. 10th day before the Kalends of May Year 8. 1224.]

CAP. XXI.

CHAPTER 21.

Actor obtinens in possessorio coram iudice rei, non tenetur coram eo iudice super proprietate respondere, si est prorsus alterius fori. H. d. et est casus notabilis.

A plaintiff prevailing in the possessory, before the defendant’s judge, is not held before that judge to answer concerning proprietorship, if it belongs wholly to another forum. Here it is said; and it is a notable case.

Idem Episcopo et Magistris T. et B. Praten. Bononiae commorantibus.

The same to the Bishop and to Masters T. and B., of Prato, residing at Bologna.

Significaverunt nobis olim abbas et conventus sanctae Mariae de Florentia, quod Florentina potestas pro eis contra communitatem castri de Signa super possessione vel quasi iuris ibidem eligendi rectorem, quod ad se pertinere dicebant, diffinitivam sententiam promulgavit. Sed postmodum, eadem communitate nolente recipere nobilem virum B. Vinci-Werra, quem iidem in rectorem elegerant castri praedicti, praefata potestas non solum non curavit sententiam suam exsecutioni mandare, ac communitatem ipsam compellere ad recipiendum dictum nobilem pro rectore saepius requisita; sed nec permisit communitatem eandem ad hoc a fidelibus eorum monasterii coarctari; quin potius abbatem et conventum praefatos ipsa potestas indigne coegit communitati praedictae super proprietate vel quasi memorati iuris in saeculari iudicio respondere. Unde vobis per literas nostras iniunximus, ut, si ita esset, per censuras ecclesiasticas cogeretis communitatem eandem electum ab eisdem monachis in rectorem admittere; audituri postea quae partes super proprietate vel quasi dicti iuris ducerent proponenda, et causam, sicut iustum exsisteret, decisuri, non obstante statuto quolibet contrario ecclesiasticae libertati, seu quod abbas et conventus praedicti compulsi sunt super hoc litem contestari in iudicio saeculari.

Formerly the abbot and convent of Saint Mary of Florence signified to us that the Florentine potestas, on their behalf against the community of the castle of Signa, concerning the possession or quasi of the right there of electing a rector, which they said pertained to themselves, promulgated a definitive sentence. But afterward, the same community being unwilling to receive the noble man B. Vinci-Werra, whom the same had elected as rector of the aforesaid castle, the aforesaid potestas not only did not take care to commit its sentence to execution and to compel that community to receive the said noble as rector, although often required; but neither did it permit that same community to be constrained to this by the faithful of their monastery; nay rather it was the potestas itself that indignantly compelled the aforesaid abbot and convent to answer the aforesaid community in a secular judgment concerning the proprietorship or quasi of the aforesaid right. Wherefore to you by our letters we enjoined that, if it were so, by ecclesiastical censures you should compel that same community to admit as rector the one elected by the same monks; to hear thereafter what the parties would choose to propose concerning the proprietorship or quasi of the said right, and to decide the cause, as would be just, notwithstanding any statute contrary to ecclesiastical liberty, or the fact that the aforesaid abbot and convent were compelled on this matter to contest the suit in a secular court.

Nuper autem, referentibus abbate et conventu, didicimus, quod, quum de literis a nobis super hoc obtentis ad ipsius communitatis notitiam pervenisset, syndicus eius, exhibito coram iudice potestatis calumniae iuramento, citari fecit abbatem, quod coram illo subiret simile iusiurandum, ut per hoc renunciare intelligeretur idem abbas apostolicis literis ipso facto, aut pro convicto, si hoc facere recusaret, haberetur. Quumque praefatam communitatem ad praesentiam vestram saepius et peremptorie citassetis, syndico eius se velle dilatorias exceptiones proponere protestanti, terminum, in quo id faceret, vel super principali responderet negotio, statuistis. Verum pars altera inter alia excipiendo proposuit, se tunc coram vobis respondere de iure non teneri, quum tempus propter vindemias exsisteret feriatum, respondente syndico monasterii, hoc malitiose proponi, ut videlicet causa protracta tempus regiminis electi inutiliter elabatur. Quod apparebat ex eo, quia per nuncium potestatis abbati fuit prohibitum, ne communitatem eandem extra Florentinum districtum in iudicio conveniret, quare praenominati abbas et conventus humiliter petierunt, ut obviare huiusmodi malitiis dignaremur.

Recently, however, with the abbot and convent reporting, we learned that, when the letters obtained from us on this matter had come to that community’s knowledge, its syndic, after exhibiting before the judge of the Potestas the oath of calumny, caused the abbot to be cited, in order that before him he should undergo a similar oath, so that by this the same abbot might be understood ipso facto to renounce the apostolic letters, or be held as convicted if he refused to do this. And when you had often and peremptorily cited the aforesaid community to your presence, its syndic protesting that he wished to propose dilatory exceptions, you set a term in which he should do this or should answer on the principal business, you determined. But the other party, by way of exception among other things, alleged that it was not then bound in law to respond before you, since on account of the grape-harvest the time was a holiday, the syndic of the monastery responding that this was proposed maliciously, namely so that, the case being protracted, the time of the elected one’s governance might slip away to no purpose. Which appeared from this, that by the Potestas’s messenger it had been forbidden to the abbot to bring that same community into court outside the Florentine district; wherefore the aforesaid abbot and convent humbly petitioned that we deign to obviate suchlike malices.

Quocirca discretioni vestrae Mandamus, quatenus tam eundem syndicum, quam eiusdem monasterii monachos, quorum testimonio uti voluit, si excommunicationem contra eos ad impediendum causae processum opponi contingat, absolventes sublato appellationis obstaculo ad cautelam, ne tali praetextu valeant ab agendo vel testificante repelli, hoc non obstante, in negotio, iuxta recepti formam mandati, ratione praevia procedatis, causae finem debitum absque morae dispendio imponendo ita praeceptum apostolicum impleturi quod non debeamus vobis difficultatem quae dicto monasterio morae occasione imminere dignoscitur imputare. [Dat. Reate II. Kal. Nov.

Wherefore to your discretion We command, that both that same syndic and the monks of the same monastery, whose testimony he wished to use—if it should happen that excommunication be opposed against them to impede the process of the cause—absolving them, with the obstacle of appeal removed, by way of caution, lest under such a pretext they be able to be repelled from acting or testifying, notwithstanding this, in the matter, according to the form of the mandate received, you proceed with the rationale first set forth, by imposing upon the cause its due end without the waste of delay, so as to fulfill the apostolic precept in such wise that we ought not to impute to you the difficulty which is perceived to threaten the said monastery on account of delay. [Dated at Rieti, 31 November.

Ao. X. 1225.]

Year 10. 1225.]

TITULUS II. DE FORO COMPETENTI.

TITLE 2. ON THE COMPETENT FORUM.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Clericus coram suo episcopo conveniri debet.

A cleric must be convened before his own bishop.

Ex concilio Calcedonensi.

From the Council of Chalcedon.

Si quis clericus adversus clericum negotium habeat, non deserat episcopum proprium, et ad saecularia percurrat iudicia, sed prius apud ipsum actio ventiletur, vel certe consilio eiusdem episcopi apud alios, quos utraque pars voluerit, iudicium obtinebunt. Si quis autem praeter haec fecerit, canonicis correptionibus subiacebit.

If any cleric should have a case against a cleric, let him not desert his own bishop, and run to the secular judgments, but first let the action be ventilated before him, or certainly by the counsel of the same bishop before others whom both parties may have wished, they will obtain judgment. But if anyone shall have done otherwise than these things, he will be subject to canonical corrections.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Iudex saecularis, si clericum per se distringit vel condemnat, excommunicari debet.

A secular judge, if he by himself distrains or condemns a cleric, ought to be excommunicated.

Ex concilio Parisiensi.

From the Council of Paris.

Nullus iudicium neque presbyterum, neque diaconum aut clericum ullum, aut minores ecclesiae sine permissu pontificis per se distringere aut condemnare praesumat. Quod si fecerit, ab ecclesia Dei, cui iniuriam irrogare dignoscitur, tamdiu sit sequestratus, quousque reatum suum cognoscens emendet.

Let no court presume, without the permission of the pontiff, to distrain or to condemn on its own a presbyter, or a deacon, or any cleric, or the lesser clergy of the church. But if it does this, let it be sequestered from the church of God, which it is recognized to have inflicted injury upon, until, acknowledging its guilt, it makes amends.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Ratione rei, de qua agitur, sortitur quis forum ibi, ubi res est. Sic communiter summatur.

By reason of the thing about which the matter is at issue, one obtains a forum there where the thing is. Thus it is commonly summarized.

Ex concilio Africano.

From the African council.

Sane si episcopi, inter quos causa versatur, sint diversarum provinciarum, ille primas det iudices, in cuius provincia est locus, de quo contenditur. Si autem etc. (cf. c.1.de arb. I. 43.)

Indeed, if the bishops between whom the case is at issue are of different provinces, let the primate appoint the judges, in whose province is the place about which there is contention. If however etc. (cf. c.1.de arb. 1.43.)

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Episcopus ut suspectus recusatus, de cuius suspicione notorie constat, potest dare delegatum partibus non suspectum, cuius sententiam poterit per se exsecutioni mandare.

A bishop, recused as suspect, about whose suspicion it is notoriously established, can give to the parties a delegate not suspect, whose sentence he will be able by himself to commit to execution.

Gregorius Bonifacio Defensori Corsicae.

Gregory to Boniface, Defender of Corsica.

Si quis contra clericum causam habuerit, episcopum ipsius adeat, qui si ut suspectus fuerit recusatus, exsecutor [vel] ab eo deputetur, aut, si et hoc actor refugerit, ab eodem episcopo est deputandus, qui partes sibi mutuo consensu iudices compellat eligere, a quibus quicquid fuerit definitum ipsius sollicitudine servata lege modis omnibus compleatur, [ut non sit unde se possint litigiis fatigare. Dat. mens.

If anyone shall have a cause against a cleric, let him approach that one’s bishop, who, if he shall have been refused as suspect, let an executor [or] be deputed by him; or, if also this the plaintiff shall shun, there is to be deputed by the same bishop one who compels the parties by mutual consent to choose judges, by whom whatever shall have been defined, with the law kept, shall in every way be completed by his solicitude, [that there may not be whence they can weary themselves with litigations. Given in the month.

Aug. Ind. IV. 601.]

Aug. Indiction 4. 601.]

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Super re ecclesiae vel clerici potest laicus coram ecclesiastico iudice conveniri; sed si probabiliter negat, rem esse ecclesiae vel clerici, ad iurisdictionem ecclesiasticam declinandam, convenitur coram suo iudice.

Concerning a matter of the church or of a cleric, a layman can be convened before an ecclesiastical judge; but if he plausibly denies that the matter is of the church or of a cleric, in order to decline ecclesiastical jurisdiction, he is convened before his own judge.

Alexander III.

Alexander 3.

Si vero presbyter, vel clericus alius aliquem laicum de rebus suis vel ecclesiae impetierit, et laicus res ipsas non esse ecclesiae vel presbyteri aut clerici, qui eum exinde impetit, sed suas proprias asseverat, laicus ipse debet de rigore iuris super hoc ad forensem iudicem trahi, quum actor semper forum rei sequi debeat, licet in plerisque partibus aliter de consuetudine habeatur.

If indeed a presbyter, or a cleric another against some layman concerning his own goods or those of the church has brought action, and the layman avers the things themselves not to be of the church or of the presbyter or of the cleric, who on that account brings action against him, but to be his own proper, the layman himself ought by the rigor of the law on this to be drawn before the forensic judge, since the actor always ought to follow the forum of the defendant, although in very many parts it is otherwise held by custom.

CAP.VI.

CHAPTER6.

Si quaestio feudalis est inter clericum et laicum, cognoscet dominus feudi; sed eo negligente cognoscet delegatus Papae, etiam ante negligentiam datus. H. d. secundum lecturam gloss.

If a feudal question is between a cleric and a layman, the lord of the fief will take cognizance; but upon his negligence the delegate of the Pope will take cognizance, even one appointed before the negligence. H. d. according to the reading of the gloss.

Idem.

The same.

Ex transmissa nobis insinuatione B. C. et W. militum ecclesiae tuae intelleximus, quod, quum R. de Cassaville eos super quadam possessione coram venerabili fratre nostro Trecensi episcopo traxisset in causam, nobilis vir de Campis eorum dominus, [a quo possessiones tenebant,] sub debito fidelitatis eis inhibuit, ne de saeculari feudo in iudicio ecclesiastico responderent. Itaque praefatus episcopus in eos velut in contumaces excommunicationis sententiam promulgavit etc. (Et infra:) [Mandamus, quatenus praefatos milites ab excommunicatione contradictione et appellatione cessante absolvas etc.] (Et infra:) Deinde Per dominum feudi causam iubeas terminari, et, si ipse aliquid malitiose distulerit, tu ei sublato appellationis obstaculo debitum finem imponas.

From the intimation transmitted to us by B., C., and W., knights of your church, we understood that, when R. of Cassaville had drawn them into suit concerning a certain possession before our venerable brother the bishop of Troyes, a noble man of Campis, their lord, [from whom they held the possessions,] under the debt of fealty forbade them to answer concerning a secular fief in an ecclesiastical court. And so the aforesaid bishop promulgated against them a sentence of excommunication as if against contumacious persons, etc. (And below:) [We command that you absolve the aforesaid knights from excommunication, with contradiction and appeal ceasing, etc.] (And below:) Then By the lord of the fief you are to order the cause to be terminated, and, if he himself has maliciously delayed anything, you, with the obstacle of appeal removed, impose upon him the due end.

CAP. VII.

CHAPTER 7.

Per dominum feudi saecularem sive ecclesiasticum quaestio feudalis terminari debet, etiamsi vasalli sint clerici, et, si plures praetendantur domini, non potest unus cognoscere, maxime alio absente, an feudum ad eum pertineat. H. d. secundum lecturam magis notabilem.

By the lord of the fief, whether secular or ecclesiastical, a feudal question ought to be terminated, even if the vassals are clerics; and, if several lords are put forward, one alone cannot take cognizance, especially with another absent, whether the fief pertains to him. This is said according to the more notable reading.

Idem.

The same.

Verum quoniam de quibusdam feudis adversus eundem praepositum quaestio mota fuit, statuimus, ut, ex quo episcopus fuerit in eadem ecclesia consecratus, qui plenam auctoritatem habeat et potestatem, de feudis ipsis sub suo iudicio cognoscatur, si ad ecclesiasticam cognitionem pertineant; alioquin ipsa quaestio imperiali beneplacito, sicut iustum fuerit, relinquatur.

However, since with respect to certain fiefs a question was raised against the same provost, we have decreed that, once a bishop has been consecrated in the same church, who has full authority and power, there be cognizance of those fiefs under his judgment, if they pertain to ecclesiastical cognition; otherwise, the question itself is to be left to the imperial good pleasure, as shall be just.

CAP. VIII.

CHAPTER 8.

Malefactores ecclesiarum in utroque foro conveniri possunt.

Malefactors of churches can be convened in both forums.

Lucius III.

Lucius 3.

Quum sit generale, ut actor forum rei sequatur, conveniens est, ut apud iudices saeculares raptores prius conveniantur. Sed si iustitiam exhibere contempserint, aut iudices ex quaecunque causa fuerint negligentes, quia iudicandi sunt sacrilegi ab ecclesia, de crimine illo censurem poteris in eos ecclesiasticam exercere. Verum quoniam saeculares iudices in exhibenda iustitia personis ecclesiasticis saepe in iudicio sunt remissi, iam per consuetudinem in favorem ecclesiae est introductum, ut malefactores suos, qui sacrilegi sunt censendi, venerabilium locorum rectores possint sub quo maluerint iudice convenire.

Since it is general that the plaintiff follows the defendant’s forum, it is fitting that plunderers be first convened before secular judges. But if they should contemn to render justice, or if the judges, for whatever cause, should be negligent, since they are to be judged as sacrilegious by the Church, you can exercise ecclesiastical censure upon them for that crime. But because secular judges are often remiss in judgment in the rendering of justice to ecclesiastical persons, already by custom it has been introduced in favor of the Church, that the rectors of venerable places may be able to convene their malefactors, who are to be deemed sacrilegious, before whatever judge they shall have preferred.

CAP. IX.

CHAPTER 9.

Causae clericorum secundum iura, non secundum consuetudines laicorum terminantur. Vel sic: in loco temporalis iurisdictionis ecclesiae causae clericorum sunt secundum ius canonicum terminandae. Hoc dicit secundum gl. et utrumque summarium recipit determinationem.

The cases of clerics are adjudicated according to the laws, not according to the customs of laics. Or thus: in the forum of temporal jurisdiction, the cases of the Church’s clerics are to be adjudicated according to canon law. This he says according to the gloss, and both summaries receive the determination.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine III.

Quod clericis (Et infra:) Nullus episcoporum vel clericorum ad iudicia saecularia est trahendus. Habent enim illi suos iudices, nec quicquam est eis publicis commune cum legibus. Bonifacius vero Papa et Gelasius, et alii plures antecessorum nostrorum antiquioribus conciliis consonantes, sicut bene patet viris iuris utriusque peritis, id ipsum in sacris constitutionibus ediderunt.

As to what concerns clerics (And below:) No bishop or cleric is to be dragged to secular judgments. For they have their own judges, nor is there anything for them in common with the public laws. But Pope Boniface and Gelasius, and many others of our predecessors, consonant with the more ancient councils, as is well evident to men expert in both laws, have published this very thing in sacred constitutions.

Hac igitur ratione inducti, per apostolica scripta Mandamus, quatenus, si quas causas pecuniarias clerici Parisius commorantes habuerint contra aliquos, vel aliqui contra eos, ipsas appellatione remota iure canonico decidatis, nec permittatis iuri scripto consuetudinem praevalere.

Therefore, induced by this reasoning, by apostolic writings we Command, that, if the clerics residing at Paris shall have any pecuniary causes against anyone, or some against them, you decide them by canon law, with appeal removed, and do not allow custom to prevail over the written law.

CAP. X.

CHAPTER 10.

Laicus laicum super re civili coram iudice ecclesiastico convenire non potest, nisi in defectu iustitiae saecularis, vel nisi consuetudo id exposcat.

A layman cannot summon a layman over a civil matter before an ecclesiastical judge, unless in the default of secular justice, or unless custom demands it.

Innocentius III. Vercellensi Episcopo.

Innocent III. To the Bishop of Vercelli.

Licet ex suscepto servitutis officio simus omnibus in iustitia debitores, sic tamen in iure suo nos quibusdam convenit providere, ne aliis iniuriam facere videamur, et, quod absit, inde sumatur materia scandali, unde provida debet consideratione sedari. Ex insinuatione sane dilectorum filiorum consulum et communis Vercellensium nos noveris accepisse, quod, quum de singulis quaestionibus, quae motae fuerunt contra eos coram consulibus iustitiae, iuxta consuetudinem approbatam velint cuilibet conquerenti iustitiae plenitudinem exhibere, quidam, ut eorum iurisdictionem evacuent et fatigent eos laboribus et expensis, super rebus, quae iudicium ecclesiasticum non contingunt, literas apostolicas impetrant, et sic praeter iurisdictionem consulum, quam enervant, eos cogunt multipliciter laborare. Volentes igitur sic eorum utilitati consulere, ne patiamur aliorum iustitiam deperire, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta Mandamus, quatenus, si quando a laicis Vercellensibus tales literas super rebus, praecipue quae forum saeculare contingunt, a sede apostolica contigerit impetrari, eas sublato appellationis obstaculo, decernas auctoritate nostra irritas et inanes, dummodo dicti consules et commune de se conquerentibus in iudicio saeculari exhibeant iustitiae complementum.

Although from the assumed office of servitude we are debtors to all in justice, nevertheless it befits us to provide for certain persons in their own right in such a way that we not seem to do injury to others, and—far be it—that matter for scandal be taken from that which ought by provident consideration to be settled. From the intimation, indeed, of the beloved sons, the consuls and the commune of the Vercellenses, you are to know that we have learned this: that, when concerning the several questions which have been moved against them before the consuls of justice, they wish, according to approved custom, to exhibit the plenitude of justice to anyone complaining, certain men, in order to evacuate their jurisdiction and to weary them with labors and expenses, procure apostolic letters over matters which do not pertain to ecclesiastical judgment, and thus, beyond the jurisdiction of the consuls, which they enervate, they compel them to labor in many ways. Willing therefore thus to consult their utility, lest we allow the justice of others to perish, to your fraternity through apostolic writings Mandamus, to the effect that, if at any time by the Vercellensian laymen such letters over matters—especially those which pertain to the secular forum—shall happen to be procured from the Apostolic See, you are to declare them, the obstacle of appeal having been removed, null and void by our authority, provided that the said consuls and the commune exhibit to those complaining of them in the secular court the complement of justice.

Liceat tamen ipsis, qui sub eisdem consulibus taliter duxerint contendendum, si se in aliquo senserint praegravari, ad tuam, sicut hactenus servatum est, vel ad nostram, si maluerint, audientiam appellare, hoc praesertim tempore, quo vacante imperio ad iudicem saecularem recurrere nequeunt, qui a superioribus in sua iustitia opprimuntur. Si vero consules iustitiae tanquam merito suspecti fuerint recusati, coram arbitris communiter electis de causa suspicionis agatur, quae si probata fuerit esse iusta, ad te vel ad nos pro iustitia recurratur, sicut superius est expressum. [Dat.

Nevertheless, let it be permitted to those who under the same consuls shall have deemed it proper to contend in such a manner, if they feel themselves overburdened in anything, to appeal to your audience—as has been observed hitherto—or to ours, if they should prefer, especially at this time when, the empire being vacant, they cannot resort to a secular judge, and are oppressed by their superiors in the prosecution of their right. But if the consuls of justice, as deservedly suspect, shall have been recused, let the matter of suspicion be handled before arbiters commonly elected; which, if it shall have been proved to be just, let recourse be had to you or to us for justice, as has been expressed above. [Dat.

Ferentini II. Kal. Iun. Ao. IX. 1206.]

At Ferentino, 2 days before the Kalends of June, Year 9. 1206.]

CAP. XI.

CHAPTER 11.

Vidua laicum coram iudice ecclesiastice convenire non potest, nisi super causa ecclesiastica, vel in defectum iudicis saecularis.

A widow cannot convene a layman before an ecclesiastical judge, unless concerning an ecclesiastical cause, or in the defect (default) of a secular judge.

Idem Archidiacono et Thesaurario Turonensibus.

The same to the Archdeacon and the Treasurer of Tours.

Ex tenore literarum nobilis viri G. comitis Britanniae nostris est auribus intimatum, quod, quum causam, quae inter mulierem nobilem F. et nobilem virumI. de Meduano super hereditate sua noscitur agitari, vobiset bonae memoriae G. magistro scholarum B. Martini commiserimus fine debito terminandam, ipse comes eidem mulieri, quum tam ipsa quam praedictus I. essent de foro ipsius, mandavit, ut causam ipsam deferrent ad ipsum, promittens eidem, quod in curia sua faceret ei iustitiae plenitudinem exhiberi, vobis nihilominus intimare procurans, quod in curia sua debebat huiusmodi negotium terminari. At vos et mulier supradicta ei nequaquam obtemperare volentes satagitis in causa procedere, et sibi suam minus rationabiliter iurisdictionem auferre, unde nobis humiliter supplicavit, ut causam ipsam ad eum, ad quem specialiter pertinet, remittere dignaremur. Nos igitur attendentes, quod sic sumus viduis in iustitia debitores, quod aliis iniustitiam facere non debemus, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, nisi sit talis causa, quae ad ecclesiasticum iudicem pertinere noscatur, ei supersedere curetis, dummodo per iudicem saecularem suam possit iustitiam obtinere; alioquin, non obstante ipsius contradictione, causam ipsam iuxta formam vobis in aliis literis traditam ratione praevia terminetis. [Dat.

From the tenor of the letters of the noble man G., count of Brittany, it has been intimated to our ears that, when the case which is known to be litigated between the noble woman F. and the noble manI. of Meduano concerning her inheritance we had committed to you and to G. of good memory, master of the schools of St. Martin, to be concludedwith the due end, the count himself commanded the same woman, since both she and the aforesaid I. were of his forum, that they should refer the case itself to him, promising to her that in his curia he would cause the plenitude of justice to be exhibited to her, nonetheless taking care to intimate to you that such a business ought to be terminated in his curia. But you and the aforesaid woman, being by no means willing to obey him, strive to proceed in the case, and to take away from him his jurisdiction rather less reasonably, wherefore he humbly supplicated us that we would deign to remit the case to him, to whom it specially pertains. We therefore, considering that we are debtors to widows in justice in such a way that we ought not to do injustice to others, command to your discretion by apostolic writings that, unless it be such a case which is known to pertain to the ecclesiastical judge, you take care to desist in his favor, provided that by a secular judge she can obtain her justice; otherwise, notwithstanding his contradiction, you are to terminate the case itself, according to the form delivered to you in other letters, with reason first being heard. [Given.

Romae ap. S. Petrum Kal. Ian. A. VIII. 1205.]

At Rome, at St. Peter’s, on the Kalends of January, in the 8th year. 1205.]

CAP. XII.

CHAPTER 12.

Clericus non potest constituere sibi iudicem laicum, etiamsi proprium iuramentum et adversarii consensus accedat.

A cleric cannot constitute for himself a lay judge, even if his own oath and the adversary’s consent are added.

Idem Pisano Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Pisa.

Si diligenti Et infra: [cf. c.17.de praescr. II.26.]Super eo autem admiramur plurimum, et movemur, quod, quum te reputemus virum providum et discretum, et iuxta debitum pontificalis officii sanctorum Patrum statuta ignota tibi esse non debeant, et iurisperitorum copiam habere noscaris, Asseruisti, te usque ad haec tempora tenuisse, et habere pro certo, quod licitum sit cuilibet clerico renunciare saltem in temporalibus causis iuri suo, et sibi laicum iudicem constituere, praesertim ubi adversarii voluntas accedit, ac per hoc tacite te innuis rationabiliter redargutum pro eo, quod huiusmodi pacto tenere iuramentum super hoc interpositum respondisti, immemor constitutionis illius, qua cavetur, pacto privatorum iuri publico minime derogari. Quum ergo hoc ius in Milevitanensi et Carthaginensi conciliis sit specialiter promulgatum, ne clerici clericos relicto suo pontifice ad iudicia publica pertrahant, alioquin causam perdant, et a communione habeantur extranei, et tam episcopi quam diaconi, seu quilibet clerici in criminali seu in civili negotio, si derelicto ecclesiastico iudicio publicis iudiciis se purgare voluerint, etiamsi pro eis sit lata sententia, locum suum amittant, et hoc in criminali actione, in civili vero perdant quod evicerint, si locum suum maluerint obtinere: manifeste patet, quod non solum inviti, sed etiam voluntarii pacisci non possunt, ut saecularia iudicia subeant, quum non sit beneficium hoc personale, cui renunciari valeat, sed potius toti collegio ecclesiastico publice [et generaliter] sit indultum, cui privatorum pactio derogare non potest.

If diligently And below: [cf. ch.17.on prescription 2.26.]But on this point we greatly marvel, and are moved, that, whereas we consider you a provident and discreet man, and, according to what is due to the pontifical office, the statutes of the holy Fathers ought not to be unknown to you, and you are known to have a supply of jurists, you asserted that up to these times you have held, and hold for certain, that it is lawful for any cleric to renounce at least in temporal causes his right, and to constitute for himself a lay judge, especially where the adversary’s will concurs; and by this you tacitly intimate yourself to be reasonably refuted, in that by a pact of this kind you responded that an oath interposed upon this must be kept, unmindful of that constitution by which it is provided that a pact of private persons by no means derogates from public law. Since therefore this law has been specially promulgated in the Milevitan and Carthaginian councils, that clerics are not to drag clerics, their own pontiff being left aside, to public courts—otherwise let them lose the case and be held as outsiders from communion—and that both bishops and deacons, or any clerics, in a criminal or in a civil matter, if, the ecclesiastical judgment abandoned, they should wish to purge themselves before public judgments, even if sentence be given for them, let them lose their place—and this in a criminal action; in a civil, indeed, let them lose what they have won, if they prefer to retain their place: it plainly appears that not only unwillingly, but even voluntarily, they cannot make a compact to undergo secular judgments, since this is not a personal benefice to which renunciation could avail, but rather has been publicly [and generally] indulted to the whole ecclesiastical college, to which the pact of private persons cannot derogate.

Nec iuramentum licite servari potuit, quod contra canonica statuta illicitis pactionibus informatur. [Super alio etc. (cf. c.17.de praescr. II.26.)Dat.

Nor could the oath be licitly observed, which is informed by illicit pactions contrary to the canonical statutes. [On another matter, etc. (cf. c.17.de praescr. 2.26.)Given.

Rom. ap. S. Petr. II. Non.

Rome, at St. Peter’s, 2 Nones.

Maii Ao. IX. 1206.]

May Year 9. 1206.]

CAP. XIII.

CHAPTER 13.

Clerici super escessibus coram suo episcopo conveniri debent, non coram his, quibus serviunt, nisi consuetudo vel privilegium aliud inducat.

Clerics, concerning excesses, ought to be convened before their own bishop, not before those whom they serve, unless custom or some privilege induces otherwise.

Idem Belvacensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Beauvais.

Quum contingat interdum (Et infra: [cf. c. 28.de iureiur. II.24.]) Insuper postulasti, an, quum aliqui clerici deputati servitio capituli Belvacensis aut aliorum clericorum tuae dioecesis super excessibus impetuntur, sint cogendi coram te, vel potius coram illis, quibus serviunt, querelantibus respondere, quum illi sibi iurisdictionem huiusmodi vendicare contendant, licet illos excommunicare non valeant, vel alias etiam coercere. Super quofraternitati tuae taliter respondemus, quod ad te, utpote ordinarium iudicem, de talibus debent conquerentes habere recursum, maxime si super his criminibus impetuntur, quae in tua noscuntur dioecesi commisisse; nisi forte hi, quibus delinquentes ipsi deserviunt, ex indulgentia vel consuetudine speciali iurisdictionem huiusmodi valeant sibi vindicare.

Since it happens sometimes (And below: [cf. ch. 28.on oath-taking 2.24.]) Moreover you have asked whether, when certain clerics deputed to the service of the chapter of Beauvais or of other clerics of your diocese are prosecuted for excesses, they should be compelled to answer before you, or rather before those whom they serve, answering the complainants, when those men strive to claim for themselves such jurisdiction, although they are not able to excommunicate them, nor otherwise to coerce. Upon whichto your fraternity we thus respond: that to you, as the ordinary judge, the complainants ought to have recourse in such matters, especially if they are charged concerning those crimes which are known to have been committed in your diocese; unless perhaps those, whom the delinquents themselves serve, can by indulgence or special custom vindicate such jurisdiction to themselves.

[Dat. Later. XVI.

[Given at the Lateran. 16.

Kal. Ian. Ao. XIII. 1210.]

Kalends of January. Year 13. 1210.]

CAP. XIV.

CHAPTER 14.

Episcopus delicti condemnat clericum de delicto; sed non privat beneficio alibi exsistente; sed episcopus beneficii privabit quasi exsequendo condemnationem iudicis delicti. H. d. secundum unum intellectum. Secundum alium intellectum h. d.: Episcopus delicti condemnat clericum de delicto, privando beneficio alibi sito; exsecutio realis fit ab episcopo beneficii.

The bishop condemns the cleric for the delict; but he does not deprive him of a benefice existing elsewhere; rather, the bishop of the benefice will deprive (him), as if executing the condemnation of the judge of the delict. H. d. according to one understanding. According to another understanding H. d.: The bishop condemns the cleric for the delict, by depriving him of a benefice situated elsewhere; the real execution is carried out by the bishop of the benefice.

Idem.

The same.

Postulasti per sedem apostolicam edoceri, utrum sacerdos habens ecclesiam in una dioecesi, et residens in eadem, domicilium vero patrimonii ratione in alia, ibi delinquens, ab eo, in cuius dioecesi habet patrimonium, pro delicto ibidem commisso debeat iudicari, praesertim in causis, quae officii sui seu beneficii privationem exposcunt? Ad quod breviter respondemus, quod per episcopum, in cuius dioecesi deliquit, sententia promulgari poterit in eundem. Sed ab eo, in cuius dioecesi beneficium obtinet, erit quoad illud huiusmodi exsecutio sententiae facienda.

You have requested through the apostolic see to be instructed whether a priest who has a church in one diocese and resides in the same, but whose domicile, by reason of patrimony, is in another—offending there—ought to be judged by him in whose diocese he has patrimony for the offense committed there, especially in causes which demand the deprivation of his office or benefice? To which we briefly respond that by the bishop in whose diocese he offended, the sentence can be promulgated against him. But by him in whose diocese he holds the benefice, as regards that of this kind, the execution of the sentence is to be carried out.

Quaesivisti etc. (cf. c.21.de homic. V.12.) [Dat. Lat.

You have inquired, etc. (cf. ch.21.on homicide, 5.12.) [Given at the Lateran

III. Kal. Maii Pont.

April 29 of the Pontificate.

nostr. Ao. XVI. 1213.]

of our year 16. 1213.]

CAP. XV.

CHAPTER 15.

Miserabilis persona potest laicum interdicto unde vi coram iudice ecclesiastico convenire, etiamsi res subtracta dicatur feudalis.

A pitiable person can bring a layman, by the interdict “unde vi,” before an ecclesiastical judge, even if the thing taken away is said to be feudal.

Honorius III. Archiepiscopo, Decano et Archidiacono Turonensibus.

Honorius 3. To the Archbishop, the Dean, and the Archdeacon of Tours.

Ex parte carissimae in Christo filiae B. quondam Angliae reginae illustris fuit propositum coram nobis, quod, quum nobilem virum G. de Guerchia detentorem castri Segrey, ratione dotalitii pertinentis ad ipsam, quo per eum vel eius complices contra iustitiam fuerat spoliata, auctoritate bonae memoriae Ioannis Papae praedecessoris nostri coram vobis super hoc traxisset in causam, dictus nobilis excipiendo proposuit, quod literae apostolicae non valebant, pro eo, quod castrum Guargiae, ubi est eius domicilium principale, consistit in dioecesi Rodonensi, quae ultra duas diaetas a Turonis est remota, unde illic trahi non poterat secundum statutum concilii generalis. Verum replicatum fuit ex parte reginae, quod idem nobilis Turonis satis poterat secundum statutum concilii generalis conveniri, quum non solum in Rodonensi dioecesi, sed etiam in Andegavensi dioecesi exsistat, eo, quod et castra et reditus plures habet in ipsa, et castrum, de quo quaestio vertitur, in eadem est dioecesi, quae a Turonis nequaquam ultra XII. leucas distat. Idem quoque adiecit, quod, quum dicta regina ius suum coram domino feudi prosequi debuisset, literae apostolicae non valebant, quum non faciebant mentionem, quod dominus feudi fuerit requisitus, et ipse in exhibenda sibi iustitia exstiterit negligens vel remissus, subiiciens, quod eaedem literae falsitate expressa fuerant impetratae, eo, quod suggestum fuerat, castrum illud ad eandem reginam ratione dotalitii pertinere, quum nec ab initio, nec durante matrimonio a viro sibi fuerat in donationem propter nuptias assignatum.

On the part of our most beloved in Christ daughter B., formerly the illustrious queen of England, it was set forth before us that, when she had drawn the noble man G. de Guerchia, the detainer of the castle of Segrey—pertaining to her by reason of dower, of which through him or his accomplices she had been despoiled against justice—into trial super hoc before you by the authority of Pope John of blessed memory, our predecessor, the said noble, by way of exception, alleged that the apostolic letters were not valid, for the reason that the castle of Guargia, where his principal domicile is, lies in the diocese of Redon, which is more than two day-journeys removed from Tours, whence he could not be haled thither according to the statute of the general council. But it was replied on the queen’s part that the same noble could quite well be convened at Tours according to the statute of the general council, since he exists not only in the diocese of Redon but also in the diocese of Angers, inasmuch as he has several castles and revenues there, and the castle about which the question turns is in the same diocese, which is by no means more than 12 leagues distant from Tours. The same man also added that, since the said queen ought to have pursued her right before the lord of the fief, the apostolic letters were not valid, since they did not make mention that the lord of the fief had been requested and that he had proved negligent or remiss in exhibiting justice to her, subjoining that those same letters had been obtained with an expressed falsehood, because it had been suggested that that castle pertained to the same queen by reason of dower, whereas neither from the beginning nor during the marriage had it been assigned to her by her husband in a donation propter nuptias.

Ad hoc autem fuit ex parte ipsius reginae responsum, quod vidua spoliata irrequisito feudi domino spoliatorem seu detentorem rei coram ecclesiastico iudice poterat convenire, cuius interest viduas defensare. Nec obest, quod sibi castrum illud a viro assignatum non fuerit, quum clarae memoriae I. rex Angliae, heres et successor viri sui, castrum praefatum in concambium pro aliis rebus dotalitiis eidem concessit, et ipsa illud diu pro dote pacifice possedisset. Ad haec autem fuit ex parte ipsius nobilis replicatum, quod praedictus rex heres non fuerat regis Richardi, nec dominus Andegavi, sed eiusdem castri raptor potius et invasor, et ita ius, quod ipse nequaquam habuit, transferre non potuit in reginam.

To this, however, there was on the part of the queen herself a response, that a despoiled widow, the lord of the fief not requisitioned, could convene the despoiler or detainer of the property before an ecclesiastical judge, whose concern it is to defend widows. Nor does it hinder that that castle had not been assigned to her by her husband, since J., king of England of clear memory, the heir and successor of her husband, granted the aforesaid castle to her in exchange for other dotal goods, and she had long peaceably possessed it as a dowry. To these things, however, there was on the part of the noble himself a reply, that the aforesaid king had not been the heir of King Richard, nor lord of Anjou, but rather the raptor and invader of that same castle, and thus he could not transfer to the queen a right which he by no means had.

Ad quod sic pars eiusdem reginae respondit, quod contra rescriptum exceptio huiusmodi non valebat, nec habere debebat locum in possessorio, quod eadem contra dictum nobilem intendebat. Unde vos aures huiusmodi exceptionibus frivolis adhibentes, in principali negotio procedere hactenus distulistis in eiusdem reginae gravamen non modicum et iacturam. Nos vero volentes, ut finis litibus imponatur, discretioni vestrae Mandamus, quatenus, si vobis constiterit, dictum nobilem terram et mansionem habere in Andegavensi dioecesi, in qua interdum consuevit commorari, et ipsam dioecesim ultra duas a Turonis non distare diaetas, et in eadem litigiosam rem esse, non obstantibus exceptionibus aliis, quae in petitorio potius, quam in possessorio, quod regina contra eundem nobilem intentabat, locum habere videntur, in ipso negotio iuxta priorum continentiam literarum, sublato cuiuslibet contradictionis et appellationis obstaculo, ratione praevia procedatis, praeceptum apostolicum taliter impleturi, quod eadem regina pro defectu vestro ad nos laborare ulterius non cogatur, nec vos possitis de negligentia reprehendi. [Dat.

To this the party of the same queen thus responded, that against the rescript such an exception did not avail, nor ought it to have place in the possessory, which she was intending against the said noble. Whence you, lending your ears to such frivolous exceptions, have thus far delayed to proceed in the principal business, to the no small grievance and loss of the same queen. But we, wishing that an end be put to lawsuits, to your discretion We command, that, if it has been established to you that the said noble has land and a mansion in the Angevin diocese, in which he is accustomed at times to dwell, and that that diocese is not distant beyond two day-journeys from Tours, and that the litigious matter is in the same, notwithstanding other exceptions, which seem to have place in the petitory rather than in the possessory, which the queen was prosecuting against that same noble, you proceed in the very business according to the continence of the prior letters, with the obstacle of any contradiction and appeal removed, reason having been given beforehand, about to fulfill the apostolic precept in such a way that the same queen be not compelled to labor further to us on account of your defect, nor can you be reproved for negligence. [Dated.

Later. XVI. Kal.

Lateran. 16th before the Kalends.

Febr. A. I. 1217.]

Feb. A. 1. 1217.]

CAP. XVI.

CHAPTER 16.

Laici usurpantes iura ecclesiastica velut sacrilegi per iudicem ecclesiasticum compelluntur.

Laymen usurping ecclesiastical rights are compelled by an ecclesiastical judge as though sacrilegists.

Gregorius IX. Fratri Palmerio Canonico S. Trinitatis.

Gregory 9. To Brother Palmerius, Canon of the Holy Trinity.

Conquestus est nobis [venerabilis frater noster] Bononiensis episcopus, quod potestas et commune Bononienses temporalem iurisdictionem, quae in [S. Ioannis in Persiceto, Unciolae, Maximatici, Podii, Dulioli, Castri Episcopi et] quibusdam [aliis] castris et villis ecclesiae Bononiensis competit pleno iure, et in cuius quasi possessione fuisse ac esse dignoscitur, per violentiam usurpare praesumunt, [quendam, qui apud dictum castrum S. Ioannis homicidium perpetravit, per eos puniendum a rectore castri eiusdem sibi exhiberi fecerunt, et adhuc tenent in vinculis, ipsum reddere denegantes, unde per literas nostras ipsi mandavimus, ut ab ipsius episcopi molestia desistentes, et eidem episcopo restituentes sine difficultate qualibet homicidam, libere ipsum permitterent in dictis locis uti iurisdictione praefata, comparituri coram nobis usque ad festum omnium sanctorum proximo praeteritum ad faciendum et recipiendum quod iuris ordo dictaret, si in dictis castris et villis proponerent iurisdictionem aliquam se habere. Qui hoc, sicut dicitur, contemnentes, nec restituerunt sibi malefactorem praefatum moniti diligenter, nec permiserunt episcopum libere uti hac iurisdictione in locis eisdem, neque ad nos responsalem idoneum destinarunt, sed peccatum peccato potius cumulantes, postquam utriusque partis nuncii ad sedem apostolicam accesserunt, dicti potestas et commune quosdam ex parte sua miserunt ad investigandum et puniendum quoddam maleficium patratum in terra Dulioli ad iurisdictionem ipsius ecclesiae pertinente, super quo inquisitio facta fuerat per dicti episcopi nuncios, et a malefactoribus pignorum cautiones et aliae securitates acceptae, quare nuncii eiusdem episcopi humiliter petierunt a nobis, ut super his deberemus indemnitati Bononiensis ecclesiae praecavere.] Quum autem valde sit iniquum [et ingens sacrilegium,] ea, quae collata sunt pro remedio peccatorum venerabilibus ecclesiis, vel relicta, aut eis iustis modis aliis acquisita, [a fidelibus et viris catholicis, a quibus servari ea convenit,] aliis usibus applicari, propter quod merito invasores ipsarum rerum tanquam sacrilegi, [nisi eas restituant, per ecclesiarum rectores, quum ecclesiasticum sit crimen sacrilegii] sunt anathemati usque ad satisfactionem congruam supponendi. [Ecclesiarum quoque favore noscitur introductum, ut malefactores suos venerabilium locorum rectores possint sub quo maluerunt iudice convenire.

Our [venerable brother] the bishop of Bologna made complaint to us, that the potestas and the Bolognese commune presume to usurp by violence the temporal jurisdiction which belongs by full right to the church of Bologna in [St. John in Persiceto, Unciola, Maximaticum, Poggio, Duliolum, the Bishop’s Castle and] certain [other] castles and villages, and in the quasi-possession of which it is recognized to have been and to be; [they caused a certain man, who at the said castle of St. John perpetrated homicide, to be produced to the rector of that same castle to be punished by them, and they still hold him in chains, refusing to hand him over; wherefore by our letters we commanded them that, desisting from molesting the same bishop and restoring to that bishop without any difficulty the homicide, they should freely permit him to use in the said places the aforesaid jurisdiction, being to appear before us up to the feast of All Saints last past to do and to receive what the order of law should dictate, if in the said castles and villages they should propose that they have any jurisdiction. But they, as it is said, scorning this, neither restored to him the aforesaid malefactor though diligently warned, nor allowed the bishop freely to use this jurisdiction in the same places, nor did they send to us a suitable representative to respond; but rather heaping sin upon sin, after messengers of both parties had come to the apostolic see, the said potestas and commune sent certain persons on their part to investigate and to punish a certain misdeed perpetrated in the land of Duliolum pertaining to the jurisdiction of that church, concerning which an inquest had been made by the messengers of the said bishop, and securities of pledges and other sureties had been taken from the malefactors; wherefore the messengers of that same bishop humbly besought us that in these matters we ought to provide to safeguard the Church of Bologna from loss.] But since it is very unjust [and a huge sacrilege] that the things which have been conferred for the remedy of sins upon venerable churches, or left to them, or acquired for them by other just modes, [by the faithful and catholic men, by whom it is fitting that they be kept] be applied to other uses, on account of which the invaders of those things are deservedly, as sacrilegists, [unless they restore them, by the rectors of the churches, since the crime of sacrilege is ecclesiastical] to be subjected to anathema until due satisfaction. [It is also known to have been introduced by favor of the churches, that the rectors of venerable places may be able to convene their malefactors before whatever judge they preferred.

Sed fori exceptione per nuncios vestros opposita instanter petebatur ab ipsis, ut, quum regulariter actor forum rei sequi debeat, relinqueremus quaestionem huiusmodi iudicio saeculari. Super iis ergo deliberatione cum fratribus nostris habita diligenti, paterna dulcedine ipsos monemus, deposcimus et rogamus, obsecrantes per salutem animarum suarum et per Dominum obtestantes, quum in hoc longe magis sit vinci quam vincere gloriosum, non renuant salutarem recipere medicinam, sed nobis haec gratuita liberalitate sub spe mercedis aeternae donantes Deo et ecclesiae super praemissis debitam satisfactionem impendant. Civitatis enim suorum ecclesiae Romanae devotae sollicita desideramus affectione salutem, alligare curantes quod confractum est et reducere quod abiectum, et cupientes eosdem per patientiam nostram ad poenitentiam revocare.

But with an exception of forum, opposed through your envoys, it was urgently being requested by them that, since regularly the actor ought to follow the forum of the defendant, we should leave a question of this kind to secular judgment. Therefore, a diligent deliberation having been held with our brothers concerning these matters, with paternal sweetness we admonish them, we demand and we ask, beseeching for the salvation of their souls and adjuring by the Lord, since in this it is far more glorious to be conquered than to conquer, that they not refuse to receive the salutary medicine, but, granting these things to us with gratuitous liberality under the hope of eternal recompense, they render to God and to the church due satisfaction concerning the aforesaid. For the salvation of their own citizens of the city, devoted to the Roman church, we desire with solicitous affection, taking care to bind up what has been broken and to bring back what has been cast away, and wishing to recall those same by our patience to penitence.

Nolentes itaque afflictionem eiusdem ecclesiae ad dictorum potestatis et communis periculum, quod versatur in ipsa, dissimulare, ne contra officii nostri debitum veniamus, scientes quod obedire Deo magis quam hominibus nos oportet, discretioni tuae per apostolica scripta] Mandamus, quatenus si tibi constiterit de praemissis, [tu diligenti] monitione praemissa, per censuram ecclesiasticam cessare ipsos ab huiusmodi, et satisfacere de praeteritis damnis et iniuriis, appellatione remota compellas. [Testes etc. Dat.

Unwilling, therefore, to let the affliction of the same church be passed over to the peril of the said podestà and commune, which is involved in it, lest we come against the due of our office, knowing that we ought to obey God rather than men, to your discretion through apostolic writings] We command, that if the foregoing shall have been established to you, [you, with a diligent] warning having been given beforehand, you compel them, by ecclesiastical censure, to cease from things of this sort, and to make satisfaction for the past losses and injuries, appeal being removed. [Witnesses etc. Given.

Lat. VI. Kal. Febr.

Lateran. 6. Kalends. February.

Pontif. nostr. Ao. IV. 1230.]

In the 4th year of our pontificate. 1230.]

CAP. XVII.

CHAPTER 17.

Privilegiatus ut non teneatur respondere nisi in certo loco. Si in alio loco respondere vel solvere promittit, ibi poterit conveniri, et etiam ubi habet domicilium. Secundum Ioan.

Privileged, so that he is not held to respond except in a certain place. If he promises to respond or to pay in another place, he can be convened there, and also where he has his domicile. According to John.

Andr.

Andrew.

Idem Episcopo Dulmensi.

The same to the Bishop of Dulmen.

Dilecti filii I. et A. cives Romani sua nobis petitione monstrarunt, quod, quum abbati S. Genovefae Parisiensis super quadam pecuniae summa contra R. praedecessorem tuum literas impetrassent, tu proponi fecisti, quod omnibus Anglicis est a sede apostolica indultum, ut super causis pecuniariis citra mare conveniri non possint, propter quod idem abbas in negotio non processit. Verum, quia, etsi fuisset privilegium tale concessum, non tamen prodesset illis, qui se certo loco respondere vel solvere adversariis promiserunt, quum ibi et ubi domicilium habent valeant conveniri: mandamus, quatenus eisdem de pecunia ipsa cum iustis et moderatis expensis, et congrua satisfactione damnorum, usuris omnino cessantibus, satisfacias, ut teneris. Alioquin eidem abbati nostris damus literis in mandatis, ut in commisso sibi negotio, proposita ex parte tua indulgentia non obstante, iuxta prioris mandati nostri tenorem sine dispendio morae procedat.

Beloved sons I. and A., Roman citizens, have shown to us by their petition that, when they had obtained letters for the abbot of S. Genevieve of Paris concerning a certain sum of money against R., your predecessor, you caused it to be put forward that it has been indulged by the Apostolic See to all the English that, in pecuniary causes, they cannot be convened on this side of the sea, on account of which the same abbot did not proceed in the business. But, because, even if such a privilege had been granted, nevertheless it would not profit those who have promised to answer or to pay their adversaries in a certain place—since both there and where they have their domicile they may be convened—we command that you satisfy the same concerning the money itself with just and moderate expenses and suitable satisfaction of damages, with usuries altogether ceasing, as you are bound. Otherwise we give letters to the same abbot with mandates from us, that in the business committed to him, the indulgence proposed on your part notwithstanding, he proceed, without the detriment of delay, according to the tenor of our prior mandate.

CAP. XVIII.

CHAPTER 18.

Quanquam laici possunt iurisdictionem non sui iudicis prorogare, clerici tamen non possunt, nisi episcopi dioecesani consensus accedat, et iudex, cuius iurisdictionem prorogare volunt, sit ecclesiasticus.

Although laymen can prorogue the jurisdiction of a judge not their own, clerics nevertheless cannot, unless the consent of the diocesan bishop is added, and the judge, whose jurisdiction they wish to prorogue, is ecclesiastical.

Idem Abbati Trecensi.

The same to the Abbot of Troyes.

Significasti nobis, quod P. clericus ad petitionem C. mercatoris se tuae iurisdictioni subiecit, si in termino nunc elapso de pecunia mutuata, non satisfecisset eidem (Et infra:) Inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus, quod, licet privatorum consensus eum, qui iurisdictioni praeesse dignoscitur, suum possit iudicem constituere, clerici tamen in iudicem non suum, nisi forte sit persona ecclesiastica, et episcopi dioecesani voluntas accedat, consentire non possunt.

You signified to us that P., a cleric, at the petition of C., a merchant, subjected himself to your jurisdiction, if, at the term now elapsed, he should not have satisfied him concerning the money lent (And below:) To your inquiry we thus respond, that, although the consent of private persons can constitute as their judge him who is recognized to preside over jurisdiction, nevertheless clerics cannot consent to a judge not their own, unless perhaps he be an ecclesiastical person, and the will of the diocesan bishop accedes.

CAP. XIX.

CHAPTER 19.

Legitime citatus tenetur coram iudice citante causam prosequi, non obstante, quod post citationem mutaverit forum.

One legitimately cited is bound to prosecute the cause before the citing judge, notwithstanding that after the citation he has changed the forum.

Idem.

The same.

Proposuisti nobis, quod quidam subditus tuus ad petitionem cuiusdam adversarii sui a te legitime citatus ad causam, quia postmodum iurisdictionis alterius esse coepit, tuum intendit iudicium declinare. Porro tuae prudentiae dubium esse non credimus, quod is in praedicta causa ius revocandi forum non habet, quasi ab altero iam praeventus.

You have proposed to us that a certain subject of yours, at the petition of a certain adversary of his, having been legitimately cited by you to the cause, because afterward he began to be under another jurisdiction, intends to decline your court. Moreover, we do not believe it is a doubt to your prudence that he, in the aforesaid cause, does not have the right of revoking the forum, as being already preempted by the other.

CAP. XX.

CHAPTER 20.

Quisque clericus potest in curia Romana conveniri, licet alias specifice forum ibi non sortiatur; habet tamen ex causa ius revocandi domum.

Any cleric can be convened in the Roman Curia, although otherwise he does not specifically obtain by lot a forum there; nevertheless, for cause, he has the right of revoking to his home.

Idem.

The same.

Licet ratione delicti, seu contractus, aut domicilii, sive rei, de qua contra possessorem causa movetur, quibus forum regulariter quis sortitur, episcopus vester apud sedem apostolicam conventus non fuerit, quia tamen omnium ecclesiarum mater est eadem et magistra, rite compelli potuit, ut ibi suis adversariis responderet, nisi pro alia iusta et necessaria causa venisset, quam si tunc allegasset, ius revocandi domum salvum fuisset eidem.

Although by reason of delict, or contract, or domicile, or of the thing concerning which a cause is moved against the possessor—by which a person regularly draws his forum—your bishop would not have been convened at the Apostolic See, nevertheless, because the same is the mother and teacher of all churches, he could duly be compelled to answer there to his adversaries, unless he had come for another just and necessary cause, which, if he had then alleged it, the right of being recalled home would have remained safe to him.

TITULUS III. DE LIBELLI OBLATIONE.

TITLE 3. ON THE OFFERING OF THE LIBELLUS.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Actor tenetur in scriptis libellum porrigere. Vel sic: Iudex non debet admittere actorem ad litigandum, nisi prius libellum in scriptis offerat. H. d. per alia verba.

The plaintiff is bound to proffer a libel in writing. Or thus: The judge ought not to admit the plaintiff to litigate, unless he first offers the libel in writing. Here the same thing, in other words.

Ex concilio apud sanctum Medardum.

From the council at Saint Medard.

Ignarus episcopus dixit: Habetis libellum reclamationis vel postulationis, sicut ecclesiastica se habet traditio? Illi [autem] responderunt, se prae manibus nullum habere libellum. Ignarus episcopus dixit: Legum ecclesiasticarum [auctoritas talis est, ut in causis gestorum semper scripturam requirat, adeo, ut qui ad sacrum fontem accedit suum dare nomen praecipiatur; qui ad summum sacerdotium provehitur, decreto manibus omnium roborato eligitur. Ordinatus autem a suis ordinatoribus literas accipere iubetur.

Bishop Ignarus said: Do you have a libellus of reclamation or of postulation, as the ecclesiastical tradition stands? They [however] replied that they had no libellus at hand. Bishop Ignarus said: The authority of the ecclesiastical laws [is such that in cases of proceedings it always requires a writing, to such a degree that he who approaches the sacred font is enjoined to give his name; he who is advanced to the highest priesthood is chosen by a decree corroborated by the hands of all. And one ordained is commanded to receive letters from his ordainers.

Qui etiam ab ecclesiastica societate quolibet excessu discinditur libellari scriptione aut recipitur aut deiicitur. Sed qui accusatur, vel excommunicatur, seu reconciliatur, per scripturam accusari vel reconciliari iubetur. Et sic in ceteris huiusmodi in tantum scriptura deposcitur, ut sicut B. Gregorius in commonitorio ad Ioannem defensorem ex Romanis legibus sumens scribit, sententia, quae sine scriptura profertur, nec nomen sententiae habere mereatur.] Quapropter, fratres [et filii,] Oportet vos secundum ecclesiasticam auctoritatem reclamationem vestram libelli serie declarare, eamque vestris manibus roboratam synodo [sacrae] porrigere, ut tunc vobis convenienter et canonice valeat responderi.

He also who is cut off from ecclesiastical society by any excess is either received back or cast down by written libellus. But he who is accused, or excommunicated, or reconciled, is ordered to be accused or to be reconciled through writing. And so in other such matters writing is required to such an extent that, just as Blessed Gregory, in the memorandum to John the defensor, drawing from the Roman laws, writes, a sentence which is delivered without writing does not even deserve to have the name of sentence.] Wherefore, brothers [and sons,] It behooves you, according to ecclesiastical authority, to declare your reclamation by the series of a libellus, and to present it, ratified by your own hands, to the synod [sacred], so that then it may be able to be answered to you appropriately and canonically.

Et tunc ipsi fratres libellum conscribentes [eique sua nomina subscribentes] porrexerunt Hincmaro [episcopo etc.]

And then the brothers themselves, composing a petition [and subscribing their own names to it], proffered it to Hincmar [bishop, etc.]

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Quum agitur reali, non sufficit rem generaliter peti, sed debet ita specificari, ut evitetur obscuritas et aequivocatio.

When a real action is being prosecuted, it does not suffice that the thing be sought generally, but it ought to be specified in such a way that obscurity and equivocation are avoided.

Innocentius III.

Innocent 3.

Significantibus T. et R. fratribus nostro fuit apostolatui declaratum, quod, quum inter ipsos ex una parte, et V. Turpem de Athechi et sorores eius dioecesis Suessionensis ex altera super quadam terra coram dilectis filiis abbate et priore sancti Bartholomaei Noviomensis iudicibus a sede apostolica delegatis tracti fuissent in causam, oblato eis libello, ipsi T. et R., quum plures terras haberent, ut terra illa, super qua quaestio vertebatur, ostenderetur eisdem, a iudicibus postularunt. Quod quum ipsi facere denegarent, nec utrum hoc deberet eis concedi, vellent per sententiam definire, iidem fratres a manifesto gravamine ad nostram audientiam provocarunt. Quocirca discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, vos, revocato in statutum debitum, si quid post appellationem huiusmodi noveritis attentatum, etc.

Upon the signification by T. and R., brothers, it was declared to our apostolate that, when between them on the one side, and V. Turpis of Athechi and her sisters of the diocese of Soissons on the other, concerning a certain land, they had been drawn into a cause before our beloved sons, the abbot and prior of St. Bartholomew of Noyon, judges delegated by the Apostolic See, a libel having been presented to them, these T. and R., since they had several lands, petitioned from the judges that the land itself, about which the question was being turned, be shown to them. But when they refused to do this, nor would they be willing to define by a sentence whether this ought to be granted to them, the same brothers, from a manifest grievance, appealed to our hearing. Wherefore we command to your discretion by apostolic writings that, if it is so, you, the due status being restored, if you shall know that anything has been attempted after an appeal of this kind, etc.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Non tenetur reus respondere libello in actione personali, si non exprimitur causa petendi.

The defendant is not bound to respond to the libel in a personal action, if the cause of action is not expressed.

Gregorius IX. Archipresbytero Civitatis novae et M. Canonico Culmensi.

Gregory 9. To the Archpresbyter of Civitas Nova and to M., Canon of Culm.

Dilecti filii fratres ecclesiae sanctae Mariae de Hispida sua nobis petitione monstrarunt, quod, quum prior et conventus sanctae Mariae ad Carceres ipsos super quadam pecuniae summa coram priore sanctae Trinitatis Veronensis auctoritate apostolica convenissent, ex parte ipsorum fuit excipiendo propositum, quod, quum dicti prior et conventus nollent exprimere in porrecto libello conventionali, quare sibi dicta pecunia deberetur, super hoc minime respondere tenebatur, et quia dictus iudex exceptionem huiusmodi admittere denegabat, nostram audientiam appellaverunt. Ideoque mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, revocato in irritum, etc.

The beloved sons, the brothers of the church of Saint Mary of Hispida, showed us by their petition that, when the prior and convent of Saint Mary at Carceres themselves had convened against them concerning a certain sum of money before the prior of the Holy Trinity of Verona, by apostolic authority, it was proposed on their part by way of exception that, since the said prior and convent were unwilling to express in the presented conventional libel why the said money was owed to them, they were in no way bound to respond on this; and because the said judge was refusing to admit an exception of this kind, they appealed to our audience. Therefore we command, inasmuch as it is so, with it revoked into nullity, etc.

TITULUS IV. DE MUTUIS PETITIONIBUS.

TITLE 4. ON MUTUAL PETITIONS.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Iudex etiam delegatus compellit actorem ad respondendum reo in causa reconventionis, et utramque causam ordine successivo simul audiet et una sententia terminabit. H. d.

A delegated judge also compels the actor (plaintiff) to respond to the defendant in the cause of reconvention, and he will hear both causes together in successive order and will terminate them by one sentence. H. d.

Alexander III. Vulterano Episcopo et Abbati de Spongia.

Alexander 3. To the Bishop of Volterra and the Abbot of Spongia.

Ex literis vestris accepimus, quod dilecti filii nostri abbas et fratres Maturensis monasterii super quaestionibus, quas plebanus et clerici Maturenses adversus eos proponunt, vestrum parati sunt subire examen, si illi in continenti deberent de suis quaestionibus respondere. Verum, Quoniam rationis ordo exigit, ut plebanus et clerici Maturenses abbati et fratribus Maturensis monasterii de iis, quae adversus eos proponunt, non debeant in vestra praesentia respondere, quum sibi ex ipsis coram vobis a sede apostolica delegatis iustitiam postulant exhiberi, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, actione plebani et clericorum proposita, et responsione facta, monitione praemissa compellatis eosdem, memoratis abbati et fratribus in continenti coram vobis super suis quaestionibus respondere, et vos vicissem postmodum rationes et allegationes partium diligentius audientes concordia vel iudicio utriusque negotium terminetis.

From your letters we have received that our beloved sons, the abbot and brothers of the Maturensian monastery, concerning the questions which the parish-priest and the Maturensian clerics are proposing against them, are prepared to undergo your examination, if those men should have to answer forthwith concerning their questions. However, Since the order of reason requires that the parish-priest and the Maturensian clerics ought not in your presence to have to answer to the abbot and brothers of the Maturensian monastery about the things which they are proposing against them, when they request that justice be exhibited to themselves by you, delegated by the Apostolic See, from these very persons, enjoining upon your discretion by apostolic writings we command that, when the action of the parish-priest and clerics has been set forth and the answer made, after prior monition you compel the same to reply forthwith before you to the aforesaid abbot and brothers concerning their questions, and that you in turn afterwards, hearing the reasons and allegations of the parties more diligently, terminate the business of both by concord or by judgment.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Modus procedendi datus per rescriptun in causa conventionis intelligitur repetitus in causa reconventionis.

The mode of proceeding given by a rescript in the case of the action is understood to be repeated in the case of the counteraction (reconvention).

Coelestinus III. Rothomagensi Decano.

Celestine 3. To the Dean of Rouen.

Prudentiam tuam debita laudum prosequimur actione pro eo, quod more prudentis viri in articulis iuris, super quibus aliquando dubitas, sedem ducis apostolicam consulendam, [ad quam utique omnes difficiles quaestiones et causas antiqui Patres statuerunt decere referri.] Sane consuluisti nos, utrum, quum causa appellatione remota committitur, et reus coram eodem iudice actorem reconvenerit vel eisdem, quod quidem ex constitutione tam canonici quam forensis iuris licite fieri potest, et actor super reconventione appellationis obstaculum interponit, an sit huiusmodi appellationi deferendum? Nos vero ita sentimus, quod, quum in hoc casu actoris et rei eadem sit conditio vel causa, et uno eodemque iure circa appellationis remedium debeat uterque censeri, unde nec appellationi taliter interpositae deferendum esse iudicamus. Etenim ipso Christo, qui est veritas, attestante didicimus, quod omnia, quaecunque voluerint aliqui ut faciant eis homines, eadem et ipsi facere debeant.

We accompany your prudence with the due act of praises for this, that, in the manner of a prudent man, in points of law, concerning which you sometimes doubt, you deem that the Apostolic See should be consulted, [to which indeed the ancient Fathers established that all difficult questions and causes ought fittingly to be referred.] Clearly you have consulted us whether, when a case is committed with appellation removed, and the defendant has brought a counterclaim against the plaintiff before the same judge or the same ones which indeed, by the constitution of both canonic and forensic law, can licitly be done, and the plaintiff, upon the reconvention, interposes the obstacle of an appellation, whether deference should be given to such an appellation? But we for our part think thus: since in this case the condition or cause of plaintiff and defendant is the same, and each ought to be considered by one and the same law concerning the remedy of appellation, therefore we judge that deference is not to be given to an appellation interposed in such a manner. For indeed, with Christ himself, who is truth, attesting, we have learned that whatever things some may wish that men do to them, the same also they themselves ought to do.

Nec iurisperitus ab hac sententia discrepat, quia praeter authenticam, quae incipit: Et consequenter, in quo id de facienda reconventione expresse habetur, et alibi statuitur, ut eodem iure quis utatur, quod duxerit in alium statuendum. Ideoque Sicut desiderat actor, ut sibi iuxta mandatoris rescriptum iustitia fiat appellatione remota, eodem modo se reconvenienti debeat in sua iustitia respondere. [Secundo requiris etc. (cf. c.41.de app.

Nor does the jurist disagree from this opinion, because besides the Authentic which begins: ‘And consequently,’ in which that concerning making reconvention is expressly contained, it is also established elsewhere that one should use the same law which he has judged ought to be set down against another. And therefore just as the plaintiff desires that justice be done to him, the appeal being removed, according to the mandator’s rescript, in the same way he ought to answer in his justice to the one reconvening him. [Secondly you ask, etc. (cf. c.41.on appeals

II. 28.)Dat. Lat. XV. Kal.

2. 28.)Given at the Lateran, the 15th day before the Kalends.

Iul. Pont. nostr.

July. Of our Pontificate.

Ao. III. 1193.]

Year 3. 1193.]

TITULUS V. DE LITIS CONTESTATIONE.

TITLE 5. ON THE CONTESTATION OF THE LAWSUIT.

CAP. UN.

CHAPTER 1.

Non per positiones et responsiones, sed per petitionem in iure propositam et responsionem secutam fit litis contestatio, qua omissa nullus est processus.

Not by positions and responses, but by a petition proposed in law and a response following, is the contestation of the suit effected; which, if omitted, there is no process.

Gregorius IX. Abbati S. Ioannis in Vineis.

Gregory 9. To the Abbot of St. John in the Vineyards.

Olim inter episcopum Noviensem ex parte una, et capitulum ecclesiae sancti Quintini ex altera super quibusdam iniuriis, et excommunicationum sententiis et quibusdam aliis articulis orta materia quaestionis (Et infra:) Iudices factis quibusdam positionibus et responsionibus ad easdem, auditis etiam quae partes voluerunt proponere coram eis, causam eandem ad examen apostolicum remiserunt. Procuratoribus igitur partium propter hoc in nostra praesentia constitutis, quamvis positiones et responsiones hinc inde super pluribus articulis factae fuerint coram iudicibus memoratis, quia tamen litis contestationem non invenimus esse factam, quum non per positiones et responsiones ad eas, sed per petitionem in iure propositam et responsionem secutam litis contestatio fiat, processum ipsorum de fratrum nostrorum consilio irritum duximus nunciandum.

Once, between the bishop of Noyon on the one side, and the chapter of the church of Saint Quentin on the other, concerning certain injuries, and sentences of excommunication, and certain other articles, a matter of question arose (And below:). The judges, certain positions having been made and responses to the same, and having also heard what the parties wished to propose before them, remitted the same cause to the apostolic examination. Therefore, the procurators of the parties having for this reason been established in our presence, although positions and responses on many articles were made on both sides before the aforesaid judges, since, however, we have not found that litis contestation was made—since litis contestation comes about not through positions and responses to them, but through a petition proposed in law and a response following—we have deemed it, by the counsel of our brothers, to be announced that their process is null.

TITULUS VI. UT LITE NON CONTESTATA NON PROCEDATUR AD TESTIUM RECEPTIONEM VEL AD SENTENTIAM DIFFINITIVAM.

TITLE 6. THAT, WITH THE SUIT NOT JOINED, THERE BE NO PROCEEDING TO THE RECEIVING OF WITNESSES OR TO THE DEFINITIVE SENTENCE.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Si agatar de adulterio ad separationem tori, et ante litis contestationem reus est contumax, potest excommunicari; sed testes recipi non possunt, nec causa diffiniri.

If it be brought on adultery for the separation of the bed, and before the contestation of the lawsuit the defendant is contumacious, he can be excommunicated; but witnesses cannot be received, nor can the case be definitively decided.

Innocentius III. Abbati sancti Proculi et L. Canonico.

Innocent III. To the Abbot of St. Proculus and to L., a Canon.

Ad hoc Deus in apostolica sede constituit totius ecclesiae magistratum, [ut, quia secundum scripturam sanctam fecit Deus hominem rectum, sed ipse se infinitis miscuit quaestionibus, ad eam nodi quaestionum difficiles referantur, suo recto iudicio dissolvendi.] Ad apostolatus [quippe] nostri notitiam literarum vestrarum insinuatione pervenit, quod, Quum causa, quae inter R. et B. uxorem eius vertitur, auctoritate apostolica vobis commissa fuisset, tandem procurator eiusdem R. libello uxoris, quo virum ad separationem tori, et ut dotem reciperet, de adulterio accusabat, noluit respondere, donec advocatus eius veniret inducias postulando. Qui quum huiusmodi inducias saepe petendo vobis illudere videretur, vos testes mulieris habito consilio recepistis; tandem procurator ad praesentiam vestram accedens, dixit, se respondere paratum; sed die statuto, quum crederetur responsurus libello, de quo praemisimus, restitutionem uxoris ex parte viri primo fieri postulavit, ne secus fieret appellando. Verum quia dicebat mulier, se virum habere suspectum, tum quia in domo eius coacta fuerat se adulteratam cum pluribus confiteri, tum quia meretricem publice retinebat, et idem procurator nec de mulieris impunitate cavere, nec vestro se curasset postmodum conspectui praesentare, vos testes mulieris iterum recipere studuistis, et attestationibus publicatis diligenter audistis quae fuerunt ipsius nomine allegata.

To this end God established in the apostolic see the magistracy of the whole church, [so that, since according to holy Scripture God made man upright, but he himself has entangled himself in infinite questions, to it the difficult knots of questions might be referred, to be dissolved by its right judgment.] To the knowledge of our apostolate [indeed] it has come by the insinuation of your letters, that, when the cause which is being litigated between R. and B., his wife, had been committed to you by apostolic authority, at length the procurator of the same R., to the wife’s libel—by which she was accusing the husband of adultery for a separation of bed and that she might receive back the dowry—was unwilling to respond, petitioning delays until his advocate should come. And since this advocate, by often requesting such delays, seemed to be mocking you, you, counsel having been taken, received the woman’s witnesses; at length the procurator, coming into your presence, said that he was prepared to respond; but on the day set, when he was thought about to respond to the libel, of which we have premised, he first demanded that the restitution of the wife on the husband’s part be made, appealing lest it be done otherwise. But because the woman said that she held her husband suspect, both because in his house she had been forced to confess herself adulterous with several, and because he was publicly keeping a prostitute, and the same procurator neither took care to provide security for the woman’s impunity, nor afterwards took care to present himself to your sight, you strove to receive the woman’s witnesses again, and, the attestations having been published, you diligently heard the things that were alleged in her name.

Quia vero, quum de ferenda sententia cum iuris prudentibus tractaretis, diversorum invenistis diversa consilia, quibusdam dicentibus appellationi simpliciter deferendum, aliis autem appellationi deferendum non esse; nonnullis etiam asserentibus, appellationem nullatenus tenuisse, quum mulier non sit viro restituenda suspecto, nisi, de impunitate sufficienti praestita cautione: vos in tanta varietate nos consulere voluistis, qualiter esset in hoc negotio procedendum? Nos igitur Consultationi vestrae de consilio fratrum nostrorum taliter respondemus, quod, licet ordo iudiciarius in aliis controversiis sit servandus, et in matrimonialibus causis non usquequaque servetur, quia tamen in praesenti negotio non est actum de foedere matrimonii, sed de crimine adulterii, per quod ad separationem coniugii, non ad coniunctionem intenditur, quia lite non contestata testes fuerunt recepti, et attestationes etiam publicatae, sive deferendum sive non deferendum appellationi fuisset, non est ad diffinitivam sententiam procedendum. Potuit tamen praefatus R. propter suam contumaciam, vel etiam procuratoris, si sciens non purgavit eandem, excommunicationis sententia innodari.

Because indeed, when you were treating with jurists about the sentence to be delivered, you found diverse counsels of diverse men, some saying that deference should simply be given to the appeal, but others that deference ought not to be given to the appeal; some also asserting that the appeal had in no way held, since the woman is not to be restored to a suspected husband unless, with sufficient security furnished concerning immunity from punishment: you, amid such variety, wished to consult us how it ought to be proceeded with in this business? We therefore to your consultation by the counsel of our brothers thus respond, that, although the judicial order is to be observed in other controversies, and in matrimonial causes it is not observed altogether, yet because in the present business it is not a matter of the covenant of marriage, but of the crime of adultery, whereby one aims at separation of the conjugal union, not at conjunction, since with the suit not contested witnesses were received, and the attestations also published, whether deference ought to have been given to the appeal or not, one is not to proceed to a definitive sentence. Nevertheless the aforesaid R., on account of his contumacy, or also the procurator, if, knowing, he did not purge the same, could be bound by the sentence of excommunication.

[Dat. Perusii XV. Kal. Oct.1198.]

[Dated at Perugia, 17 September.1198.]

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

In causa restitutionis contra contumacem lite non contestata sententia proferrii non potest. Hoc dicit comprehendendo omnem modum summandi.

In a cause of restitution, against a contumacious party, with the suit not contested, a sentence cannot be pronounced. This states it by comprehending every mode of summoning.

Idem Hierosolymitano Patriarchae et Archiepiscopo Cassensi.

The same to the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Archbishop of Cassino.

Accedens ad praesentiam nostram venerabilis frater noster Paphensis episcopus venerabilium fratrum nostrorum Acconensis, Tiberiadensis et Berytensis episcoporum nobis literas praesentavit, sententiam continentes, quam super causa, quae inter venerabilem fratrem nostrum Tyrensem archiepiscopum ex una parte, et plebanum sancti Marci ex altera vertebatur, iidem ipsi promulgarunt. Asserebant tamen episcopi memorati per suas literas, quod, quum causam ipsam de mandato nostro susceperint terminandam, partes ad suam praesentiam convocarunt. Sed plebanus [praedictus] nec eorum literas, in quibus mandati nostri tenor erat expressus, recipere voluit, nec eorum se conspectui praesentare, et secundo citatus, licet [nec eorum nuntium], nec literas eorum recipere voluisset, coram eis apparuit, prioris absentiae suae causis allegatis, et inspecto tenore literarum nostrarum, petitis etiam induciis et receptis [ab eis], licentiatus abscessit, se statuto die ad eos redire promittens. Quum in iudicum delegatorum praesentia archiepiscopus Tirenensis restitutionis beneficium postularet, plebanus sancti Marci de Venetiis, contra quem agebat, nihil ad obiecta respondit, sed ad nostram audientiam appellavit.

Approaching our presence, our venerable brother the bishop of Paphos presented to us letters of our venerable brothers the bishops of Acre, Tiberias, and Beirut, containing the sentence which those same men promulgated concerning the case which was being contested between our venerable brother, the archbishop of Tyre, on the one side, and the pleban of Saint Mark on the other. Yet the aforesaid bishops asserted through their letters that, since they had undertaken by our mandate to bring that case itself to an end, they summoned the parties to their presence. But the pleban [aforesaid] was willing neither to receive their letters, in which the tenor of our mandate was expressed, nor to present himself to their sight; and, having been cited a second time, although [nor their messenger], nor would he have wished to receive their letters, he appeared before them, alleging causes for his earlier absence; and, the tenor of our letters having been inspected, having also asked for and received delays [from them], he departed with leave, promising to return to them on the day set. When, in the presence of the delegated judges, the archbishop of Tyre was seeking the benefit of restitution, the pleban of Saint Mark of Venice, against whom he was proceeding, responded nothing to the objections, but appealed to our hearing.

Et licet saepe per ipsos fuisset admonitus, ut iuri pareret, quia eius appellatio non tenebat, quum in literis nostris appellationis esset obstaculum partibus interclusum, licet per ipsorum nuncios ad iudicium fuerit revocatus; noluit tamen respondere amplius, vel coram eis etiam comparere. Ipsi vero iudices accedentes ad civitatem Tyrensem, quum plebanus ipse in sua contumacia perduraret, testes receperunt ab adversa parte productos, et depositionibus redactis in scriptis mandaverunt eidem plebano, ut ad eos accederet in personas vel in dicta testium obiecturus. Quod quum facere noluisset, in ipsum excommunicationis sententiam protulerunt, possessionem iuris parochialis adiudicantes archiepiscopo memorato, et eum, quantum in eis erat, restituentes in integrum, auctoritate sedis apostolicae districtius vetuerunt, ne quis possessionem Tirenensi ecclesiae restitutam praesumeret perturbare, vel institutioni apostolicae contraire, et ne plebanus S. Marci vel quilibet alius parochiale ius exerceret in Tyro. [Insuper in omnes illos excommunicationis sententiam protulerunt, qui plebano eidem in subtractione parochialis iuris consentirent in posterum, vel in sua malignitate praeberent auxilium vel assensum idem contra sustinedos (substituendos?) ei plebanos in posterum statuentes.

And although he had often been by them admonished to obey the law/right, since his appeal did not hold, when in our letters the obstacle of appeal had been shut off to the parties, although he had been called back to the judgment by their nuncios; nevertheless he did not wish to answer further, nor even to appear before them. But the judges themselves, going to the city of Tyre, when the same parson persisted in his contumacy, received the witnesses produced by the adverse party, and the depositions having been reduced to writing, they mandated to the same parson that he should come before them to object against the persons or the sayings of the witnesses. Since he was unwilling to do this, they pronounced a sentence of excommunication against him, adjudging the possession of parochial right to the aforesaid archbishop, and, insofar as was in them, restoring him in integrality; by the authority of the Apostolic See they more strictly forbade that anyone should presume to disturb the possession restored to the Tyrian church, or to contravene the apostolic institution, and that the parson of St. Mark or any other should exercise parochial right in Tyre. [Moreover, they pronounced a sentence of excommunication upon all those who should in future consent to that same parson in the subtraction of parochial right, or in their malignity should afford aid or assent to the same against the parsons to be sustained (substituted?) for him, appointing in the future.

Verum dilecti filii, nobiles viri, Ursus Badoarius et Marinus Iacobus, ad nos ex parte nobilis viri, Henrici Danduli, Ducis Venetorum transmissi, in nostra proposuerunt praesentia constituti, quod olim in recuperatione terrae orientalis ecclesiarum praelati et principes saeculares tertiam partem civitatis Tyrensis pleno iure Venetis consenserunt, quam ipsi possederunt longo tempore, sine lite. Ceterum decedentibus illis, quibus in recuperatione illius terrae ipsorum experti fuerant fidem, constantiam et auxilium in effectu, successores eorum vel ignari, vel ingrati beneficiorum terrae sacrae collatorum a Veneticis, super iure parochiali ecclesiae s. Marci, quae ad ecclesiam S. Marci Venetiis positam pleno iure solummodo pertinet, a paucis moverunt indebite quaestionem. Sed superveniente terrae occidentalis excidio, ipsi a bonae memoriae Clemente ac Coelestino, praedecessoribus nostris, literas impetraverunt, ne ante recuperationem terrae illius super hoc respondere cuiquam aliquatenus cogerentur.

But our beloved sons, the noble men Ursus Badoarius and Marinus Jacobus, sent to us on behalf of the noble man Henry Dandulus, Duke of the Venetians, being set in our presence proposed that, once upon a time, in the recovery of the Eastern land, the prelates of the churches and the secular princes consented to the Venetians the third part of the city of Tyre by full right, which they possessed for a long time without dispute. Moreover, when those died in whose case, in the recovery of that land, they had experienced their faith, constancy, and help in effect, their successors—either ignorant or ungrateful for the benefactions of the Holy Land conferred by the Venetians—at the prompting of a few improperly raised a question concerning the parochial right of the church of St. Mark, which pertains solely by full right to the church of St. Mark situated at Venice. But with the ruin of the Western land supervening, they obtained letters from our predecessors of good memory, Clement and Celestine, that before the recovery of that land they should not in any way be compelled to answer to anyone concerning this.

Unde, quum dictus archiepiscopus super hoc commissionis literas impetrasset, praedictus plebanus, tanquam qui iudices habebat ex certa ratione suspectos, utpote quorum duos suffraganeos ecclesiae Tyrensis esse constabat: tum quia literae ipsae per veri erant oppressionem obtentae, velut in quibus de praedictis literis mentio non fiebat, ad nostram audientiam appellavit. Sed iudices post appellationem ad nos legitime interpositam, lite non contestata in eum et omnes complices eius excommunicationis sententiam protulere, et possessionem iuris parochialis adiudicare praedicto archiepiscopo et eius ecclesiae praesumserunt. At quum ipse tam iniquae sententiae non pareret, idem archiepiscopus ecclesias eius bonis spoliavit.] Quum igitur nobis ex inspectione sententiae constitisset, quod lis coram eisdem iudicibus non fuerit contestata, et ex transscripto literarum, quas iidem praedecessores nostri concesserant Veneciis, manifeste pateret, literas ipsas per veri suppressionem obtentas, quum non veniret in dubium, sed potius manifestum esset, duos praedictorum iudicum, Achoniensem videlicet et Beritensem episcopos, eidem archiepiscopo tanquam suffraganeos suo metropolitano subesse, ac ex his plebanum ipsum legitime appellasse constaret; in quem, etiamsi minus legitime appellasset, et iudices ipsi licet propter contumaciam excommunicationis forte potuerunt proferre sententiam, non tamen debuerunt super principali negotio diffinitivam sententiam lite non contestata proferre, praedictas ab ipsis iudicibus latas de consilio fratrum nostrorum cassavimus sententias, immo cassas denunciavimus et inanes, et per eas nullum praeiudicium ecclesiae S. Marci vel eius favoribus volumus irrogari. Unde [dicto] Tirenensi archiepiscopo dedimus in mandatis, ut ipsi ecclesiae S. Marci [et] instrumenta restituat, et etiam universa, quae huiusmodi occasione sententiae per se, vel per alios occupavit, nec impediat, quo minus sicut ante latam sententiam Venetorum ecclesia parochialis iuris et aliarum dignitatum suarum possessione laetetur.

Whence, when the said archbishop had obtained letters of commission on this matter, the aforesaid plebanus, as one who held the judges to be suspected for a certain reason—since it was evident that two of them were suffragans of the church of Tyre—then also because those letters had been obtained by suppression of the truth, inasmuch as in them no mention was made of the aforesaid letters, appealed to our audience. But the judges, after an appeal to us had been lawfully interposed, with the suit not having been joined, pronounced a sentence of excommunication against him and all his accomplices, and presumed to adjudge the possession of parochial right to the aforesaid archbishop and his church. But when he did not obey so iniquitous a sentence, the same archbishop despoiled his churches of their goods.] Since therefore, from our inspection of the sentence it had been established that the suit had not been contested before the same judges, and from the transcript of the letters which those our predecessors had granted to the Venetians it clearly appeared that those letters had been obtained by suppression of the truth, since it did not come into doubt, but rather it was manifest, that two of the aforesaid judges, namely the bishops of Acre and of Beirut, were subject to the same archbishop as suffragans to their metropolitan, and from this it was established that the plebanus himself had lawfully appealed; against whom, even if he had appealed less lawfully, and although the judges themselves perhaps could have pronounced a sentence of excommunication on account of contumacy, nevertheless they ought not to have given a definitive sentence on the principal matter with the suit not having been joined; we quashed the aforesaid sentences, issued by those judges by the counsel of our brethren; indeed we declared them quashed and void, and by them we are unwilling that any prejudice be inflicted upon the church of St. Mark or upon its favors. Wherefore we have given orders to the [said] archbishop of Tyre that he restore to the church of St. Mark the instruments [also], and likewise all things which on the occasion of such a sentence he seized, either by himself or through others, and that he not impede, so that the church of the Venetians may enjoy, as before the sentence was pronounced, the possession of its parochial right and of its other dignities.

[Ideoque frat. v. etc. Dat.

[And therefore to your fraternity, etc. Given.

Later. Non. April.

At the Lateran, on the Nones of April (April 5).

A. III. 1200.]

A. 3. 1200.]

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Si lite non contestata reus est contumax, si fieri potest, mittitur actor in possessionem causa custodiae; alias reus excommunicabitur.

If, the suit not having been contested, the defendant is contumacious, if it can be done, the plaintiff is sent into possession for the sake of custody; otherwise the defendant will be excommunicated.

Idem Episcopo Brixiensi.

The same to the Bishop of Brescia.

Tuae fraternitatis devotio (Et infra: [cf. c.10.de eo, qui cogn. IV. 13.])Consuluisti praeterea, utrum si aliquis citatus legitimis peremptoriis comparere noluerit, iudex lite non contestata contra ipsum debeat sententiam promulgare, ut idem affectus taedio appellaturus saltem se iudicis conspectui repraesentet. Ad quod Consultationi tuae taliter duximus respondendum, quod, si reus, lite non contestata se absentat contumaciter, talisque sit causa, quod actor possit in petitarum rerum possessionem induci, est in eandem causa custodiae inducendus.

Your Fraternity’s devotion (And below: [cf. c.10.on him who is cogn.4. 13.])You have furthermore consulted whether, if someone, when cited by lawful peremptories, should be unwilling to appear, the judge, with the suit not contested, ought to promulgate a sentence against him, so that the same man, affected by tedium and about to appeal, might at least present himself to the judge’s sight. To which we have deemed it proper to reply to your Consultation in such a way: that, if the defendant, with the suit not contested, absents himself contumaciously, and the cause is such that the plaintiff can be inducted into possession of the things sought, he is to be inducted into the same for the cause of custody.

Quod si causa talis fuerit, quod idem in possessionem nequeat intromitti, ut iuri pareat is, qui contumaciter se absentavit, per censuram ecclesiasticam est contumax compellendus. [Praeterea etc. (cf. c.20.de praeb. III.5.)Dat.

But if the cause shall be such that the same cannot be inducted into possession, in order that he, who has contumaciously absented himself, may obey the law, the contumacious person is to be compelled through ecclesiastical censure. [Moreover, etc. (cf. c.20.de praeb.3. 5.)Given.]

Rom. etc. 1206.]

Rome, etc. 1206.]

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Receptio testium facta contra non contumacem lite non contestata, in causa matrimoniali est nulla.

The reception of witnesses carried out against a non-contumacious party, with the suit not having been contested, is null in a matrimonial cause.

Idem de Decima et Helemosio Abbatibus Aurelianensis et Carnotensis dioecesis.

The same, concerning the Abbots of Decima and Helemosium, of the dioceses of Orléans and Chartres.

Accedens ad sedem apostolicam dilectus filius nobilis vir. G. vicecomes Benaici [humili nobis conquestione monstravit, quod quum nobilem mulierem Eustachiam duxisset legitime in uxorem, et duas filias suscepisset ex ipsa, tandem ipsa nobilis suadente humani generis inimico divertit ab ipso. Quumque a venerabili fratre nostro Pictaviensi episcopo dioecesano suo non posset super hoc iustitiam obtinere, nos ad petitionem nunciorum ipsius et mulieris eiusdem causam, quae inter ipsos super eorum matrimonio vertebatur, dilectis filiis abbati S. Leodegarii, decano S. Petri et priori S. Hilarii de Cella Pictaviensibus duximus committendam, qui, sicut nobis suis literis intimaverunt, quum eis liquido constitisset, praefatam E. a viro suo, de quo duas susceperat filias, auctoritate propria divertisse, habito prudentum virorum consilio decreverunt, eandem E. ad virum suum debere reverti, reservata sibi accusandi matrimonium post reversionem suam, si vellet, plenaria potestate.

Approaching the apostolic see the beloved son, the noble man G., viscount of Benaici [humbly showed to us by complaint, that, although he had lawfully taken the noble woman Eustachia as wife, and had received two daughters from her, at length the noblewoman, with the enemy of the human race persuading, departed from him. And since he could not obtain justice in this matter from our venerable brother the bishop of Poitiers, his diocesan, we, at the petition of his envoys and of the same woman, judged that the cause which was pending between them concerning their marriage should be committed to our beloved sons, the abbot of St. Leodegarius, the dean of St. Peter, and the prior of St. Hilary of La Celle at Poitiers, who, as they intimated to us by their letters, when it had been clearly established for them that the aforesaid E., by her own authority, had departed from her husband, from whom she had received two daughters, having taken counsel of prudent men, decreed that the same E. ought to return to her husband, with full power reserved to herself of accusing the marriage after her return, if she should wish.

Quod quum facere noluisset, excommunicationis eam vinculo adstrinxerunt, supponentes terram eius et familiam ecclesiastico interdicto. Verum quum sententiam ipsam praecepissemus postmodum, sicut rationabiliter lata erat, usque ad satisfactionem congruam inviolabiliter observari, tandem eadem E. ad suggestionem venerabilis fratris nostri Andegavensis episcopi et dilectorum filiorum de Granateria et de Bellofonte abbatum causam ipsam venerabili fratri nostro episcopo et dilecto filio G. archidiacono Corisopitensibus et magistro P. de Buter. canonico Andegavensi sub hac forma obtinuit delegari, ut, si eis constaret, quod eadem mulier, sicut nobis scripserant iidem episcopi et abbates, loco sibi praefixo nequiverit ad praedictos iudices accedere propter guerras, et quod in confinio Pictaviensis et Andegavensis episcopatuum securum adversae parti conductum dare voluerit, et praestare sufficientissimam cautionem, quod eos servaret indemnes, in irritum revocato quicquid in eius praeiudicium post appellationem ad nos legitime interpositam invenirent temere attentatum, non obstante commissione praedicta partes ante suam convocarent praesentiam, et rationibus hinc inde plenius auditis et cognitis causam appellatione remota fine debito terminarent, facientes quod decernerent per censuram ecclesiasticam firmiter observari.

Since she was unwilling to do this, they bound her with the bond of excommunication, placing her land and household under ecclesiastical interdict. But when afterwards we had ordered that the sentence itself, just as it had been reasonably pronounced, be inviolably observed until congruent satisfaction, at length the same E., at the suggestion of our venerable brother the Bishop of Angers and of our beloved sons the Abbots of Granateria and Bellofons, obtained that the case be delegated to our venerable brother the bishop and to our beloved son G., archdeacon of the Corisopitenses, and to master P. de Buter., an Angevin canon, under this form: that, if it should be clear to them that the same woman, as those same bishops and abbots had written to us, was unable at the place appointed to her to approach the aforesaid judges on account of wars, and that on the confines of the bishoprics of Poitiers and Angers she was willing to give to the adverse party a safe-conduct, and to furnish most sufficient surety that she would keep them unharmed, then, having revoked into nullity whatever they might find to have been rashly attempted to her prejudice after an appeal to us had been lawfully interposed, notwithstanding the aforesaid commission they should summon the parties before their presence, and, the arguments on this side and that more fully heard and known, with appeal removed they should terminate the case with the due end, causing what they should decree to be firmly observed by ecclesiastical censure.

Ipsi vero, sicut in eorum literis perspeximus contineri, quum partibus apud Voventum, et postmodum apud Lucion. terminum assignassent, idem vicecomes, se per literas et procuratorem excusans, asseruit, quod ad loca illa, quum inimici eius ibidem haberent dominium, propter mortis periculum accedere non audebat, cui adversa pars et barones, qui ibidem aderant, responderunt, quod ipsi eidem vicecomiti literas de conductu cum literis vicecomitis Toarcii, Senescalli Pictaviae, per nuncium destinaverant, quibus procurator vicecomitis replicavit, quod propter literas ad suspectum sibi locum non audebat accedere, sed tutum locum assignari sibi et restitutionem uxoris fieri postulabat, quod si facere nollent iudices, dominum suum gravari dicebat, propter quod ad appellationis remedium convolavit, nec voluit postmodum, licet fuerit requisitus, coram ipsis iudicibus respondere, ipsos asserens manifeste suspectos, et innovavit appellationem emissam. Iudices autem credentes appellationem non esse legitimam, et per testes postmodum cognoscentes, quod sententia fuerat post appellationem in dictam mulierem prolata, eam denunciaverunt penitus non tenere.

But they themselves, as we clearly perceived to be contained in their letters, when they had assigned a term to the parties at Voventum, and afterward at Lucion., the same viscount, excusing himself by letters and by a procurator, asserted that he did not dare to go to those places, since his enemies held dominion there, because of the danger of death; to which the opposing party and the barons who were present there replied that they had sent to that same viscount letters of safe‑conduct together with letters of the viscount of Thouars, the Seneschal of Poitou, by a messenger; to which the viscount’s procurator replied that, even with the letters, he did not dare to go to a place he deemed suspect, but asked that a safe place be assigned to him and that restitution of his wife be made; and he said that if the judges were unwilling to do this, his lord was being aggrieved, wherefore he resorted to the remedy of appeal; nor afterward was he willing, although he had been required, to answer before those judges, plainly asserting them to be suspect, and he renewed the appeal that had been issued. The judges, however, believing the appeal not to be legitimate, and afterward learning through witnesses that the sentence had been pronounced against the said woman after the appeal, declared it to be utterly of no effect.

Tandem vero, apud Pozaugias peremptorio partibus assignato ŠŠ Turonensis Decanus, avunculus eiusdem vicecomitis, se obtulit pro ipso venturum, si securus eidem concederetur conductus, per literas nihilo minus contra iudices causas suspicionis allegans, videlicet, episcopum ipsum esse consanguineum, nobilis viri G. de Toarcio, comitis Britanniae, qui causae ipsius mulieris se nimium immiscebat, et ipsius comitis subditum potestati, archidiaconum vero clericum ipsius comitis commensalem, et magistrum P. Š de Buter. oriundum de terra mulieris ipsius. Iudices autem, postmodum alio peremptorio partibus assignato, super consanguinitate testes receperunt mulieris eiusdem, et alio termino apud Malleoniam partibus assignato, attestationes publicari fecerunt, vicecomite se per suas literas excusante.

At length, however, at Pozaugias, a peremptory date having been assigned to the parties, ŠŠ the Dean of Tours, the maternal uncle of the same viscount, offered that he would come on his behalf, if safe‑conduct should be granted to him, by letters nonetheless alleging against the judges grounds of suspicion, namely, that the bishop himself was a consanguine of the noble man G. of Toarcio, count of Brittany, who was excessively intermeddling in the case of the woman herself, and that he was subject to the power of that count; that the archdeacon, indeed, was a cleric, a commensal of that count; and that Master P. Š of Buter., was native from the land of that woman. The judges, however, afterwards, another peremptory date having been assigned to the parties, received the witnesses of that same woman on consanguinity, and, another term at Malleonia having been assigned to the parties, caused the attestations to be published, the viscount excusing himself by his letters.

Ad ultimum vero, quum terminus ad recipiendam sententiam fuisset partibus assignatus, nunciis mulieris, et ŠŠ archidiacono Turonensi, fratre ipsius vicecomitis, in ipsorum praesentia constitutis, nunciis ipsius mulieris sententiam postulantibus, et ipso archidiacono pro fratre suo terminum requirente, de prudentum consilio terminum partibus assignarunt, quo deberent secundum iuris ordinem in causa procedi; sed nuncii mulieris, contumaciter recedentes, altera die nostram audientiam appellarunt, dicentes, dominae suae gravamen inferri eo, quod iudices non interfuerant apud Malleoniam, ubi terminum assignarant ad sententiam perferendam, et quia locum extra provinciam assignabant, quum ipsi essent de provincia Turonensi. Iudicibus autem appellationi deferentibus, nuncius mulieris ad apostolicam sedem accedens proposuit, quod, quum super causa ipsa iudices praelibati eundem vicecomitem ad praesentiam suam pluries peremptorio ad loca competentia et intervallis legitimis citavissent, nec idem vicecomes, muliere comparente praefata, venire voluerit vel sufficientem mittere responsalem, ipsi testes mulieris receperunt, vicecomitem ipsum iterato per peremptoria edicta citantes, ut coram ipsis dicturus contra testes vel dicta testium compareret. Sed, quum ipse non venerit, nec sufficientem nuncium destinarit, attestationibus publicatis ab ipsis, et partibus citatis ad sententiam audiendam, mulier eadem, dicto vicecomite se contumaciter absentante, sibi dari sententiam postulavit, ad quam procedere, licet requisiti saepius, noluerunt, propter quod pars mulieris, sibi sentiens imminere gravamen, ad nostram audientiam appellavit.

At the last, however, when a term for receiving the sentence had been assigned to the parties, the woman’s messengers, and ŠŠ the Archdeacon of Tours, brother of the said viscount, having been set in their presence, the said woman’s messengers demanding sentence, and the archdeacon himself requesting a term for his brother, by the counsel of prudent men they assigned a term to the parties, at which they ought to proceed in the cause according to the order of law; but the woman’s messengers, withdrawing contumaciously, on the next day appealed to our audience, saying that a grievance was being inflicted upon their lady because the judges had not been present at Malleon, where they had assigned a term for delivering the sentence, and because they were assigning a place outside the province, whereas they themselves were of the province of Tours. The judges, however, deferring to the appeal, the woman’s messenger, approaching the Apostolic See, set forth that, whereas in the very cause the aforesaid judges had several times cited that same viscount by peremptory writ to competent places and at lawful intervals to their presence, and the said viscount, the aforesaid woman appearing, had been unwilling to come or to send a sufficient respondent, they received the woman’s witnesses, citing the viscount again by peremptory edicts, that he should appear before them to speak against the witnesses or the sayings of the witnesses. But when he did not come, nor dispatched a sufficient messenger, the attestations having been published by them, and the parties cited to hear the sentence, that same woman, the said viscount keeping himself contumaciously absent, asked that sentence be given to her; to proceed to which, although asked often, they were unwilling, wherefore the woman’s party, feeling a grievance to be impending upon her, appealed to our audience.

Nos vero, credentes, quod eadem mulier pro matrimonio laboraret, eisdem ad petitionem nuncii duximus iniungendum, ut, in eadem causa secundum attestationes receptas legitime procedentes, ipsam, oblato cuiuslibet contradictionis et appellationis obstaculo, fine debito terminarent, dilectis filiis ŠŠ de Granateria ŠŠ de Insula Calveti, et ŠŠ de Alba corona abbatibus dantes nihilominus in mandatis, ut, si praefati iudices in exsecutione mandati nostri negligentes exsisterent vel remissi, ipsi secundum attestationes receptas ab ipsis in eodem negotio ad diffinitivam sententiam sublato appellationis obstaculo procedere non tardarent. Ceterum dictus vicecomes Benaici in nostra praesentia constitutus] gravem coram nobis exposuit quaestionem contra dictos iudices, quod, quum dictus Corisopitensis episcopus nobilem virum Guidonem de Toarcio comitem Britanniae proxima linea consanguinitatis attingat, et archidiaconus eius sit clericus commensalis, qui eidem vicecomiti est adversarius principalis, utpote qui uxorem suam et terram publice detinere praesumit, et magister P. de Buter, de terra uxoris suae oriundus, exsistat nimis favens eidem, et omnes sub districtu et potestate ipsius G. exsistant comitis memorati, nec nisi per districtum ipsius ei pateat accessus ad eos, et ipsi, quibus causa inter ipsum et uxorem suam commissa fuerat, nunquam ei voluerunt, nisi in terra inimicorum suorum, locum et terminum assignare, quo sine mortis periculo accedere non audebat, et, licet literas non habuerit de conductu, si tamen missae ei fuissent, non debebat se credere suis capitalibus inimicis. [Insuper, quum eis certam formam duxerimus praefigendam, ipsi post appellationem legitime ad nos interpositam, relinquentes formam, quam praefixeramus eisdem, de appellatione tantummodo praetermisso iuris ordine inquirentes, quum non fuisset ostensum, ipsam esse legitimam, nec temere aliquid attentatum, nec de aliis iniunctis sibi capitulis inquisivissent, sententiam in ipsam mulierem rite latam minus iuste irritam nunciarunt,] et lite non contestata, testes super principali recipere praesumentes [et recusantes legitimas exceptiones illius, allegationes eius pro maiori parte, et maxime quae faciebant ad causam, in suis literis tacuerunt, pro adversa parte multa, quae coram eis allegata non fuerant, opponentes.

We, for our part, believing that the same woman was laboring for marriage, judged it should be enjoined upon the same at the petition of the nuncio, that, proceeding lawfully in the same cause according to the attestations received, they should terminate it with the due end, with the obstacle of any contradiction and appeal presented, giving nevertheless in mandates to our beloved sons, the abbots ŠŠ of Granateria, ŠŠ of Insula Calveti, and ŠŠ of Alba corona, that, if the aforesaid judges should be negligent or remiss in the execution of our mandate, they themselves, according to the attestations received by them in the same business, should not delay to proceed to the definitive sentence, the obstacle of appeal having been removed. Moreover, the said viscount of Benaico, constituted in our presence] set forth before us a grave question against the said judges, namely that, since the said bishop of Corisopitum touches by the nearest line of consanguinity the noble man Guy of Thouars, count of Brittany, and his archdeacon is a commensal cleric, who is the principal adversary to the same viscount, inasmuch as he presumes publicly to detain his wife and his land, and Master P. of Buter, sprung from the land of his wife, exists as overly favoring the same, and that all are under the district and power of that G. the aforesaid count, nor is access to them open for him except through his jurisdiction, and that they, to whom the cause between him and his wife had been committed, never were willing to assign him a place and a term except in the land of his enemies, to which he did not dare to go without danger of death; and, although he did not have letters of safe-conduct, yet if they had been sent to him, he ought not to entrust himself to his mortal enemies. [Moreover, whereas we judged that a certain form should be prefixed for them, they, after an appeal had been legitimately interposed to us, abandoning the form which we had prescribed to the same, inquiring only about the appeal with the order of law omitted, since it had not been shown that it was legitimate, nor that anything had been rashly attempted, nor had they inquired concerning the other chapters enjoined upon them, they announced as less justly void the sentence duly delivered against the woman herself,] and, the suit not having been contested, presuming to receive witnesses on the principal matter, [and rejecting his legitimate exceptions, they were silent in their letters about his allegations for the greater part, and especially those which made toward the cause, while putting forward many things for the adverse party which had not been alleged before them.

Praeterea adversa pars, quae per falsi suggestionem ipsis causam obtinuerat delegari, fraudulenter intendens per testes reprobos ipsius vicecomitis iustitiam enervare sub frivolae appellationis praetextu, furtim ad eosdem, et praedictos de Granateria, de Insula Calveti et ŠŠ de Alba corona abbates super ferenda sententia literas impetravit, ipso vicecomite super prosequenda appellatione sua exsistente in itinere ad sedem apostolicam veniendi. Unde, quum fraus adversariorum suorum eis patrocinari non debeat, quumque constet iudices ipsos in causa post appellationem ad nos legitime interpositam praeter formam mandati nostri tanquam manifeste suspectos temere processisse, idem vicecomes petebat instanter, ut, revocato in irritum quicquid post appellationem ad nos legitime interpositam per ipsos iudices vel alios in eius praeiudicium fuerat attentatum, revocatis etiam literis, quae ipso veniente ad nos fuerant per mendacium impetratae, uxorem suam reverti ad ipsum per excommunicationis sententiam et interdictum terrae compellere dignaremur, detentores ipsius et terrae eadem districtione cogentes ipsam et terram restituere cum fructibus perceptis ex ipsa, et faceremus sententias singulis diebus dominicis et festivis per Turonensem et Burdegalensem provincias publicari, et firmiter observari usque ad satisfactionem condignam.] Quum igitur in matrimonialibus causis non tam ad disiungendum, quam ad coniungendum debeamus exsistere proniores, ne forte quod Deus coniunxit homo separare praesumat, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta Mandamus, quatenus, quum, sicut idem asserit vicecomes, propinquiores sitis terrae nobilis iam dictae, quam suae, et causa ipsa per vos commodius valeat terminari, quum ad vos securus pateat accessus, utrinque partibus convocatis et inquisita super praemissis diligentius veritate si vobis constiterit, quod ante litem legitime contestatam, vel post appellationem ex praemissis causis interpositam, testes super consanguinitate contra matrimonium absque culpa contumaciae recepti fuissent, vos attestationes huiusmiodi decernatis irritas et inanes, appellatione cessante compellentes censura ecclesiastica dictam nobilem, ut revertatur ad virum suum, quem inconsulte dimisit, mandatum apostolicum sublato cuiuslibet contradictionis et appellationis obstaculo impleturi ita, quod, postquam ipse vir plenariam restitutionem habuerit tam uxoris quam terrae, causam super matrimonio audiatis, eamque fine canonico terminetis. [Contradictores etc.

Moreover, the adverse party, which through the suggestion of falsehood had procured that the case be delegated to them, fraudulently intending under the pretext of a frivolous appeal to enervate the justice of the said viscount by reprobate witnesses, stealthily obtained from those same judges, and from the aforesaid abbots of Granateria, of Insula Calveti, and ŠŠ of Alba Corona, letters concerning the delivering of a sentence, while the viscount himself, for the prosecution of his appeal, was on the road to come to the apostolic see. Whence, since the fraud of his adversaries ought not to find them patronage, and since it is established that those judges in the case, after an appeal had been legitimately interposed to us, proceeded rashly, contrary to the form of our mandate, as being manifestly suspect, the same viscount was urgently asking that, whatever after the appeal legitimately interposed to us had been attempted by those judges or by others to his prejudice be revoked into nullity, and that the letters also, which, as he was coming to us, had been obtained by a lie, be revoked; that we deign to compel his wife to return to him by a sentence of excommunication and by an interdict of the land, constraining by the same distriction the detainers of her and of the land to restore her and the land with the fruits taken therefrom, and that we cause the sentences to be published on each Lord’s Day and feast day through the provinces of Tours and Bordeaux, and to be firmly observed until condign satisfaction.] Since therefore in matrimonial causes we ought to be more inclined not so much to disjoining as to conjoining, lest perchance a man presume to separate what God has joined, to your discretion by apostolic writings We command, to the extent that, since, as the same viscount asserts, you are nearer to the land of the said noblewoman than to his own, and the case itself may be able to be terminated more conveniently by you, since safe access lies open to you, with the parties convoked on both sides, and the truth concerning the aforesaid matters more diligently inquired, if it be clear to you that, before the suit was legitimately contested, or after an appeal interposed for the aforesaid causes, witnesses on consanguinity against the marriage were received without the fault of contumacy, you are to decree such attestations null and void, appeal ceasing, compelling by ecclesiastical censure the said noblewoman to return to her husband, whom she inconsiderately dismissed, being about to fulfill the apostolic mandate with the obstacle of any contradiction or appeal removed, in such a way that, after the husband himself has had plenary restitution both of his wife and of the land, you hear the cause concerning the marriage, and terminate it with a canonical end. [Those contradicting, etc.]

Dat. Rom. ap. S. Petr.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter's.

XIII. Kal. Mart. 1205.]

February 17. 1205.]

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Lite non contestata non recipiuntur testes regulariter super principali. Fallit in casibus hic annotatis, scilicet quum timetur de morte vel absentia diuturna testium. Tunc enim servata solennitate hic posita possunt etiam lite non contestata testes examinari.

Witnesses are not regularly received on the principal matter with the suit not contested. It fails in the cases annotated here, namely when there is fear of the death or long absence of the witnesses. Then indeed, the solemnity set forth here being observed, witnesses can be examined even with the suit not contested.

H. d. usque ad §. Porro. Quum agitur de matrimonio carnali vel spirituali, possunt contra contumacem etiam lite non contestata testes recipi, et sententia diffinitiva ferri. Si vero reus est absens, sed non contumaciter, tunc in carnali non proceditur, sed exspectatur absens.

H. d. up to §. Porro. When it is a question of carnal or spiritual marriage, witnesses can be received against a contumacious party even with the suit not yet joined, and a definitive sentence can be rendered. But if the defendant is absent, yet not contumaciously, then in the carnal case one does not proceed, but the absent party is awaited.

In spirituali vero, si agatur de contracto, stabitur iuribus antiquis; si de contrahendo, exspectatur absens per sex menses. Sed de hoc ultimo, quando agitur de contrahendo, dic hodie ut in capit. Quam sit, et capit.

In the spiritual, however, if it is about one contracted, it will stand by ancient rights; if about contracting, the absent is awaited for six months. But concerning this last, when it is a matter of contracting, say today as in the chapter “Quam sit,” and the chapter.

Cupientes, de elect. in VI., ubi aliter est provisum. H. d. 5. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam, vel quum agitur per viam inquisitionis, possunt testes sine litis contestatione recipi et etiam publicari.

Cupientes, concerning elections, in 6, where otherwise it is provided. In this title 5. For the perpetual memory of the matter, or when it is proceeded with by way of inquisition, witnesses can be received without contestation of the suit and even be published.

H. d. usque ad In aliis vero. 6. Si reus lite non contestata est contumax, et agitur reali, mittitur actor in possessionem rei petitae causa custodiae; quam tamen recuperat reus veniens infra annum, si offerat cautionem de stando iuri, et restituat expensas; post annum vero his non servatis non auditur, nisi super proprietate. Sed si convenitur reali qui nomine alieno possidet, nominabit dominum in iudicio, et statuetur ei terminus, infra quem faciet dominum comparere.

This holds up to “In aliis vero.” 6. If the defendant, the suit not having been contested, is contumacious, and it is a real action, the plaintiff is sent into possession of the thing sought for the sake of custody; which, however, the defendant, coming within a year, recovers if he offers surety for standing to the judgment and reimburses the expenses; but after a year, if these conditions are not observed, he is not heard, except concerning ownership. But if one is sued in a real action who possesses in another’s name, he shall name the owner in court, and a term shall be set for him, within which he shall cause the owner to appear.

Qui si infra terminum non venerit, iudex illum citabit, quo adhuc non veniente iudex mittet actorem in possessionem veram. Si vero reus contumax convenitur actione personali, mittetur actor in possessionen bonorum ipsius rei pro modo debiti declarati, et primo mobilium, secundo immobilium, si mobilia non exsistant; vel excommunicabitur reus. H. d. usque ad finem.

If he does not come within the term, the judge will summon him; and if he still does not come, the judge will send the plaintiff into actual possession. But if indeed the contumacious defendant is proceeded against by a personal action, the plaintiff will be sent into possession of the goods of that defendant in proportion to the amount of the declared debt, and first of movables, second of immovables, if movables do not exist; or the defendant will be excommunicated. H. d. up to the end.

Idem.

The same.

Quoniam frequenter in dubium revocatur a multis, an, lite non contestata, testes recipi valeant, auctoritate praesentium duximus declarandum, regulariter verum esse, quod lite non contestata non est ad receptionem testium procedendum, nisi forte de morte testium timeatur vel absentia diuturna. In quibus casibus, quum civiliter est agendum, ne veritas occultetur, et probationis copia fortuitis casibus subtrahatur, senes, et valetudinarii, et alii testes, de quibus ex aliqua rationabili causa timetur, etiam lite non contestata sunt procul dubio admittendi, sive pars conventa sit contumax, sive sit absens absque malitia, ut conveniri non possit. Sed si actor non convenerit adversarium infra annum, ex quo conveniri poterit, vel saltem receptionem huiusmodi testium non denunciaverit illi, attestationes sic receptae non valeant, ne forte hoc procuret in fraudem, ut processu temporis exceptiones legitimae ad repellendum testes, vel aliae locum habere non possint.

Since it is frequently called back into doubt by many whether, with the suit not yet contested, witnesses may be able to be received, by the authority of the present [letters] we have deemed it to be declared that, regularly, it is true that, with the suit not contested, one is not to proceed to the reception of witnesses, unless perhaps there is fear concerning the death of the witnesses or a long absence. In which cases, since it must be proceeded with civilly, lest the truth be concealed and the supply of proof be withdrawn by fortuitous chances, old men and invalids, and other witnesses about whom, for some reasonable cause, there is fear, even with the suit not contested, are without doubt to be admitted, whether the defendant party be contumacious, or be absent without malice so that he cannot be convened. But if the plaintiff shall not have convened the adversary within a year from the time when he could be convened, or at least shall not have notified him of the reception of witnesses of this kind, the attestations thus received shall not be valid, lest perchance he contrive this in fraud, such that, with the passage of time, legitimate exceptions for repelling the witnesses, or others, might not be able to have place.

1. Porro speciales causae possunt occurrere, in quibus casualiter est aliud observandum, ut, verbi gratia, si super alicuius electione vel copula maritali quaestio moveatur. Tunc etenim, ne propter longam moram in spiritualibus et temporalibus patiatur ecclesia laesionem, vel viro sive mulieri fornicationis occasio praebeatur, maxime quum propinquitatis gradus opponitur lege divina prohibitus, in huiusmodi casibus, sividelicet contumax apparuerit is, in quem fuit actio dirigenda, sive quia peremptoria citatione recepta venire contemnit, sive quia malitiose se ipsum occultat, sive quia impedit, ne possit ad eum citatio pervenire, testes lite non contestata sunt merito admittendi, et nihilominus, si de causa liqueat, ad diffinitivam sententiam procedendum. 2. Si vero aliter absens fuerit, et agatur de spirituali coniugio inter praelatum et ecclesiam iam contracto, electione maxime confirmata, illud in hoc articulo volumus observari, quod super exspectatione talium personarum in sacris est canonibus diffinitum.

1. Furthermore, special cases can occur, in which, contingently, something else must be observed, as, for example, if a question be raised concerning someone’s election or the marital copula. Then indeed, lest on account of a long delay the church suffer lesion in spiritual and temporal matters, or an occasion of fornication be afforded to the man or the woman—especially when a degree of propinquity, forbidden by divine law, is opposed—in cases of this kind, ifnamely the one against whom the action ought to be directed should appear contumacious, whether because, having received a peremptory citation, he disdains to come, or because he maliciously hides himself, or because he prevents the citation from being able to reach him, the witnesses, with the suit not yet joined, are deservedly to be admitted, and nonetheless, if the cause be clear, one must proceed to a definitive sentence. 2. But if he be absent otherwise, and the case concerns the spiritual marriage already contracted between a prelate and a church, the election especially being confirmed, we will that in this article that be observed which is defined in the sacred canons concerning the waiting for such persons.

3. Quod si forsan agatur de spirituali coniugio contrahendo, is, qui est in praelatum electus, per spatium sex mensium exspectetur, nisi pensatis negotii circumstantiis per superioris providentiam magis vel minus fuerit exspectandus. 4. Si autem de carnali coniugio sit agendum, tam diu alteruter coniugum exspectetur, donec de ipsius obitu verisimiliter praesumatur, quia, quum sine culpa sit absens, ut, si captivitate, vel aegritudine, aut alio iusto impedimento forsitan teneatur, aut etiam [ex] propria, sed non malitiosa voluntate, in remotis partibus moram faciat, ut de facili vel in brevi citari non possit, ei quidem praeiudicari non debet, quum habeat forsan exceptiones legitimas ad intentionem contrariam elidendam, eo nequaquam obstante, quod de lapsu carnis posset opponi, quoniam in coniugio multi casus occurrunt, in quibus coniuges sine culpa, sed non sine causa continere coguntur. 5. Sunt et alii casus similiter speciales, quos alibi nos meminimus distinxisse, in quibus absque litis contestatione legitime possunt testes produci, ut quando excessuum inquisitio vel testium publicatio imminet facienda.

3. But if perchance it is a matter of contracting a spiritual marriage, let him who has been elected into the prelacy be awaited for the space of six months, unless, the circumstances of the business being weighed, by the providence of a superior he ought to be awaited more or less. 4. But if it is to be a matter of a carnal marriage, let either one of the spouses be awaited so long until his death is credibly presumed, because, since he is absent without fault—so that, if perhaps he is held by captivity, or by sickness, or by some other just impediment, or even by his own, but not malicious, will he makes a delay in remote parts, so that he cannot easily or quickly be cited—he ought not to be prejudiced, since perhaps he has legitimate exceptions to strike down the contrary intention, by no means notwithstanding that a lapse of the flesh could be objected, since in marriage many cases occur in which spouses are compelled to keep continence without fault, but not without cause. 5. There are also other similarly special cases,which elsewhere we remember to have distinguished, in which, without contestation of the suit, witnesses can legitimately be produced, as when an inquisition of excesses or the publication of witnesses is impending to be done.

6. In aliis vero casibus prudenter est attendendum, utrum contumax actione reali, an personali conveniatur. Si reali, mittendus estutique actor in rei petitae possessionem, ut taedio affectus reus veniat responsurus. Qui si venerit infra annum, iudicio sisti praestita cautione, ac exhibita satisfactione congrua expensarum, possessionem recuperet.

6. But in other cases it must be prudently considered whether the contumacious party is proceeded against by a real action or by a personal one. If by a real action, the plaintiff isof course to be sent into possession of the thing sought, so that, wearied by the annoyance, the defendant may come to make answer. If he comes within a year, having given security to appear in judgment, and having furnished suitable satisfaction for the expenses, let him recover possession.

Quodsi cautionem offerre neglexerit infra annum, actor post annum verus constituetur possessor, super proprietate duntaxat adversae parti defensione legitima reservata. 7. Quodsi super rebus immobilibus quisquam conveniatur, qui eas possidet nomine alieno, debet statim in iudicio dominum nominare, certo dierum spatio a iudice statuendo, eoque ad eius notitiam perducendo, ut vel ipse veniens, vel idoneum dirigens responsalem actoris intentionem excipiat. Si vero post tempus indultum quod dispositum est noluerit adimplere, tanquam lite, quae ingeritur, ex eo die, quo possessor ad iudicium vocatus est, ad interrumpendam praescriptionem longi temporis contestata, dominum possessionis iudex tribus edictis legitimis evocabit, et tunc ipso in eadem voluntate manente negotium summatim examinans, in possessionem ipsarum rerum actorem mittere non tardabit, omni allegatione absenti super principali quaestione reservata.

But if he shall have neglected to offer security within a year, the actor after a year shall be constituted the true possessor, only a legitimate defense with respect to proprietorship being reserved to the adverse party. 7. But if anyone be convened concerning immovable things, who possesses them in another’s name, he ought immediately in court to name the owner, with a certain space of days to be set by the judge, and to bring it to his notice, so that either he himself, coming, or by sending a fit responsal, he may except the actor’s intention. But if after the time granted which is appointed he is unwilling to fulfill what is laid down, as though the suit which is brought were contested from the day on which the possessor is called to judgment for the purpose of interrupting prescription of long time, the judge will summon the owner of the possession by three lawful edicts; and then, with him remaining in the same will, examining the business summarily, he will not delay to send the actor into possession of the things themselves, every allegation for the absent party on the principal question being reserved.

8. Si autem super personali actione conveniatur, vel mittendus est actor in possessionem mobiliumbonorum ipsius, vel immobilium, si forte mobilia non habeat, pro modo debiti declarati, vel in contumacem est ecclesiastica sententia proferenda, ita videlicet, quod alterutra poena, quae magis timeri debeat, iudex a principio sit contentus; ad alteram nihilommus processurus, si hoc meruerit protervitas contumacis, qui veniens infra annum vel post annum etiam audietur iuxta distinctionem in alio casu superius annotatam.

8. But if he is convened on a personal action, either the plaintiff is to be sent into possession of his movablegoods, or of immovables, if by chance he has no movables, according to the measure of the declared debt; or an ecclesiastical sentence is to be pronounced against the contumacious party, namely in such wise that with either penalty, which ought to be more feared, the judge from the outset should be content; nonetheless he will proceed to the other, if the contumacious person’s pertinacity deserves this, who, coming within a year or even after a year, will also be heard according to the distinction noted above in another case.

TITULUS VII. DE IURAMENTO CALUMNIAE.

TITLE 7. ON THE OATH OF CALUMNY.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Clericus in causa ecclesiae suae iuramentum calumniae potest alteri committere, et per se iurare non cogitur, nec debet sine superioris licentia.

A cleric, in the cause of his own church, can commit the oath of calumny to another, and is not compelled to swear by himself, nor ought he to do so without the license of his superior.

Honorius III.

Honorius 3.

Inhaerentes vestigiis praedecessorum nostrorum, dicentium, graviores quaestiones per summum Pontificem terminari, nostrorum fratrum consilio diligenter inquisito, huius causae speciem irrefragabiliter Deo opitulante decidimus. Legibus itaque comperimus esse cautum, ut nullus clericus iurare praesumat. Alibi vero reperitur scriptum, ut omnes principales personae in primo litis exordio subeant calumniae iuramentum, propter quod plerisque venit in dubium, atrum clericus iusiurandum praestare debeat, aut alii personae liceat hoc officium delegare. Quia vero illud constitutionis edictum, ubi clerici iurare prohibentur, a Marco Augusto Constantino praefecto praetorio de Constantinopolitanis clericis promulgatum fuisse videtur, idcirco ad alios non creditur pertinere.

Adhering to the footsteps of our predecessors, who say that graver questions are to be settled by the Supreme Pontiff, after the counsel of our brothers has been diligently inquired, we decide the character of this case irrefragably, with God assisting. Thus we have found it provided by the laws that no cleric presume to swear. Elsewhere, however, it is found written that all principal persons, at the first inception of the suit, undergo the oath of calumny, on account of which it comes into doubt for many whether a cleric ought to furnish an oath, or whether it is permitted to a person to delegate this office to another. But because that edict of the constitution, wherein clerics are prohibited to swear, seems to have been promulgated by Marcus Augustus, by Constantine, praetorian prefect, concerning the Constantinopolitan clerics, therefore it is not believed to pertain to others.

Ut ergo dubietas ista omnibus penitus auferatur, secundum etiam decisionem filii nostri H. quondam imperatoris, ut accepimus, Arimino factam tertio Nonas Apriles, sicut ibi continetur, cuius sunt verba haec: Eius itaque interpretationem corroboramus, et divi Marci constitutionem ita interpretari debere decernimus, ut ad omnium ecclesiarum clericos generaliter pertinere iudicetur. Nam quum imperator Iustinianus iure decreverit ut canones Patrum vim legum habere oporteat, et in nonnullis Patrum canonibus reperiatur, ut clerici omnino iurare non audeant, dignum est, ut totus clericalis ordo a iuramento calumniae praestando sit immunis. Praeterea statuti principis tenor penes nos talis esse dignoscitur: Nos itaque, utriusque divinae et humanae legis intentione servata, decernimus et imperiali auctoritate irretractabiliter diffinimus, ut non episcopus, non presbyter, non cuiuscunque ordinis clericus, non abbas, non aliquis monachus, vel sanctimonialis, in quacunque causa sive controversia, seu criminali sive civili, iusiurandum compellatur qualibet ratione subire, sed aliis idoneis defensoribus, si expedire ecclesiae suae noverit, huiusmodi officium liceat delegare, verum cum hac moderatione, ut episcopus, inconsulto Romano Pontifice, vel quisque clericus inconsulto praelato suo minime iurare audeat.

Therefore, that this doubt be removed altogether from all, also according to the decision of our son H., formerly emperor, as we have received, made at Rimini on April 3, as is contained there, whose words are these: We therefore corroborate its interpretation, and we decree that the constitution of the deified Marcus ought to be interpreted thus, that it be judged to pertain generally to the clerics of all churches. For since Emperor Justinian has decreed by right that the canons of the Fathers ought to have the force of laws, and in several canons of the Fathers it is found that clerics should by no means dare to swear, it is fitting that the whole clerical order be immune from performing the oath of calumny. Moreover, the tenor of the prince’s statute with us is recognized to be as follows: We therefore, with the intention of both divine and human law observed, decree and by imperial authority irrevocably define that neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a cleric of any order whatsoever, nor an abbot, nor any monk or nun, in any cause or controversy, whether criminal or civil, be compelled by any manner to undergo an oath; but that it be permitted to delegate this kind of office to other suitable defenders, if he should know it to be expedient for his church—yet with this moderation: that a bishop, without consulting the Roman Pontiff, or any cleric without consulting his prelate, should by no means dare to swear.

Omnibus autem episcopis, ac cunctis generaliter sacerdotibus, et universo clero haec ita custodiri debere mandamus, ut, si quis in illam constitutionem commiserit, veniam sibi deinceps noverit denegari, non sumentes exemplum, seu formam a nobis, quod in causa nostrorum fratrum et coepiscoporum Aretinae et Senensis ecclesiae nuper fecimus, quando eorum voluntati et postulationi annuimus.

But to all bishops, and to all priests in general, and to the entire clergy, we command that these things are to be kept thus, that, if anyone shall have transgressed that constitution, he should know that pardon henceforth is denied to him, not taking an example, or form, from us, in what we lately did in the case of our brothers and fellow-bishops of the Aretine and Sienese church, when we assented to their will and petition.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

In spiritualibus causis de calumnia non iuratur.

In spiritual causes, an oath against calumny is not sworn.

Idem Ordinatori Romanae ecclesiae Subdiacono et Magistro Omnibono.

The same to the Ordainer of the Roman Church, the Subdeacon, and to Master Omnibonus.

Literas benignitatis vestrae benigne recepimus, in quibus, utrum in causa, quae inter venerabilem fratrem nostrum G. Bononiensem episcopum, et dilectum filium nostrum Aldricum Paduansum abbatem sub vestro examine agitatur, iuramentum calumniae praestari conveniat, requisistis. Sane Romana ecclesia in his casibus, in quibus de ecclesiis, decimis et rebus spiritualibus tantum agitur, iuramentum calumniae nec dare, nec recipere consuevit eo, quod tales causae non ex legum districtione, sed ex canonum aequitate finem debitum sortiuntur, canones autem iuramentum calumniae in huiusmodi causis nulli prorsus indicunt. Unde, contentione de iuramento calumniae praestando dimissa, ad ulteriora discretio vestra procedat.

We have kindly received the letters of your benignity, in which you inquired whether, in the case which is being conducted under your examination between our venerable brother G., bishop of Bologna, and our beloved son Aldric, the Paduan abbot, it is fitting that the oath of calumny be rendered. Indeed, the Roman Church, in those cases in which there is question only concerning churches, tithes, and spiritual matters, is not accustomed either to give or to receive the oath of calumny, for the reason that such causes obtain their due end not from the strictness of the laws, but from the equity of the canons; moreover, the canons impose the oath of calumny upon no one at all in causes of this sort. Wherefore, the contention about administering the oath of calumny being set aside, let your discretion proceed to further matters.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Principalis persona non indistincte relevatur ab onere iurandi de calumnia, licet compareat per oeconomum; sed sibi vel oeconomo est deferendum, inspecta qualitate causae et personarum. H. d.

The principal person is not indiscriminately relieved from the burden of swearing concerning calumny, although he appears through an oeconomus (steward); but it is to be tendered either to himself or to the oeconomus, the quality of the case and of the persons having been inspected. H. d.

Eugenius Papa.

Pope Eugene.

In pertractandis causis sacramentum calumniae non passim praecipimus exhiberi, sed quum fieri sinimus et causae et principalium personarum qualitate diligenter inspecta, quandoque per ipsas principales personas, quandoque per oeconomos sibi indultos, qui causam omnino non nesciant, in animam iurantis illud praecipimus praestari. Ut igitur causa, quae inter abbatiam S. Trinitatis et Ripulensem ecclesiam agitatur, sine dilatione finem debitum, auctore Domino sortiatur, praesentium vobis auctoritate mandamus, quatenus sicut salubrius et competentius vobis visum fuerit, causam ipsam, appellatione remota, dictante iustitia terminetis. Adiicimus etiam ut propter iniuriam quam ignorante abbate S. Trinitatis, Ripulensi abbati audivimus illatam, si alias ei iustitiam favere dignoscitur, monasterium S. Trinitatis nullatenus suo iure privetur.

In the thorough handling of cases we do not indiscriminately prescribe that the oath of calumny be produced, but when we permit it to be done, and with the quality of the case and of the principal persons having been diligently inspected, sometimes by the principal persons themselves, sometimes by stewards indulted to them, who should by no means be ignorant of the case, we order that it be rendered upon the soul of the one swearing. Therefore, that the case which is being litigated between the Abbey of the Holy Trinity and the Ripollensian church may, without delay, obtain its due end, the Lord being the Author, by the authority of these presents we command you that, as shall have seemed to you more wholesome and more fitting, you terminate the case itself, appeal removed, with justice dictating. We add also that, on account of the injury which, the abbot of the Holy Trinity being unaware, we have heard was inflicted upon the abbot of Ripoll, if otherwise justice is recognized to favor him, the monastery of the Holy Trinity is by no means to be deprived of its right.

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Universitas tenetur iurare de calumnia, nisi relevet se constituendo oeconomum.

A corporate body is bound to swear concerning calumny, unless it relieves itself by appointing an oeconomus.

Idem Magalonensi et R. Neumausensi Episcopis.

The same, to the Bishop of Maguelonne and to R., Bishop of Nîmes.

Imperatorum saecularium leges et sanctorum Patrum ecclesiasticae constitutiones viros religiosos in omnipotentis Dei servitio protegunt et defendunt, et nullam eis molestiam vel turbationem, quae sacro ordini contradicat, irrogari permittunt. Accepimus autem, quod ab abbate et fratribus Clarevallis, sicut ab aliis, exigitur calumniae iuramentum, quod quidem inter fratres eiusdem ordinis inusitatum est, et ad quod faciendum nos eos cogere non possumus nec debemus. 1. Sed ne aliena iura videantur huiusmodi occasione illicite detinere, et ipsi a causa sua decidant, si ex parte ipsorum praedictum iuramentum, quum res postulaverit, non fuerit praestitum, eisdem praecipimus, ut in suo monasterio, sicut imperiales leges consentiunt, oeconomum statuant, qui pro eis petere et excipere, atque iuramentum de calumnia, quum necesse fuerit, valeat exhibere. Ideoque per praesentia scripta fraternitati vestrae mandamus, quatenus eosdem fratres, qui in ista causa sunt, sicut ratio exigit, plenius instruatis, ut de cetero sua iura propter hoc non possint amittere, et aliis, quantum iustitia permittit, in talibus causis debeant satisfacere. 2. Tu vero, frater Neumausensis episcope, oeconomum idoneum statuas, qui in tali officio conveniens ipsi monasterio videatur.

The secular laws of the emperors and the ecclesiastical constitutions of the holy Fathers protect and defend religious men in the service of almighty God, and do not permit any molestation or disturbance to be inflicted upon them that contradicts the sacred order. We have received however that from the abbot and brothers of Clairvaux, as from others, the oath of calumny is demanded, which indeed among the brothers of the same order is unusual, and to the doing of which we cannot nor ought to compel them. 1. But lest on an occasion of this sort they seem unlawfully to detain another’s rights, and they themselves fall from their cause if on their part the aforesaid oath, when the matter shall have required it, has not been furnished, we command the same, that in their monastery, as the imperial laws consent, they appoint an oeconomus, who may be able on their behalf to seek and receive, and to exhibit the oath of calumny, when it shall be necessary. Accordingly, by these present writings we command your fraternity, that you more fully instruct those same brothers who are in this case, as reason requires, so that hereafter they may not be able to lose their rights on this account, and that, as far as justice permits, they ought to satisfy others in such cases. 2. But you, brother bishop of Nîmes, appoint a suitable oeconomus, who in such an office may appear fitting to that monastery.

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Clerici etiam in eorum causis iurant de calumnia, contraria consuetudine non obstante.

Clerics also, in their cases, swear concerning calumny, notwithstanding a contrary custom.

Lucius III. Heliensi Episcopo et Archidiacono Norvicensi.

Lucius III. To the Bishop of Ely and the Archdeacon of Norwich.

Ceterum, quia novis morbis nova convenit antidota praeparari, volumus et mandamus, quatenus in causa fideiussionis, quae inter R. clericum de sancto Albano, et I. et F. canonicos Londonenses vertitur, ad veritatem eliciendam appellatione cessante praestari faciatis ab utraque parte calumniae iuramentum, consuetudine, quae legi contraria est, non obstante. [Dat. Rom.

Moreover, because for new diseases it is fitting that new antidotes be prepared, we will and command that, in the case of suretyship, which is being contested between R., a cleric of Saint Alban, and I. and F., canons of London, for the eliciting of the truth, with appeal ceasing, you cause the oath of calumny to be furnished by each party, the custom which is contrary to the law notwithstanding. [Given at Rome.

ap. S. Petr. V. Id. Dec.]

at St. Peter’s, 9 Dec.]

CAP. VI.

CHAPTER 6.

Procurator vel syndicus universitatis ecclesiasticae vel saecularis de calumnia iurare potest. H. d.

A procurator or syndic of an ecclesiastical or secular corporation can swear the oath concerning calumny. H. d.

Innocentius III. Episcopo Placentino.

Innocent 3. To the Bishop of Piacenza.

Quum causam, quae inter venerabilem fratrem nostrum Ravennatensem archiepiscopum et commune Faventinum super villa Luci ac quibusdam aliis vertitur, delegatis iudicibus duxerimus committendam, et iidem in negotio minime processissent, nos partibus dedimus in mandatis, ut pro ipsa causa nostro se conspectui praesentarent. Quorum procuratoribus cum instrumentis de rato in nostra praesentia constitutis, quum aliquamdiu super litis contestatione, receptione quorundam testium et multis exceptionibus fuisset in nostra praesentia disputatum, nos tandem petitionem ipsius archiepiscopi per procuratorem eius fecimus exhiberi et ad eam partem alteram respondere, ac, interrogationibus et responsionibus redactis in scriptis et lite coram nobis plenissime contestata, fecimus calumniae iuramentum ab ipsis procuratoribus utrinque praestari. [Quia vero etc. (cf. c.37.de test.

When the case which is pending between our venerable brother, the Ravennate archbishop, and the Faventine commune over the villa of Luci and certain other matters, we judged should be committed to delegated judges, and the same had made no progress in the business, we gave it in charge to the parties that, for that very cause, they should present themselves to our presence. With their procurators, together with instruments of ratification established in our presence, when for some time there had been debate in our presence about the contestation of the suit, the reception of certain witnesses, and many exceptions, we at length caused the petition of the archbishop himself to be produced through his procurator, and the other party to answer to it; and, the interrogatories and responses reduced to writing and the suit most fully contested before us, we caused the oath against calumny to be rendered by the said procurators on both sides. [Because indeed etc. (cf. ch.37.on witnesses

II. 20.)Dat. Ferentini X. Kal. Iul.

2. 20.)Dated at Ferentinum on the 10th day before the Kalends of July.

Ao. IX. 1206.]

Year 9. 1206.]

CAP. VII.

CHAPTER 7.

Episcopus iurat de calumnia, si per se ipsum elegit litigare, propositis tantum, non tactis evangeliis. Si vero per syndicum litigat, per illum poterit iurare. H. d. 1. Actor refutando iuramentum calumniae sine causa, cadere debet ab instituta actione; reus autem debet haberi pro confesso.

The bishop swears concerning calumny, if he has chosen to litigate by himself, upon the propositions only, the Gospels not being touched. But if he litigates through a syndic, he may swear through him. H. d. 1. The plaintiff, by refusing the oath of calumny without cause, ought to fall from the instituted action; the defendant, however, ought to be held as confessed.

Hoc dicit.

He says this.

Gregorius IX. Episcopo Belvacensi.

Gregory 9. To the Bishop of Beauvais.

Quum in causa pecuniaria, quam inter te et R. motam esse proponis, non per te, sed per syndicum vel actorem elegeris litigare, per illum quidem praestandum erit calumniae iuramentum. Quod si per te ipsum, propositis tantum, sed non tactis evangeliis, sicut in dicendo testimonio, a te videtur huiusmodi iuramentum exihibendum, (Et infra:) 1. Poena vero recusantis hoc iuramentum, quum praestandum fuerit, est, ut actor ab instituta cadat actione, reus autem haberi debeat pro confesso.

When, in a pecuniary cause, which you propose has been brought between you and R., you have chosen to litigate not by yourself but through a syndic or an actor, the oath against calumny must indeed be rendered by him. But if by yourself, with the Gospels only set forth, but not touched, as in giving testimony, it seems that such an oath should be exhibited by you. (And below:) 1. But the penalty for one refusing this oath, when it must be rendered, is that the actor (plaintiff) falls from the instituted action, while the defendant ought to be held pro confesso (as confessed).

TITULUS VIII. DE DILATIONIBUS.

TITLE 8. ON DELAYS.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Summa sic, ne videatur convenire rubricae de appellationibus: Citatio vocatoria cum peremptoria non debet esse nimis brevis, maxime ubi de rebus ecclesiasticis agitur; nisi necessitas aliud suggerat.

Summary thus, lest it seem to agree with the rubric on appeals: A vocatory citation together with a peremptory [citation] ought not to be too brief, especially where ecclesiastical matters are at issue; unless necessity suggests otherwise.

Alexander III. Cantuariensi et Vigoriensi Episcopis.

Alexander 3. To the Bishops of Canterbury and Worcester.

Dilecti filii nostri, abbas et monachi de H. nobis insinuare curarunt, quod, quum causam, quae vertitur inter ipsos et moniales de Leden., super ecclesia de Alten., decano et archidiacono Linconensibus commiserimus terminandam, ipsi timentes, se a praedictis iudicibus aggravari, eo, quod ad primam citationem terminum sibi nimis brevem et peremptorium statuerunt, ad nostram audientiam duxerunt appellandum; ipsi nihilominus praedictam ecclesiam praefatis monialibus adiudicaverunt (et infra). Quia vero non spectat ad iuris ordinem, diem peremptorium, et maxime, quum de rebus ecclesiasticis agitur, nisi forte necessitate urgente, taliter maturare, nec etiam in eos, qui se contumaciter absentant, sententiam taliter promulgare, nisi ut pars adversa in possessionem mittatur, ut sic taedio affecti iudicio stare cogantur, fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus quatenus, si est ita, revocato in irritum, si quid inveneritis post appellationem huiusmodi attentatum, in causa iuxta priorum tenorem literarum procedatis.

Our beloved sons, the abbot and the monks of H., took care to insinuate to us that, when we had entrusted to the dean and archdeacon of Lincoln the terminating of the case which is in dispute between them and the nuns of Leden., concerning the church of Alten., they, fearing that they would be aggrieved by the aforesaid judges, because at the first citation they set for them a term excessively brief and peremptory, judged it fit to appeal to our audience; nevertheless they adjudged the aforesaid church to the aforesaid nuns (and below). But since it does not pertain to the order of law to hasten a peremptory day in such a manner, and especially when it is a question of ecclesiastical matters, unless perhaps urgent necessity suggests otherwise, nor yet to promulgate sentence in such a way against those who absent themselves contumaciously, except that the adverse party be put into possession, so that, affected by weariness, they are compelled to stand to judgment, enjoining your fraternity by apostolic writings we command that, if it is so, having revoked into nullity whatever you shall find to have been attempted after such an appeal, you proceed in the cause according to the tenor of the prior letters.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Induciae deliberatoriae denegantur reo, si per literas citatorias plene potuit instrui, et deliberare super eo, de quo quaeritur.

Deliberatory stays are denied to the defendant, if by letters of citation he could be fully instructed and deliberate concerning that about which inquiry is made.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine 3.

Praeterea in tuo petitorio adiecisti, quod, quum causae tibi a sede apostolica delegantur, in literis citatoriis rescriptum apostolicum inseris, ut, eo viso, deliberare valeat qui ab altero convenitur; quumque non ad primam et secundam cononicam citationem, sed ad tertiam peremtoriam tantummodo veniat, actore ad omnes citationes veniente, et ipse actor intentionem suam in iure proponat, reus vexationi eius intendens, tunc primo deliberatorias requirit inducias, quum actor eidem authenticum offerat, ut conferat cum rescripto, quod in prima citatione recepit, asserens etiam, quod tam longo citationum spatio, si voluerit, plenae deliberationis tempus potuit habere. §. 1. Quia igitur, quid agendum sit in hoc casu desideras edoceri, taliter tibi respondemus, quod, praedicto modo reo ad iudicium legitime convocato, si ex rescripto sibi transmisso plene potuit instrui super eo, de quo in iudicio convenitur, induciae deliberatoriae [sibi] non sunt ulterius indulgendae, sed procedendum potius est ad examinationem causae, et finem et debitum imponendum. [Dat.

Moreover, in your petition you added that, when cases are delegated to you by the Apostolic See, in the letters of summons you insert the apostolic rescript, so that, upon seeing it, he who is convened by the other may be able to deliberate; and when he does not come to the first and second canonical citation, but only to the third peremptory one, with the actor coming to all the citations, and the actor himself proposing his intention in law, the defendant, aiming at his vexation, then for the first time requests deliberatory respites, when the actor offers him an authentic copy, that he may compare it with the rescript which he received at the first citation, asserting also that, with so long a span of citations, if he had wished, he could have had time for full deliberation. §. 1. Since, therefore, you desire to be instructed what must be done in this case, we answer you thus: that, the defendant being lawfully called to judgment in the aforesaid manner, if from the rescript transmitted to him he could be fully instructed concerning that about which he is convened in judgment, deliberatory respites [to him] are not to be further indulged, but rather one must proceed to the examination of the case, and to impose a conclusion and what is due. [Given.

Lat. Ao. III. 1193.]

Lateran. Year 3. 1193.]

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Ex declaratione verbi generalis vel ambigui positi in libello novae induciae deliberatoriae dandae non sunt, si per expressa potuit reus deliberare super ambiguitate illa vel generalitate. H. d.

From the declaration of a general or ambiguous word positioned in the libel, new deliberatory adjournments are not to be granted, if by express terms the defendant could have deliberated upon that ambiguity or generality. H. d.

Honorius III. Ferentino Episcopo.

Honorius 3. To the Bishop of Ferentinum.

Literae tuae ac petitio dilecti filii presbyteri sanctarum Priscae et Aquilae de Urbe nobis exhibitae continebant, quod, quum causam, quae inter ipsum archipresbyterum ex una parte, et nobiles viros Andream Alatrinum et G. ac fratres et filios eorum ex altera super quibusdam possessionibus et rebus aliis vertitur, tibi duximus committendam, Idem presbyter contra nobiles viros A. et G. libellum ecclesiae suae nomine obtulit, continentem, quod pensio de dictis possessionibus soluta non fuerat ipsi ecclesiae, elapsis iam tribus annis et ultra. Nobilibus vero ipsis petentibus, ut explicaret ipsis spatium, quod per hanc adiectionem: et ultra, significari volebat, et ipso presbytero exprimente, quod septem annis fuerat in dictae pensionis solutione cessatum, et iidem nobiles dicentes, libellum esse huiusmodi expressione mutatum, longiores ad deliberandum petierunt inducias. Quas quia denegasti eisdem, ad nostam audientiam appellaverunt.

Your letter and the petition of the presbyter, beloved son, of the churches of Saints Prisca and Aquila of the City, presented to us, contained, that, since the cause, which is in dispute between the archpresbyter himself on the one part, and the noble men Andrew of Alatri and G., and their brothers and sons on the other, concerning certain possessions and other things, we have deemed ought to be committed to you, the same presbyter, against the noble men A. and G., presented a libellus in the name of his church, containing that the pension from the said possessions had not been paid to that church, three years now having elapsed and beyond. But the nobles themselves, asking that he explain to them the span which by this addition: “and beyond,” was intended to be signified, and the presbyter himself stating that for 7 years there had been a cessation in the payment of the said pension, and the same nobles saying that the libellus had been altered by an expression of this kind, requested longer adjournments for deliberating. Since you denied these to them, they appealed to our audience.

Nos igitur appellationem huiusmodi frivolam reputantes, fraternitati tuae mandamus, quatenus, ea nequaquam obstante, in negotio ipso ratione praevia procedas iuxta priorum continentiam literarum.

Therefore we, deeming an appeal of this sort frivolous, command to your fraternity that, this by no means standing in the way, you proceed in the matter itself, with reason going before, according to the tenor of the prior letters.

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Si citatus in causa ardua de longinquo vocatur pro publica utilitate, etiam ad locum iudicii, ita, quod infra terminum citationis deliberare, et alia sibi necessaria ad comparendum explicare non potuit, in termino respondere non cogitur, si reperiatur in loco iudicii, sed habebit novas inducias. H. d. notabiliter.

If one cited in an arduous cause is summoned from afar for public utility, even to the place of judgment, in such wise that within the term of the citation he was not able to deliberate and to set in order other things necessary for himself to appear, he is not compelled to respond within the term, if he is found in the place of judgment, but he will have new adjournments. This is noteworthy.

Gregorius IX. Abbati Aquae vivae Turonensis dioecesis et Archidiacono Turonensi.

Gregory 9. To the Abbot of Aqua Viva of the diocese of Tours, and to the Archdeacon of Tours.

Exposuit nobis Bituricensis archiepiscopus (Et infra:) Burdegalensi archiepiscopo dedimus in mandatis, ut super iure primatiae, quam in eo et in provincia sua dictus Bituricensis archiepiscopus se habere proponit, ad initium proxime praeteritae Quadragesimae, quod ei terminum peremptorium assignavimus, per se aut per procuratorem idoneum se conspectui nostro praesentaret. Quumque postmodum personaliter vocatus pro ecclesiae Romanae subsidio ad nostram audientiam accessisset, dictus Bituricensis archiepiscopus apud sedem apostolicam constitutus postulavit instanter, ut in eodem negotio procedere deberemus. Idem vero Burdegalensis archiepiscopus ad propria rediens constituit pro se procuratorem in ipso negotio, qui, salvis exceptionibus sibi competentibus in respondendo et defendendo ac aliis, omnia faceret, quae in propria erat persona facturus.

The archbishop of Bourges set forth to us (And below:) we gave in mandate to the archbishop of Bordeaux that, concerning the right of primacy which the said archbishop of Bourges asserts that he has over him and in his province, at the beginning of the Lent most recently past—since we had assigned him a peremptory term—he should present himself into our presence either in person or by a suitable procurator. And when afterwards, having been personally summoned for the support of the Roman Church, he had come to our audience, the said archbishop of Bourges, being at the Apostolic See, urgently requested that we ought to proceed in the same matter. But the same archbishop of Bordeaux, returning to his own, appointed for himself a procurator in the matter itself, who, saving the exceptions competent to him in replying and defending and other things, would do all the things that he would have done in his own person.

Petente ergo archiepiscopo supradicto, ut praefatus procurator responderet eidem, ille excipiendo proproposuit, se ad hoc non teneri, quum pro alia maiori causa, pro publica scilicet utilitate, dictus Burdegalensis vocatus, pro absente reputari debuerat et revocandi domum privilegium habuisset. Nondum etiam super hoc deliberaverat cum suffraganeis suis et aliis, quorum consilium tam ardua causa requirit, nec tempus habuerat, in quo ad utrumque negotium valuerit, sicut expediret, esse paratus. Sed pars altera econtra respondit, quod, quum super quaestione praedicta prius fuerit evocatus, nostrae intentionis non fuerat primum mandatum per posterius revocare.

Therefore, with the aforesaid archbishop petitioning that the aforesaid procurator should respond to him, he, by way of exception, proposed that he was not held to this, since for another greater cause—namely for public utility—the said Archbishop of Bordeaux, having been summoned, ought to have been reckoned as absent and to have had the privilege of being recalled home. He had also not yet deliberated on this with his suffragans and others, whose counsel such an arduous cause requires, nor had he had time in which he could, as would be expedient, be prepared for both businesses. But the other party, on the contrary, replied that, since he had previously been summoned concerning the aforesaid question, it was not our intention to revoke the first mandate by the later.

Temporis quoque spatium habuerat tam prolixum, ut potuisset, si voluisset, super causa deliberare praedicta, sicut fecerat cum quibusdam, et commode utrique negotio imminere. (Et infra:) Nos igitur de consilio fratrum nostrorum usque ad proximum venturum festum Nativitatis dominicae dilationem adhuc sibi duximus indulgendam.

He had also had a span of time so prolix that he could, if he had wished, deliberate upon the aforesaid cause, as he had done with certain persons, and conveniently attend to both businesses. (And below:) We therefore, by the counsel of our brothers, have deemed that a postponement is still to be granted to him until the next forthcoming feast of the Lord’s Nativity.

TITULUS IX. DE FERIIS.

TITLE 9. ON HOLIDAYS.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Diebus dominicis mercari, litigari, iudicari, vel iurari non debet, sed de vespera in vesperam debent celebrari.

On Sundays it ought not to be traded, litigated, adjudicated, or sworn, but from evening to evening they ought to be celebrated.

Ex concilio apud Compendium.

From the council at Compiègne.

Omnes dies dominicos a vespera in vesperam cum omni veneratione decernimus observari, et ab omni illicito opere abstinere, ut in eis mercatum minime fiat, neque placitum, neque aliquis ad mortem vel ad poenam iudicetur, nec sacramenta nisi pro pace vel alia necessitate, praestentur.

We decree that all Lord’s days from evening to evening be observed with all veneration, and that there be abstention from every illicit work, so that on them a market by no means be held, nor a public assembly, nor anyone be judged to death or to a penalty, nor oaths be rendered except for peace or some other necessity.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Festorum principium et finis fieri debet secundum ipsorum magnitudinem et consuetudinem regionis. Hoc primo. In praecipuis festis et intra Pascha et Pentecosten non fit solennis genuum flexio.

The beginning and end of festivals ought to be made according to their magnitude and the custom of the region. This first. On the principal feasts, and during the time between Easter and Pentecost, no solemn genuflection is made.

Si tamen tunc clerici vel episcopi ordinentur, secundum ordinationis modum genua flectuntur. Hoc secundo. Romana ecclesia speciale festum de Trinitate non facit; servatur tamen de hoc cuiusque ecclesiae consuetudo.

If, however, at that time clerics or bishops are ordained, the knees are bent according to the mode of ordination. This, secondly. The Roman Church does not make a special feast of the Trinity; nevertheless, concerning this, the custom of each church is observed.

Hoc tertio.

This third.

Alexander III.

Alexander 3.

Quoniam in parte (Et infra:) Vestram volumus prudentiam certa cognitione tenere, quoniam, Licet scriptum sit, de vespera in vesperam celebrabitis sabbata vestra, festorum tamen principium et finis iuxta eorum qualitatem et iuxta diversarum regionum consuetudinem debet attendi, et, sicut magnitudo dierum exigit celebrari, sic prius incipere, et tardius terminari vera ratione videntur. (Et infra:) 1. Diebus autem dominicis et aliis praecipuis festivitatibus, sive inter Pascha et Pentecosten, genuum flexio nequaquam debet fieri, nisi aliquis ex devotione id velit facere in secreto. 2. In consecrationibus autem episcoporum et clericorum ordinationibus consecrans et consecratus tantum genua flectere possunt, secundum quod consecratioinis modus requirit. 3. Praeterea festivitas sanctae Trinitatis secundum consuetudines diversarum regionum a quibusdam consuevit in octavis Pentecostes, ab aliis in dominica prima ante Adventum Domini celebrari.

Since in the part (And below:) We wish your prudence to hold with certain cognition that, Although it is written, from evening to evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths, nevertheless the beginning and the end of feasts, according to their quality and according to the custom of diverse regions, ought to be observed; and, just as the greatness of the days requires to be celebrated, so they seem by true reason to begin earlier and to be terminated later. (And below:) 1. On the Lord’s days and on other chief festivities, or between Pascha and Pentecost, bending of the knees ought by no means to be done, unless someone out of devotion wishes to do it in secret. 2. But in the consecrations of bishops and in the ordinations of clerics, the consecrating and the consecrated can only bend the knees, according as the manner of consecration requires. 3. Moreover, the festivity of the Holy Trinity, according to the customs of diverse regions, is by some accustomed to be celebrated on the octave of Pentecost, by others on the first Sunday before the Advent of the Lord.

Ecclesia siquidem Romana in usu non habet, quod in aliquo tempore huiusmodi celebret specialiter festivitatem, quum singulis diebus Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto et cetera similia dicantur ad laudem pertinentia Trinitatis. Quare tibi, frater archiepiscope de usu pallii eo die, quo sanctae Trinitatis festivitas celebratur, certum nequaquam potuimus dare responsum.

Indeed the Roman Church does not have in its usage that it should celebrate the festivity specially at any such time, since on each day Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, and other similar things pertaining to the praise of the Trinity, are said. Wherefore to you, brother archbishop, concerning the use of the pallium on the day on which the festivity of the Holy Trinity is celebrated, we have by no means been able to give a definite response.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Propter necessitatem alimentorum licet diebus feriatis in honorem Dei operi servili intendere, maxime circa rem tempore perituram. H. d.

On account of the necessity of provisions, it is permitted on feast days, in honor of God, to engage in servile work, especially with respect to a thing that would perish with time. On this matter.

Idem Triburiensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Tribur.

Licet tam veteris quam novi testamenti pagina septimum diem ad humanam quietem specialiter deputaverit, et tam eum quam alios dies maiestati altissimae deputatos, nec non natalitia sanctorum martyrum ecclesia decreverit observanda, et in his ab omni opere servili cessandum, nos tamen, quibus ab omnium provisore ecclesiae regimen est commissum, super his, quae necessitas exigit, Christi fidelibus tenemur commode providere, ut, si quando eos non servili operi id est actioni peccati, sed necessaria victui et vestitui quaerendo forte intendere contigerit, volumus, ut eis apostolicae sedis providentia misericordia consueta subveniat. Inde siquidem eo est quod regionem vestram, quae non multis frugibus abundet, et mare, in quo populus maiorem consuevit habere sustentationem, sterilius solito effectum fuisse multorum relationibus cognoscentes, auctoritate B. Petri et nostra Indulgemus, ut liceat parochianis vestris diebus dominicis et aliis festis, praeterquam in maioribus anni solennitatibus, si alecia terrae se inclinaverint, eorum captioni ingruente necessitate intendere, ita tamen, quod post factam capturam ecclesiis circumpositis et Christi pauperibus congruam faciant portionem. Si autem illi, qui aliquos dies in pane et aqua ex iniuncta sibi poenitentia tenentur peragere, panent quo vescantur, non habent aut piscibus vel aliis cibariis si necessitas exegerit reficiantur, moderata tamen discretione habita, quod his non ad delicias, sed ad necessariam solummodo sustentationem utantur.

Although the page of both the Old and the New Testament has specially assigned the seventh day to human rest, and both it and other days appointed to the Most High Majesty, and the Church has decreed that the birthdays of the holy martyrs be observed, and that on these one cease from all servile work, we, however, to whom by the Provider of all the governance of the Church has been committed, are bound to provide suitably for those things which necessity demands for Christ’s faithful, so that, if at any time it should befall them to direct themselves not to servile work, that is, to the action of sin, but perchance to seeking things necessary for food and clothing, we wish that for them the providence of the apostolic see, with its accustomed mercy, may come to aid. Accordingly, since we learn from the reports of many that your region, which does not abound in many crops, and the sea, in which the people is accustomed to have its greater sustenance, have become more barren than usual, by the authority of Blessed Peter and our own we grant that it may be permitted to your parishioners on Sundays and other feast days, except on the greater solemnities of the year, if the herrings have inclined to the shore, to apply themselves to their capture as necessity presses, provided however that, after the catch has been made, they render a fitting portion to the surrounding churches and to Christ’s poor. If, moreover, those who are bound, by the penance enjoined on them, to pass certain days on bread and water do not have bread with which to eat, let them be refreshed with fish or other victuals, if necessity shall require, yet with moderated discretion observed, so that they use these not for delights, but solely for necessary sustenance.

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Tres septimanae, quibus canon prohibet fieri nuptias ante festum Ioannis Baptistae, non continuantur festo, sed intelligitur de septimana Ascensionis cum duabus sequentibus.

The three weeks during which the canon prohibits nuptials to be held before the feast of John the Baptist are not continued by the feast, but are understood as the week of the Ascension together with the two subsequent.

Clemens III. alias Coelestinus.

Clement 3, alias Celestine.

Capellanus tuus, frater episcope, coram nobis ex parte tua proposuit, quod, quum statuta canonica declarent nuptias tribus septimanis ante festum Nativitatis B. Ioannis Baptistae minime celebrari debere, quidam hebdomadas illas absque interpellatione continuandas intelligunt. Alii vero inter festum et ipsas volentes facere intervallum, illud dicunt ob reverentiam festivitatis Pentecostes fuisse statutum, quae in septimanis istis solet intervenire quandoque, et sic a tribus diebus rogationum ante Ascensionem Domini inchoantes, usque ad octavum diem post Pentecosten, illis hebdomadis computatis, illo tantum spatio temporis celebrari nuptias non permittunt, earum celebrationem abinde nullatenus inhibentes. Quia ergo consulti fuimus, utra istarum opinionum potior videatur, nobis et fratribus nostris apparuit, quod, licet ea sit Romanae ecclesiae consuetudo a longis retro temporibus observata, ut quocunque tempore matrimonium contrahatur consensu interveniente legitimo de praesenti, quia tamen a septuagesima usque ad septem dies post Pentecosten celebrari nuptiae non sinuntur, et postea etiam tribus septimanis vel pluribus ante festivitatem sancti Ioannis sine differentia celebrantur, posterior sententia meliori et subtiliori nititur ratione, et, sive secundum canones a septuagesimae usque post octavas Paschae, sive iuxta consuetudinem ecclesiae Romanae usque post septem dies festi Pentecostes, quod caret octavis, nuptiae suspendantur, in dominica, quae sequitur, et deinceps possunt licite celebrari.

Your chaplain, brother bishop, laid before us on your behalf that, whereas the canonical statutes declare that marriages ought by no means to be celebrated during the three weeks before the feast of the Nativity of Blessed John the Baptist, some understand that those weeks are to be continued without interruption. But others, wishing to make an interval between the feast and them, say that this was established out of reverence for the feast of Pentecost, which is wont sometimes to intervene within those weeks; and thus, beginning from the three days of the Rogations before the Ascension of the Lord, up to the eighth day after Pentecost, those weeks being counted, they do not permit marriages to be celebrated only during that span of time, in no way forbidding their celebration thenceforward. Therefore, since we were consulted as to which of these opinions seems weightier, it appeared to us and to our brothers that, although this is the custom of the Roman church observed from long times past, that at whatever time marriage be contracted with legitimate present consent intervening, yet since from Septuagesima up to seven days after Pentecost marriages are not allowed to be celebrated, and thereafter also they are celebrated without distinction even three weeks or more before the feast of Saint John, the latter opinion rests on a better and more subtle reasoning; and, whether according to the canons they are suspended from Septuagesima up to after the Octaves of Easter, or according to the custom of the Roman church up to after seven days of the feast of Pentecost, which lacks octaves, on the Sunday which follows, and thereafter, they can be lawfully celebrated.

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

In feriis introductis in honorem Dei et sanctorum, nisi ob necessitatem vel pietatem, iudicium exerceri non potest, etiam de consensu partium; feriis tamen introductis favore hominum partes renunciare possunt.

On feast-days introduced in honor of God and the saints, unless on account of necessity or piety, judgment cannot be exercised, even with the consent of the parties; on feast-days, however, introduced by the favor of men, the parties can renounce.

Gregorius IX.

Gregory IX.

Conquestus est nobis (Et infra:) Quamvis non prorogari, sed expediri deceat quaestiones, debet tamen iudicialis strepitus diebus conquiescere feriatis, qui ob reverentiam Dei noscuntur esse statuti, scilicet Natalis Domini, sancti Stephani, Ioannis Evangelistae, Innocentium, sancti Silvestri, Circumcisionis, Epiphaniae, VII. diebus dominicae Passionis, Resurrectionis cum VII. sequentibus, Ascensionis, Pentecostes cum duobus, qui sequuntur, Nativitatis Ioannis Baptistae, festivitatum omnium Virginis gloriosae, XII.

A complaint has been made to us (And below:) Although it is fitting that questions not be prorogued but expedited, nevertheless the judicial tumult ought to rest on feast-days, which are known to have been established out of reverence for God, namely, the Nativity of the Lord, Saint Stephen, John the Evangelist, the Innocents, Saint Sylvester, the Circumcision, the Epiphany, on the 7 days of the Lord’s Passion, the Resurrection with the 7 following, the Ascension, Pentecost with the two that follow, the Nativity of John the Baptist, the 12 festivals of the glorious Virgin.

Apostolorum, et praecipue Petri et Pauli, beati Laurentii, dedicationis beati Michaelis, solennitatis omnium sanctorum, ac diebus dominicis, ceterisque solennitatibus, quas singuli episcopi in suis dioecesibus cum clero et populo duxerint solenniter venerandas, quibus utique solennibus feriis, nisi necessitas urgeat vel pietas suadeat, usque adeo convenit ab huiusmodi abstinere, ut, consentientibus etiam partibus, nec processus habitus teneat, nec sententia, quam contingit diebus huiusmodi promulgari, licet diebus feriatis, qui gratia vindemiarum vel messium ob necessitates hominum indulgentur, procedi valeat, si de partium processerit voluntate.

of the Apostles, and especially of Peter and Paul, of blessed Lawrence, of the dedication of blessed Michael, of the solemnity of all the saints, and on the Lord’s days, and the other solemnities which the individual bishops in their dioceses, with the clergy and the people, shall have judged to be solemnly to be venerated—on which solemn feasts, unless necessity press or piety advise, it is fitting to abstain from matters of this kind to such a degree that, even with the parties consenting, neither does a process held have force, nor a sentence which happens to be promulgated on such days; although on holidays which are indulged for the sake of the vintage or the harvest on account of the needs of men, it may be permitted to proceed, if it proceeds from the will of the parties.

TITULUS X. DE ORDINE COGNITIONUM.

TITLE 10. ON THE ORDER OF JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Contra mulierem vindicantem aliquem in maritum admittitur exceptio consanguinitatis, quae prius discutienda est, quam super matrimonio pronuncietur, et sufficit super ipso principali pronunciare. H. d.

Against a woman asserting someone as her husband, the exception (plea) of consanguinity is admitted, which must be examined first before a pronouncement is made concerning the marriage, and it suffices to pronounce upon the principal matter itself. H. d.

Clemens III. Alatrino Episcopo.

Clement 3. To the Bishop of Alatri.

Intelleximus ex literis tuis, quod, quum quaedam mulier peteret quendam in virum, testes ad suae intentionis assertionem induxit, per quos pars viri futurum sibi praeiudicium metuens, exceptionem consanguinitatis obiecit, ex qua intendit petitionem mulieris prorsus elidi. Quia vero nos consulere voluisti, an prius sit de impedimento consanguinitatis agendum, quam super causa matrimonii sententia proferatur, Inquisitioni tuae taliter duximus respondendum, quod, quum exceptione probata quaestio principalis perimatur, ante est cognoscendum de ipsa, quam ad diffinitionis articulum procedatur. Quo facto virum ab impetitione mulieris, prout exposcit ratio iuris, absolvas.

We have understood from your letters that, when a certain woman was petitioning for a certain man as a husband, she introduced witnesses for the assertion of her intention; through whom the man’s party, fearing a prejudice would befall him, raised the exception of consanguinity, by which he intends the woman’s petition to be utterly quashed. But since you wished to consult us whether one ought first to deal with the impediment of consanguinity before sentence is pronounced upon the cause of matrimony, we have judged your inquiry to be answered thus: that, when, the exception having been proved, the principal question is extinguished, it is to be inquired into first, before proceeding to the article of definition. This done, you should absolve the man from the woman’s impetition, as the rationale of law requires.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Si reus contra actorem spoliatorem spoliationem opponit, aut excipiendo, et tunc prius auditur, et ea probata respondere non cogitur, sed per hoc non restituitur; aut agendo, et tunc simul utraque quaestio terminatur, et ea probata restituetur.

If the defendant opposes spoliation against the plaintiff as a spoliator, either by pleading an exception, and then he is heard first, and, this proven, he is not compelled to answer, but by this he is not restored; or by bringing an action, and then both questions are terminated at the same time, and, this proven, he will be restored.

Innocentius III. Episcopo Narmarinensi.

Innocent 3. To the Bishop of Narmarinum.

Quum dilectus filius abbas de Ferentino ad nostram praesentiam accessisset, conquerens de nobilibus viris O. et A. fratre ipsius et filiis R. dominis de Artone, partibus in nostra praesentia constitutis, dilectum filium nostrum I. tit. S. Mariae trans Tiberim et G. tit. S. Pudentianae presbyteros cardinales deputavimus auditores, in quorum praesentia suam abbas deposuerit quaestionem, quod praefati nobiles, nulla requisitione praemissa, manu armata et cum exercitu ad castrum monasterii Ferentilli et Gab. venientes, in praedis animalium, segetum combustionibus, captionibus hominum, homicidiis perpetratis et damnis aliis usque ad D. libras Lucenses praeter stragem hominum et iniurias irrogatas, damnificare dictum coenobium praesumpserunt, de quibus et aliis pariter, quae vellet proponere contra ipsos, iustitiam sibi fieri postulabat.

When the beloved son, the abbot of Ferentino, had come into our presence, complaining about the noble men O. and A., his brother, and the sons of R., lords of Artone, the parties having been set in our presence, we deputed as auditors our beloved son I., priest-cardinal of the title of St. Mary across the Tiber, and G., priest-cardinal of the title of St. Pudentiana, in whose presence the abbot laid his complaint, namely that the aforesaid nobles, without any prior demand, with armed hand and with an army, coming to the castle of the monastery of Ferentillo and Gab., had presumed to damage the said coenobium in depredations of animals, in burnings of crops, seizures of men, homicides perpetrated, and other damages up to 500 Lucchese pounds, besides the slaughter of men and the injuries inflicted; concerning which, and likewise other things which he might wish to bring forward against them, he was petitioning that justice be done to him.

Ei citra litis contestationem sub forma exceptionis fuit ex adverso responsum, quod, quum abbas ipse nobilibus viris O. et R. promiserat praestito iuramento, quod eos contra omnes homines, exceptis Romano Pontifice, imperatore ac legatis ipsorum ad retinendum quod tunc habebant in castris, villis et bonis aliis, et recuperandum sine fraude ac malo ingenio, si eorum aliquid amitterent, adiuvaret, per ipsius dolum et violentiam castrum Sirati amiserant fraudulenter, quod et progenitores eorum tenuerant, et ipsi possederant in quiete, [Super quo ab ipsis saepe admonitus illud eis restituere denegavit. Quin potius villas tres, Quadraginta scilicet, Casale et Carpium, quas pro se et parte sua dictus abbas sub securitate receperat, foedere violato in animalibus, spoliis et supellectilibus aliis ipse cum suis fuerat depraedatus, coniugatis tractatis turpiter, mulieribus etiam acriter verberatis; etiam sacerdotem ligatis a tergo manibus ante se duci fecit afflictum verberibus et vestibus penitus spoliatum. Homines quoque villarum recludi fecit in carcerem, ubi unum ex ipsis contigit exspirare.

To this, without contestation of the suit, under the form of an exception, it was answered from the opposing side, that, since the abbot himself had promised to the noble men O. and R., an oath having been given, that he would aid them against all men, except the Roman Pontiff, the emperor, and their legates, for retaining what they then had in castles, villages, and other goods, and for recovering, without fraud and evil cunning, if they should lose any of theirs, through his deceit and violence they had fraudulently lost the castle of Sirati, which their progenitors had also held, and they themselves had possessed in quiet, [About which, often admonished by them, he refused to restore it to them. Nay rather, three villas, namely Quadraginta, Casale, and Carpium, which the said abbot had received under security for himself and his share, with the pact violated he himself with his men had plundered of beasts, spoils, and other furnishings, the married persons being treated disgracefully, the women also severely beaten; he even caused a priest, his hands bound behind his back, to be led before him, afflicted with beatings and utterly stripped of his garments. He likewise caused the men of the villages to be shut up in prison, where it befell that one of them expired.

Castro etiam, in quo dicti nobiles habitabant, ignem abbas de nocte fecit apponi, per quem in praemissis damnis et aliis multis usque centum marcas se spoliatos dibebant,] sibi petentes prius restitui, quam petitionibus ipsius responderent, praesertim quum testes haberent praesentes, per quos intentionem suam in continenti probare volebant, et quod restitutio ante causae ingressum deberet fieri spoliatis utriusque iuris auctoritatibus ostendere conabantur. Verum ex parte abbatis fuit taliter replicatum, quod libello suo secundum regulam iuris, qua dicitur, ut qui prior appellat prior agat, debebat primitus responderi, ab eo restitutio peti non poterat, qui non fuerat spoliator, praesertim quum dictum castrum ad ius et proprietatem sui monasterii pertineret, quod etiam pars adversa nullatenus denegabat. Unde et verus dominus, ad quem ab alio res sua possessa revertitur etiam post tempora longiora, retentionis debebat commodum obtinere, et iudicium restitutorium contra spoliatorem tantum competere dignoscitur. Pro damnis quoque illatis restitutio postulari non poterat, sed ad ea debebat actio competens intentari; alioquin, quum et pars abbatis damna gravissima sibi quereretur illata, prius restituenda fuerant, si pro huiusmodi esset restitutio facienda secundum tenorem regulae memoratae.

The abbot also had fire set by night to the castle in which the said nobles were dwelling, by which they said they had been despoiled in the aforesaid damages and many others up to one hundred marks,] asking that it be first restored to them before they would answer to his petitions, especially since they had witnesses present, through whom they wished on the spot to prove their intention, and they were trying to show by the authorities of both laws that restitution ought to be made to the despoiled before the entry into the case. But on the part of the abbot it was thus replied, that to his libellus, according to the rule of law in which it is said that he who first appeals should first act, answer ought first to be made; restitution could not be sought from him who had not been the spoliator, especially since the said castle pertained to the right and property of his monastery, which even the adverse party by no means denied. Whence also the true lord, to whom his thing possessed by another is returned even after longer times, ought to obtain the advantage of retention, and it is recognized that a restitutory judgment is competent only against the spoliator. Moreover, restitution could not be demanded for the damages inflicted, but a competent action ought to be brought for them; otherwise, since the abbot’s side also complained that most grave damages had been inflicted upon itself, those would have had to be restored first, if for things of this sort restitution were to be made according to the tenor of the aforesaid rule.

Capitula quoque de restitutione facienda loquentia locum habere in criminalibus asserebant, et quando quis ab adversario spoliatur, et super re ipsa, qua spoliatus fuerat, convenitur. Ceterum ex parte abbatis regulam introductam adversa pars in mutuis petitionibus locum habere dicebat, quum causae vicissim tractatae una postea sententia terminantur. Quumque vero pars aliqua per restitutionem vel alio modo aliquid sibi deberi proponit, et altera in modum exceptionis se asserit spoliatam, nec ante restitutionem suam ullatenus responsuram, de incidenti asserebat antea cognoscendum. Nos autem distinguendum esse credimus, utrum spoliationis quaestio ab eisdem nobilibus sit obiecta in modum actionis ad restitutionem petendam, an in forma exceptionis ad intentionem adversarii repellendam; quum, ea in modum actionis proposita, intelligantur mutuae petitiones sese tanquam diversae minime contingentes, ac per hoc iuxta regulam iuris praemissam, qua dicitur: qui prior appellat prior agat, quae prius esset proposita prius foret tractanda, quanquam in idem iudicium ambae deductae vicissimque tractatae simul essent eadem sententia terminandae.

They also were asserting that the chapters speaking about restitution to be made have place in criminal matters, and when someone is despoiled by an adversary, and is impleaded concerning the very thing of which he had been despoiled. Moreover, on the abbot’s side it was said that the rule introduced has place in mutual petitions, since causes handled in turn are afterwards terminated by one sentence. And indeed, when some party proposes that something is owed to it by restitution or in some other way, and the other, in the mode of an exception, asserts itself despoiled, and that it will in no way respond before its restitution, it asserted that the incidental matter ought first to be inquired into. We, however, believe that a distinction must be made, whether the question of spoliation has been objected by the same nobles in the mode of an action to seek restitution, or in the form of an exception to repel the adversary’s intention; since, if it is put forward in the mode of an action, the mutual petitions are understood to be, as it were, distinct and by no means touching one another, and through this, according to the aforesaid rule of law, which says: he who first appeals should first act, that which had been proposed first would have to be dealt with first, although, brought into the same judgment and handled in turn, both would have to be terminated together by the same sentence.

Sed quoniam quaestio illa fuit ab eisdem nobilibus tantum in modum exceptionis obiecta, de communi fratrum nostrorum consilio interloquendo pronunciavimus, ut probationes eorum super ipsa exceptione primitus audirentur, et ea probata legitime abbati non cogerentur respondere super petitionibus memoratis, donec restituerentur ab ipso, quum spoliatori spoliatus ante restitutionem non cogatur ullatenus respondere. 1. Verum spoliatione in modum exceptionis tantum probata non est per hoc restitutio facienda, quemadmodum, si in modum exceptionis aliquod crimen testi obiicitur, ut sic a testimonio repellatur, etsi [sic] crimen contra eum civiliter probatum fuerit, non ideo sibi poena infligitur ordinaria, sed eius duntaxat testimonio non creditur, quod ea ratione contingit, quoniam in ipsum accusatio non procedit. Testes etiam, quorum testimonium reprobatur, inter infames quasi ex falso testimonio non habentur.

But since that question was raised by those same nobles only in the mode of an exception, by the common counsel of our brothers we pronounced by way of an interlocutory ruling that their proofs upon that very exception should first be heard, and, that being lawfully proven, they should not be compelled to answer the abbot on the aforesaid petitions until they were restored by him, since a despoiled party is in no way compelled to answer a despoiler before restitution. 1. However, with the spoliation proven only in the mode of an exception, restitution is not on that account to be made, just as, if in the mode of an exception some crime is objected to a witness so that he may thus be repelled from testimony, even if [sic] the crime has been proven against him civilly, for that reason an ordinary penalty is not inflicted upon him, but only his testimony is not believed; which happens for this reason, because an accusation does not proceed against him. Witnesses also whose testimony is disallowed are not held among the infamous as if for false testimony.

[Quum autem etc. Dat. Ameliae III.

[When however, etc. Given at Amelia 3.

Non. Oct. 1198.]

Nones of Oct. 1198.]

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Petenti hereditatem obstat exceptio nativitatis, quae prius debet coram ecclesiastico iudice terminari. Hoc dicit secundum glossam, intelligendo, quod hic erat prius coram iudice saeculari petita hereditas, et exceptum fuit de illegitimitate.

To one seeking an inheritance, the exception of birth stands in the way, which ought first to be determined before the ecclesiastical judge. This is said according to the gloss, with the understanding that here the inheritance had previously been sought before the secular judge, and an exception was taken on account of illegitimacy.

Honorius III. Ludovico Regi Francorum.

Honorius 3. To Louis, King of the Franks.

Tuam non credimus latere prudentiam, causam natalium carissimae in Christo filiae nostrae illustris reginae Cypri ad examen nostrum, utpote quae ad forum ecclesiasticum pertinet, iam dudum esse delatam. Unde clarae memoriae Philippum regem Franciae patrem tuum literis nostris curavimus praemonere, ut, si forsan regina ipsa super successione comitatus Campaniae quaestionem proponeret coram eo, non audiret eandem, quousque terminata esset praedicta causa natalium, ex qua illa noscitur dependere. Licet ergo, sicut eidem patri tuo scripsimus, velimus reginam ipsam in suis iustis petitionibus exaudiri, Quia vero, antequam natalium causa terminata esset, dependentem ex illa successionis causam incipere nihil aliud esset quam diversis processibus intricare negotium, et confusione quadam iudicii ordinem perturbare, si forte ab ipsa regina vel nuncio eius seu quolibet alio fueris super hoc requisitus, donec iam dicta causa natalium apostolico iudicio finem acceperit, patienter exspectes.

We do not believe your prudence is unaware that the cause of the birth-status of our dearest in Christ daughter, illustrious queen of Cyprus has long since been brought to our examination, as one which pertains to the ecclesiastical forum. Whence we have taken care to forewarn, by our letters, Philip king of France of clear memory, your father, that, if perhaps the queen herself should propose a question before him concerning the succession of the county of Champagne, he should not hear the same until the aforesaid cause of birth-status were concluded, on which that is known to depend. Accordingly, although, as we wrote to your said father, we wish that the queen herself be heard in her just petitions, Because, however, before the cause of birth-status were concluded, to begin the cause of succession dependent upon it would be nothing other than to entangle the business with diverse processes, and with a certain confusion to disturb the order of judgment, if perchance you should be asked about this by the queen herself or her nuncio or any other, wait patiently until the already-mentioned cause of birth-status shall have received an end by apostolic judgment.

[Dat. Lat. XVII.

[Given at the Lateran, 17.

Kal. Dec. Pont.

Kalends of December, of the Pontificate.

nostr. Ao. VIII. 1223.]

of our pontificate, in the 8th year. 1223.]

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Agens possessorio recuperandae non tenetur ante restitutionem suis spoliatoribus, nisi super quaestione spoliationis, respondere; potest tamen ab agendo repelli per exceptionem spoliationis. H. d.

One acting by a possessory action for recovery is not bound, before restitution, to answer his despoilers, except on the question of spoliation; nevertheless he can be repelled from suing by the exception of spoliation. In this distinction.

Gregorius IX.

Gregory 9.

Super spoliatione conventus adversus restitutionem petemtem non est, nisi super quaestione spoliationis, si eum reconveniat, audiendus, quum restitutionis petitio in hoc privilegiata noscatur, ut ipsam intentans non cogatur ante restitutionem spoliatoribus respondere, quanquam ab agendo spoliatione ab eis in modum exceptionis proposita repellatur.

On account of spoliation, the party convened against one petitioning restitution is not to be heard, except on the question of spoliation, if he counterclaims against him; since the petition for restitution is known to be privileged in this respect, that the one intending it is not compelled, before restitution, to respond to the despoilers, although he may be repelled from proceeding by a plea of spoliation put forward by them by way of exception.

TITULUS XI. DE PLUS PETITIONIBUS.

TITLE 11. ON PLUS-PETITIONS.

CAP. UNIC.

SOLE CHAPTER.

Ponit quatuor modos plus petendi et poenas plus petentium.

He sets forth four modes of over-claiming and the penalties of those over-claiming.

Gregorius IX.

Gregory IX.

Consilium providentiae dici non potest, quod pecuniam tibi debitam ante terminum ab adversario repetisti. Punitur enim importunitas plus petentium, si super petitione sua duxerint in iudicio persistendum, ita, quod, qui re petunt amplius sine causa, in expensis adversario condemnantur. 1. Qui autem plus loco, ad interesse tenentur pro eo, quod utilitas adimitur debitoribus, quam haberent, si statuto loco solvissent.

It cannot be called a counsel of providence that you demanded from your adversary, before the term, the money owed to you. For the importunity of those who ask for more is punished, if they have judged that they must persist in judgment upon their petition, in such wise that those who, as to the thing, demand more without cause are condemned in expenses to their adversary. 1. But those who ask for more in respect of the place are held to interest (damages), because a utility is taken away from the debtors which they would have had if they had paid at the stipulated place.

2. Ei vero, a quo amplius tempore petitur, induciae duplicantur, nec litem excipiet, nisi ei solvantur expensae. 3. Te quoque dubitare non credimus, quod causa plus petitur, quum aliquid in genere vel sub alternatione debetur, et rem in specie vel unum praecise peti contingit. 4. Re autem, si X. sint debita et XX. repetantur.

2. For the one from whom it is demanded at an earlier time, the adjournments are doubled, and he will not meet the suit unless the expenses are paid to him. 3. We do not believe you doubt, either, that more is sought in respect of the cause, when something is owed in the genus or under alternation, and it happens that a thing in species or one precisely is demanded. 4. But in respect of the thing, if 10 are owed and 20 are demanded back.

5. Loco vero, quum quis non ubi convenit solvere, sed alibi convenitur. 6. Tempore quoque, quum ante diem vel conditionem petitur quod debetur.

5. By place, indeed, when someone is summoned not where it was agreed to pay, but elsewhere. 6. Also by time, when what is owed is demanded before the day or the condition.

TITULUS XII. DE CAUSA POSSESSIONIS ET PROPRIETATIS.

TITLE 12. ON THE CAUSE OF POSSESSION AND PROPERTY.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Causa possessionis et proprietatis sub eodem iudice terminari debet, nec contra absentem est pronunciandum.

The cause of possession and of property ought to be terminated under the same judge, and judgment is not to be pronounced against an absent person.

Gregorius I. Duci Siciliae.

Gregory 1. To the Duke of Sicily.

Susceptis [magnitudinis vestrae epistolis contristati sumus, quod ab actoribus ecclesiae Syracusanae quasdam possessiones, quas vos tenuisse dicitis, occupatas irrationabiliter indicastis. Sed credimus, quia hoc ad fratris et coepiscopi nostri Ioannis notitiam non pervenit. Nam absolute poterat cognita veritate, si quid illicite factum est, emendari.

Having received [the letters of your Magnitude, we were grieved, because you reported that by the agents of the Church of Syracuse certain possessions, which you say you had held, were unreasonably occupied. But we believe that this did not come to the knowledge of our brother and co-bishop John. For once the truth were known, if anything was done illicitly, it could be corrected outright.

Et ideo, quia] Legali provisione decretum est, tam momenti, quam proprietatis causam sub uno eodemque iudice debere cognosci, nec nos contra inauditam partem aliquid possumus diffinire, [praedicto fratri etc. Dat. Mens.

And therefore, since] By legal provision it has been decreed that both the cause of possession (moment) and of property ought to be cognized under one and the same judge, nor can we define anything against a party unheard, [to the aforesaid brother etc. Dated, Month.

Oct. Ind. II. 598.]

Oct. Indiction 2. 598.]

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Si actum est possessorio et petitorio, potest iudex receptis probationibus super utroque prius discutere probationes super possessorio, et illud terminare. H. d.

If action has been brought in the possessory and the petitory, the judge, with the proofs received on both, can first examine the proofs on the possessory and terminate that. Here decided.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine 3.

Ad ultimum interrogati fuimus, si iudices deputati, ut de possessione et proprietate cognoscant, gravibus partium sumptibus parcere cupientes, de utraque commixtim audiant allegationes pariter et testes admittant, deinde prius audiant attestationes de possessione, et pronuncient secundum tenorem illarum utrum licite hoc agatur. Nos autem quum hoc sit in iure civili expressum, quod licite possit fieri, respondemus.

Finally we were asked, whether judges deputed to cognize concerning possession and property, wishing to spare the heavy expenses of the parties, might hear in a commixed way the allegations concerning both and likewise admit witnesses, then first hear the attestations about possession, and pronounce, according to their tenor, whether this is licitly to be done. We, however, since this is expressed in the civil law, that it can licitly be done, respond that it may be done.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Si spoliatus possessorio et petitorio simul agens possessionem et spoliationem probat, sed non dominium seu proprietatem, obtinet in possessorio, sed succumbet in petitorio.

If a despoiled party, proceeding simultaneously in the possessory and the petitory, proves possession and spoliation, but not dominion or proprietorship, he prevails in the possessory, but will succumb in the petitory.

Innocentius III. Archiepiscopo et Canonicis Sutrinis.

Innocent 3. To the Archbishop and the Canons of Sutri.

Quum ecclesia Sutrina pastore vacaret, vos convenientes in unum, et, sicut moris est, Spiritus sancti gratia invocata, pastorem unanimiter elegistis, petentes ipsius electionem a sede apostolica confirmari. Verum dilecti filii clerici conventualium ecclesiarum civitatis eiusdem apud nos de vobis consequenter suam deposuere querelam, quod, quum in episcoporum electionibus faciendis ipsi ac praedecessores eorum consueverint interesse, vos eis invitis renitentibus et exclusis ad faciendam electionem procedere praesumpsistis, quam ob hoc non confirmari, sed infirmari potius postulabant. Partibus igitur pro quaestione huiusmodi apud sedem apostolicam constitutis, dilectos filios nostros B. tit.

When the Church of Sutri was vacant of a pastor, you, coming together into one, and, as is the custom, the grace of the Holy Spirit having been invoked, unanimously elected a pastor, asking that his election be confirmed by the Apostolic See. But the beloved sons, the clerics of the conventual churches of that same city, before us concerning you thereupon laid their complaint, that, whereas in the elections of bishops to be made they and their predecessors were accustomed to take part, you, they being unwilling, resisting, and excluded, presumed to proceed to make the election, which for this reason they were demanding not to be confirmed, but rather to be invalidated. The parties therefore, for a question of this kind, being set before the Apostolic See, our beloved sons B., of the title…

S. Petri ad vincula, et I. tit. S. Priscae presbyteros, et tit. S. Mariae in Cosmedin diaconum cardinales dedimus auditores, in quorum auditorum praesentia testes utrinque producti fuerunt, et eorum depositionibus publicatis, pars canonicorum per testes a se productos intentionem suam, quod ad eos tantum spectaret electio, sufficienter dicebant esse probatam; parte clericorum nihilominus asserente, quod per dicta testium, quos produxerant, et ipsi assertionem suam, quod electioni pontificum interesse deberent, plenius probavissent, per quae constare dicebant, eos electionibus trium episcoporum, qui ecclesiae Sutrinae ultimo et immediate praefuerant, cum canonicis cathedralis ecclesiae adfuisse, vocemque habuisse cum aliis eligendi.

we appointed as auditors the presbyter cardinals of the title of St. Peter in Chains and of the title of St. Prisca, and the deacon cardinal of the title of St. Mary in Cosmedin, in whose auditors’ presence witnesses were produced on both sides, and their depositions being published, the party of the canons said that by the witnesses produced by themselves their intention—that the election pertained to them alone—had been sufficiently proved; the party of the clerics nevertheless asserting that by the statements of the witnesses whom they had produced they too had more fully proved their assertion, that they ought to take part in the elections of bishops, from which they said it was evident that they had been present at the elections of the three bishops who had last and immediately presided over the church of Sutri, together with the canons of the cathedral church, and had had a voice with the others in choosing.

Nos igitur, auditis allegationibus et rationibus partium et depositionibus ipsis diligenter inspectis, quoniam liquido deprehendimus, testes vestros in perhibendis testimoniis varios exstitisse, atque adversus fidem attestationis suae coram dictis auditoribus vacillasse, sicut ipsi nobis postea retulerunt, et quod negativam quodammodo adstruere satagebant, probare volentes, ius electionis ita quidem ad vos spectare, quod ad adversarios minime pertineret, per testes vero adversae partis fuit sufficienter ostensum, quod in trium episcoporum electionibus, de quibus praemissum est, clerici praesentes adfuerint et vocem habuerint eligendi, praemissam electionem factam eis contradicentibus et exclusis de fratrum nostrorum consilio decrevimus irritandam, clericos saepe dictos in eam quasi possessionem, quam ante controversiam motam habuerant, reducentes. Verum quoniam in quaestione praedicta quicquid iuris utraque pars in electione habebat deductum in iudicium videbatur, quum iure civili sit cautum, id venire in iudicium, non solum de quo actum est, ut veniret, sed id non venire, de quo nominatim actum est, ne veniret, et secundum statuta canonica electiones episcoporum ad cathedralium ecclesiarum clericos regulariter pertinere noscantur, nisi forte alibi secus obtineat de consuetudine speciali, nec ex eo, quod clerici antedicti se inter eligentes Sutrinos episcopos probaverunt tertio exstitisse, ius eligendi propter brevitatem temporis usque ad praescriptionem legitimam non producti sibi acquirere potuerunt, et actore non probante, qui convenitur, etsi nihil praestiterit, obtinebit, ab eorum impetitione super electionibus faciendis vos duximus absolvendos, saepedictis ecclesiarum clericis super hoc perpetuum silentium imponentes. [Nulli ergo etc.

We therefore, the allegations and the reasons of the parties having been heard and the depositions themselves diligently inspected, since we have discovered plainly that your witnesses were inconsistent in bearing testimony, and wavered against the credibility of their own attestation before the said auditors, as they themselves afterwards reported to us, and that they were striving in a manner to establish a negation, wishing to prove that the right of election pertained to you indeed in such wise that it in no way belonged to the adversaries, whereas by the witnesses of the opposing party it was sufficiently shown that in the elections of the three bishops, about which mention has been made above, the clerics had been present and had had a voice in choosing, have decreed, by the counsel of our brothers, that the aforesaid election, made while they contradicted and were excluded, be annulled, restoring the oft-mentioned clerics to that as-it-were possession which they had had before the controversy was stirred up. However, since in the aforesaid question whatever right each party had in the election seemed to have been brought into judgment, whereas in civil law it is provided that there comes into judgment not only that about which action has been taken that it should come, but that does not come about which it has been expressly acted that it should not come; and according to canonical statutes the elections of bishops are regularly known to pertain to the clerics of cathedral churches, unless perhaps elsewhere it holds otherwise by special custom; nor from the fact that the aforesaid clerics proved themselves to have been among those electing the bishops of Sutri for a third time were they able, on account of the brevity of the time not extended to a lawful prescription, to acquire for themselves a right of electing; and, the plaintiff not proving, he who is convened, even if he has performed nothing, will prevail; from their impugnation concerning elections to be made we have deemed you should be absolved, imposing perpetual silence in this matter upon the oft-mentioned clerics of the churches. [Therefore to no one, etc.

Dat. Lat. VII.

Given at the Lateran, 7.

Febr. 1200.]

Feb. 1200.]

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Idem dicit quoad intellectum, quod decretalis supra proxima.

It says the same as regards the sense, as the decretal immediately above.

Idem Canonicis de Bethlehem.

The same to the Canons of Bethlehem.

Quum super electione Bethlehemitanae ecclesiae inter R. subdiaconum nostrum, et P. canonicum sepulcri Dominici nuper in nostra praesentia quaestio verteretur, utroque se pro electo gerente, quum praefatus subdiaconus a venerabili fratre nostro patriarcha Hierosolymitano fuerit confirmatus, alter vero favorem regium obtineret, eis dilectos filios P. Basilicae XII. Apostolorum, I. titul. S. Stephani in monte Coelio presbyteros et G. S. Mariae in porticu diaconum cardinales dedimus auditores, in quorum praesentia receptis utrinque testibus, et eorum depositionibus publicatis, quae hinc inde allegata fuerunt nobis et fratribus nostris retulerunt fideliter et prudenter.

When concerning the election of the Bethlehemite church between R., our subdeacon, and P., canon of the Lord’s Sepulchre, recently in our presence a question was being debated, each of them conducting himself as the elected, since the aforesaid subdeacon had been confirmed by our venerable brother the patriarch of Jerusalem, but the other had obtained royal favor, we gave to them as auditors our beloved sons P., cardinal priest of the Basilica of the 12 Apostles, I., cardinal priest of the title of St. Stephen on the Caelian Mount, and G., cardinal deacon of St. Mary in Portico; in whose presence, witnesses having been received on both sides and their depositions published, they faithfully and prudently reported to us and to our brothers what had been alleged on this side and that.

Nos vero tam per relationes cardinalium quam per gesta de causae meritis sufficienter instructi, communicato fratrum nostrorum consilio, Eum, qui se probaverat per saecularem potentiam spoliatum, restituendum decrevimus iustitia mediante. Verum quoniam tam possessorium, quam etiam petitorium deductum fuerat in iudicium, et tam restitutionis quam electionis quaestio plenius agitata, et constitit nobis, electionem utriusque minus canonicam exstitisse, quum iudex, de qua re cognoverit, etiam pronunciare debeat, iuxta canonicas sanctiones utramque duximus sententialiter irritandam. [Ceterum etc. (cf. c.2.de confess.

We indeed, both through the reports of the cardinals and through the acts concerning the merits of the cause, being sufficiently instructed, with the counsel of our brothers having been communicated, we decreed that him, who had proved himself to have been despoiled by secular power, is to be restored, justice mediating. But since both the possessory and also the petitory had been brought into judgment, and the question both of restitution and of election had been more fully agitated, and it was evident to us that the election of each had been less canonical, since the judge, concerning the matter of which he has taken cognizance, ought also to pronounce, according to canonical sanctions we deemed that each should be annulled by sentence. [Moreover etc. (cf. c.2.de confess.

II. 18.)]

2. 18.)]

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Qui agit de proprietate, ante conclusionem causae possessorio adipiscendae vel recuperandae agere potest, post conclusionem vero et ante sententiam hoc non potest, nisi iusta causa subsit.

He who litigates concerning ownership may, before the conclusion of the case, bring a possessory action for acquiring or recovering; but after the conclusion and before sentence he cannot do this, unless a just cause subsists.

Idem Episcopo Novioniensi.

The same to the Bishop of Noyon.

Pastoralis officii debitum sollicita mente prosequeris, quum iustitiae zelo succensus super dubiis iuris articulis per apostolicae sedis oraculum, a qua tuae pendet iurisdictionis auctoritas, responsa humiliter appetis et devotus exspectas, ne forte nova opinionum varietas aut iuris exceptio varia novitate distincta non iuris effectum pariat, sed iustitiae defectum potius inducat. Sane, sicut nobis per tuas literas intimasti, contingit aliquando, ut, quum is, qui se asserit spoliatum, suum trahit spoliatorem in causam, inter ipsa iuris auspicia requisitus, quo malit experiri iudicio, litem proprietatis ingreditur, de illata sibi violentia nullam faciens mentionem. Quum autem adeo fuerit in causa processum, ut testes sint hinc inde producti, novum iudicium super possessorio nititur inchoare, dicens, quia non videtur possessorio renunciare iudicio qui rem coeperit vindicare. Cui ex adverso resistitur, quia, dum querelam proprietatis sponte proposuit, praeiudicium sibi fecit in quaestione possessionis, quam secundum iuris ordinem prius proponi licuit et debuit terminari.

You prosecute the debt of the pastoral office with a solicitous mind, when, inflamed with zeal for justice regarding doubtful articles of law, through the oracle of the Apostolic See, on which depends the authority of your jurisdiction, you humbly seek and devoutly await responses, lest perhaps a new variety of opinions or an exception of law, marked by diverse novelty, should produce not the effect of law but rather introduce a defect of justice. Indeed, as you intimated to us through your letters, it sometimes happens that, when he who asserts himself despoiled drags his despoiler into court, being asked, under the very auspices of the law, by which judgment he would prefer to make trial, he enters a proprietary suit, making no mention of the violence inflicted on him. But when the case has been proceeded so far that witnesses have been produced on both sides, he strives to begin a new judgment on the possessory, saying that he does not seem to renounce the possessory action who has begun to vindicate the thing. To this the adversary objects, because, when he voluntarily proposed the complaint of proprietorship, he prejudiced himself in the question of possession, which according to the order of law it was permitted to be proposed first and ought to have been concluded.

Quid igitur in his statuendum sit, tua fraternitas requisivit. Nos autem Consultationi tuae taliter respondemus, quod possessorio quidem iudicio, quod de recuperanda seu adipiscenda possessione proponitur, antequam renunciatum sit, aut conclusum in proprietatis iudicio primitus instituto, agi potest ab eo, qui rem coeperit vindicare, quum legali sit provisione statutum, eum, qui fundum vindicaverit ab eo, cum quo interdicto unde vi potuit experiri, pendente iudicio interdictum posse nihilominus intentare, aliis possessoriis iudiciis in suo robore duraturis, quae vendicationem dominii sui natura praecedunt. Si vero renunciatum fuerit vel conclusum, ut iam possit causa proprietatis diffinitivae sententiae calculo terminari, ne lites litibus inculcentur, et via possit fraudibus aperiri, causa non decisa possessorio non erit utendum, nisi iudex, qui de causa cognoscit, hoc ipsum ex iusta causa viderit expedire, puta quum ex perspicuis indiciis facile arguitur iniquitas invasoris, et spoliato casu seu malitia probandi dominium subtraxerit facultatem.

What, therefore, ought to be determined in these matters your brotherhood has inquired. We, however, thus answer your Consultation: that a possessory judgment, which is proposed for recovering or acquiring possession, before there has been a renunciation or a conclusion in the property judgment first instituted, can be pursued by him who has begun to vindicate the thing, since it is established by legal provision that he who has vindicated an estate from one against whom he could proceed by the interdict unde vi, while the action is pending, can nevertheless bring the interdict, the other possessory judgments—which by their nature precede the vindication of ownership—enduring in their own vigor. But if there has been renunciation or conclusion, so that now the cause of property can be terminated by the vote-count of a definitive sentence, lest suits be piled upon suits and a way be opened for frauds, the possessory remedy is not to be used with the cause undecided, unless the judge who has cognizance of the cause shall have seen this to be expedient for a just cause, for instance, when from clear indicia the iniquity of the invader is easily inferred, and chance or malice has withdrawn from the despoiled party the ability of proving ownership.

His igitur et aliis causis inspectis, quae continent aequitatem aut iuste moverint animum iudicantis, postquam etiam conclusum fuerit, posse agi possessorio iudicio non negamus. [Dat. Lat.

Therefore, with these and other causes inspected, which contain equity or have justly moved the mind of the judge, after it also shall have been concluded, we do not deny that it is possible to proceed by a possessory action. [Given at the Lateran.

V. Kal. Iun. 1202.]

May 28. 1202.]

CAP. VI.

CHAPTER 6.

Si petitorio et possessorio simul est actum, una sententia terminatur, et praemittitur possessorium in terminando; sed in exsequendo praevalet petitorium.

If the petitory and the possessory are proceeded with at the same time, it is terminated by one sentence, and in the concluding the possessory is put first; but in the enforcing the petitory prevails.

Idem Episcopo et Officiali sancti Andreae.

The same to the Bishop and the Official of Saint Andrew.

Quum dilectus (Et infra: [cf. c.6.de arb. I.43.]) Ad quartumautem breviter respondemus, quod, quum super possessorio et petitorio simul est actum, utrumque una sententia debet terminari. Sed licet in pronunciatione sit possessio praemittenda, in exsecutione tamen debet proprietas praevalere.

When the beloved (And below: [cf. c.6.de arb. 1.43.]) To the fourth,however, we briefly respond that, when action has been taken simultaneously on the possessory and the petitory, both ought to be terminated by one sentence. But although in the pronouncement possession ought to be put first, nevertheless in execution ownership ought to prevail.

[Quamvis autem etc. Dat. Lat.

[Although however etc. Given at the Lateran.

XIII. Kal. Apr.

13th day before the Kalends of April.

Ao. X. 1207.]

[Year 10. 1207.]

CAP. VII.

CHAPTER 7.

Adiudicatur illi beneficium, qui probavit collatorem suum fuisse in possessione conferendi collationis tempore; per hoc tamen non prohibetur succumbens agere de proprietate iuris conferendi cum ipso collatore. Hoc vult tota littera.

The benefice is adjudicated to him who has proved that his collator was in possession of the power of conferring at the time of the collation; yet by this the one succumbing is not prevented from bringing an action concerning the proprietorship of the right of conferring against the collator himself. This is what the whole letter intends.

Idem Veronensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Verona.

Quum olim quaestio, quae inter dilectum filium archidiaconum ex una parte, et archipresbyterum et canonicos Vincentinae ecclesiae ex altera (Et infra:) Quum igitur archidiaconus praedictus haec coram nobis fideliter recitaret, Quoniam per ipsas attestationes nobis constitit evidenter, quod ab episcopis Vincentinis archidiaconatus ipse sine reclamatione aliqua canonicorum duobus archidiaconis continue, qui ante ipsum exstiterant, fuerat assignatus, et quia canonici praedicti iudices recusare vel postulare rescripti copiam minime debuerunt, quum causa praedictis iudicibus delegata fuisset de utriusque partis procuratorum assensu, et ab eisdem esset rescriptum impetratum, nec deliberationis inducias petere, quum apud sedem apostolicam per procuratores utriusque partis lis esset contestata, praedictum archidiaconatum non obstantibus huiusmodi exceptionibus eidem per diffinitivam sententiam adiudicare curavimus, canonicis Vincentinis contradicentibus eidem archidiacono, stallo etiam archidiacono deputato et aliis pertinentiis suis, perpetuum silentium imponentes, reservata tamen eis quaestione proprietatis super collatione archidiaconatus ipsius, si forte super hoc contendere voluerint adversus episcopum Vincentinum, quum res inter alios acta non debeat eis praeiudicium generare. [Dat. Anagniae III.

When formerly a question, which between the beloved son the archdeacon on the one side, and the archpriest and the canons of the Vicentine church on the other (And below:) Since therefore the aforesaid archdeacon was faithfully reciting these things before us, Since by the very attestations it stood out to us clearly that by the Vicentine bishops the archdeaconry itself, without any protest of the canons, had been assigned continuously to two archdeacons in succession who had preceded him, and because the aforesaid canons ought by no means to have refused the judges or to have demanded a copy of the rescript, since the case had been delegated to the aforesaid judges with the assent of the proctors of each party, and a rescript had been obtained by those same, nor to ask delays for deliberation, since at the Apostolic See the suit had been joined through the proctors of each party, we took care to adjudge the aforesaid archdeaconry to him by a definitive sentence, notwithstanding exceptions of this kind, imposing perpetual silence upon the Vicentine canons, contradicting the same archdeacon, with the stall also deputed to the archdeacon and his other appurtenances, the question nevertheless being reserved to them of ownership concerning the collation of the archdeaconry itself, if perchance on this point they should wish to contend against the bishop of Vicenza, since a matter transacted among others ought not to generate prejudice to them. [Given at Anagni 3.

Non. Ian. 1204.]

Nones of Jan. 1204.]

CAP. VIII.

CHAPTER 8.

Si petens rem ex una causa succumbit, ex alia causa petere poterit. Hoc dicit quoad literam. Vel sic: Petenti rem iure dominii possessionem probare non sufficit.

If the one seeking the thing succumbs on one cause, he will be able to sue on another cause. He says this as to the letter. Or thus: For the one claiming the thing by the right of dominion, to prove possession does not suffice.

Hoc dicit quoad titulum.

This he says as to the title.

Honorius III. Abbati S. Cypriani Torcellanae dioecesis et S. Mariae novae de Venetiis.

Honorius 3. To the Abbot of St. Cyprian of the Diocese of Torcello and of St. Mary the New of Venice.

In causa, quae inter venerabiles fratres nostros patriarcham Grandensem et episcopum Castellanum ex una parte, et abbatem et conventum monasterii sancti Georgii de Venetiis super subiectione ipsius monasterii ex altera vertebatur, invenimus pro eodem patriarcha probatum, quod recipiebatur in ipso monasterio processionaliter cum incenso, aqua benedicta, et icona, et quando revertebatur a gradu, pulsabantur ibi campanae, sicut in aliis ecclesiis civitatis, et quod inter alia abbas quandoque ivit ad eius synodum, L. solidos Venetorum minorum ei per plures annos exsolvens. Probatum vero pro episcopo invenitur quod eiusdem monasterii confirmavit abbates, qui ei obedientiam et reverentiam impenderunt. Abbates etiam eiusdem monasterii ad synodos veniebant episcopi, et idem ad exsequias invitatus recipiebatur processionaliter cum solennitate praedicta, ac similiter invitatus in festo beati Georgii procurationem ibidem recipiebat, quem in barca sua in festo Purificationis B. Virginis conducebant.

In the case which was being litigated between our venerable brothers, the Patriarch of Grado and the Bishop of Castello, on the one part, and the abbot and convent of the monastery of Saint George of Venice concerning the subjection of that monastery, on the other, we found proved in favor of the same patriarch, that he was received in that monastery processionally with incense, blessed water, and an icon, and that when he returned from the step, the bells were rung there, as in the other churches of the city, and that, among other things, the abbot sometimes went to his synod, paying him for many years 50 Venetian solidi of the minor [coinage]. It is found proved for the bishop, moreover, that he confirmed the abbots of the same monastery, who rendered him obedience and reverence. The abbots also of the same monastery used to come to the bishop’s synods, and the same bishop, when invited to the obsequies, was received processionally with the aforesaid solemnity, and likewise, when invited on the feast of blessed George, he received procuration there, whom they conveyed in their barque on the feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin.

Quum autem in his primo possessorio egerint patriarcha et episcopus memorati, nos eos ad possessionem vel quasi restituimus praedictorum. Verum quia hinc inde petitorio nihilominus actum fuit, et utraque pars totum suum ius videtur in iudicium deduxisse, nos, visis praedecessorum nostrorum privilegiis, monasterium ipsum de fratrum nostrorum consilio liberum esse decernimus, et immediate ad Romanam ecclesiam pertinere, illud in praemissis, et aliis, quae iurisdictionem et subiectionem respiciunt, ab impetitione dictorum patriarchae ac episcopi absolventes, non obstante possessione circa praedicta probata, quum non docuerint se tanto tempore talia percepisse, quod per hoc libertatis fuerit privilegiis derogatum. Reservamus autem episcopo supradicto quae sibi circa chrisma, oleum sanctum, ordinationes clericorum et quaedam alia in eisdem privilegiis specialiter reservantur. Ad haec, quum de praemissis L. solidis, quos petiit ad subiectionis iudicium, a patriarcha sit actum, per sententiam diffinitivam quam super hoc contrariam reportavit, ei non adimimus, si alio iure de ipsis experiri voluerit, potestatem.

When, however, in these matters the aforesaid patriarch and bishop first proceeded by a possessory action, we restored them to possession, or as it were, of the aforesaid. But because on either side a petitory action was nonetheless brought, and each party seems to have brought its whole right into judgment, we, upon seeing the privileges of our predecessors, by the counsel of our brothers, decree that the monastery itself is free and pertains immediately to the Roman Church, absolving it in the premises, and in other things which regard jurisdiction and subjection, from the impetition of the said patriarch and bishop, notwithstanding the possession proved concerning the aforesaid, since they have not shown that they received such things for so long a time that by this the privileges of liberty would have been derogated. We reserve, moreover, to the above-said bishop those things which, concerning the chrism, the holy oil, the ordinations of clerics, and certain others, are specially reserved to him in the same privileges. To these things, since concerning the aforesaid 50 solidi, which he sought for a judgment of subjection, there has been action by the patriarch, by the definitive sentence which he obtained adverse on this point, we do not deprive him, if he should wish to try concerning them under another right, of the power.

[Ideoque discretioni etc. Dat. Non.

[And therefore to your discretion, etc. Given on the Nones.

Maii Ao. VIII. 1224.]

May Yr. 8. 1224.]

TITULUS XIII. DE RESTITUTIONE SPOLIATORUM.

TITLE 13. ON THE RESTITUTION OF THE DESPOILED.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Adversus restitutionem petentem, non est audiendus reus de proprietate opponens, nisi actore consentiente.

Against one seeking restitution, the defendant is not to be heard opposing on proprietorship, unless the actor (plaintiff) consents.

Gregorius IX. Episcopo Constan.

Gregory IX. To the Bishop of Constance.

Licet multum [fraternitatem vestram ad servandam sibi iustitiam Philagrii portitoris praesentium flagellum caecitatis invitet, veruntamen, quia ad restituenda quae sibi praeiudicialiter asserit detineri per nos vos voluit fieri promptiores, praesentia ad vos scripta praevidimus dirigenda.] Conquestus est autem nobis Philasius caecus, eius campum cum vinea sua ab ecclesiae vestrae hominibus irrationabiliter occupatum. Quod si ita est, quanquam ante omnem contentionem possessio ei debuerat violenter ablata restitui, tamen, quia [communis filius] Eventus diaconus ipsius ecclesiae consentiente illo constituit se legitime probaturum, dictum campum eiusdem ecclesiae iuris esse, ideoque veritatem inquire, et, si hoc probatum fuerit, huic dicendum est, ut a sua intentione discedat; alioquin ante omnem contentionem res ei ablata reddatur. Ut sua cuique parti integra post hoc maneat de proprietate cognitio etc.

Although much [the scourge of blindness of Philagrius, the bearer of these presents, invites your fraternity to preserve justice for himself; nevertheless, because he wished through us to make you more prompt for restoring the things which he asserts are being detained to his prejudice, we have foreseen that these presents be directed to you.] However, the blind Philasius complained to us that his field with his vineyard had been unreasonably occupied by men of your church. But if this is so, although before all contention the possession violently taken from him ought to have been restored to him, nevertheless, because [our common son] Eventus, a deacon of that church, with him consenting, has set himself to prove lawfully that the said field is of the right of the same church, therefore inquire the truth, and, if this shall have been proved, it is to be said to this man that he withdraw from his intention; otherwise, before all contention the thing taken from him is to be restored to him. That for each party after this the inquiry concerning ownership may remain intact, etc.

Indicavit praeterea etc. (cf. c.4.de cens. III. 39.)

He indicated moreover, etc. (cf. ch.4.on censuses 3. 39.)

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Petenti restitutionem beneficii non obstat renunciatio facta post spoliationem, quia praesumitur non spontanea. Et seriose addidi: quia praesumitur non spontanea: quoniam, etsi probaretur spontanea, deberet obstare talis exceptio vel renunciatio in beneficialibus.

To one seeking restitution of a benefice, a renunciation made after spoliation does not stand in the way, because it is presumed not spontaneous. And I added in earnest: because it is presumed not spontaneous: since, even if it were proved spontaneous, such an exception or renunciation ought to stand in the way in beneficial matters.

Alexander III. Vigorniensi Episcopo.

Alexander 3. To the Bishop of Worcester.

Sollicite cures et diligenter perquirere, quo tempore H. renunciavit ecclesiae, et, si tibi constiterit, eum esse spoliatum, quum eidem ecclesiae renunciavit, si hac vice tantum renunciavit, aut si pluribus vicibus renunciavit ecclesiae praescriptae, dummodo spoliatus renunciavit, contra eum testes alterius partis de iuramento et renunciatione sponte facta, antequam restitutus fuerit, non admittas, quia non est verisimile, quod sponte iuri suo renunciaverit qui renunciat spoliatus. Sed testes eiusdem H., quibus intendit se probare, quod violenter praedicta ecclesia fuerit spoliatus, dummodo idonei sint, recipere non postponas.

Be solicitous to take care and diligently to inquire at what time H. renounced the church; and, if it is established to you that he was despoiled when he renounced to that same church, whether he renounced on this occasion only, or whether he renounced to the aforesaid church on more occasions, provided that he renounced while despoiled, you are not to admit against him the witnesses of the other party concerning the oath and the renunciation made of his own accord, before he shall have been restored, because it is not likely (verisimilar) that one who, despoiled, renounces, has of his own accord renounced his right. But the witnesses of that same H., by whom he intends to prove that he was violently despoiled of the aforesaid church, provided they are suitable, you should not postpone receiving.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Petens restitutionem beneficii non auditur, etiamsi spoliationem probat, si probatur, eum sponte illud beneficium prius resignasse.

One seeking restitution of a benefice is not heard, even if he proves the spoliation, if it is proven that he had previously resigned that benefice of his own accord.

Idem.

The same.

Accepta conquestione P. clerici, quod violenter fuerat ecclesia de Procebrant spoliatus, vobis per apostolica scripta, si bene meminimus, [praecipiendo] dedimus in mandatis, ut, si hoc constaret, eam sibi auctoritate nostra restitui faceretis. Quo cognito responsum est, sicut nobis dicitur, ab adversario, id non debere proficere eo, quod spontanea voluntate coram Eboracensi archiepiscopo apostolicae sedis legato praescriptam ecclesiam abiurasset. Quia vero non scripsimus idiotis, sed discretis personis, et nostrum est discernere, quid ratio dictet, discretioni vestrae praesentium auctoritate Mandamus, quatenus rei veritatem diligenter et subtiliter inquiratis, et, si vobis constiterit, quod praefatus P. nullo metu vel vi coactus, sed spontanee praelibatam ecclesiam taliter abiuraverit, ei omni occasione et appellatione remota super hoc perpetuum silentium imponatis.

Upon receiving the complaint of P., a cleric, that he had been violently despoiled of the church of Procebrant, to you by apostolic writings, if we remember well, [by enjoining] we gave instructions, that, if this were established, you should have that church restored to him by our authority. When this was learned, it was answered, as it is said to us, by the adversary, that this ought not to avail, because of his having, of his spontaneous will, before the archbishop of York, legate of the apostolic see, abjured the aforesaid church. But since we have not written to idiots, but to discreet persons, and it is ours to discern what reason dictates, to your discretion by the authority of these presents Mandamus, to the extent that you diligently and subtly inquire into the truth of the matter, and, if it is established to you that the aforesaid P., compelled by no fear or force, but spontaneously, has so abjured the aforementioned church, you shall impose upon him, with every occasion and appeal removed, perpetual silence in this matter.

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

In interdicto de retinenda succumbit reus, ipsius abiuratione probata. H. d. quoad titulum.

In the interdict for retaining possession, the defendant succumbs, his own abjuration having been proved. This holds as to the title.

Idem Wigorensi Episcopo et Heliensi Archidiacono.

The same to the Bishop of Worcester and the Archdeacon of Ely.

Audita querela dilecti filii nostri T. clerici carissimi in Christo filii nostri illustris Scotorum regis, quod H. persona ecclesiae de Sander, ipsum super ecclesia sua de Pelen. indebite molestaret, quam liberam tunc et vacantem ad repraesentationem eiusdem regis praedictus T. fuerat adeptus, licet idem H. sponte iurasse dicatur, quod super ecclesia de Porten. praefato T. nullam quaestionem moveret, venerabili fratri nostro Londonensi episcopo, et tibi, fili archidiacone, dedimus in mandatis, ut, veritate rei plenius inquisita, si vobis constaret, quod praedictus H. alterius ecclesiae personatum haberet, vel iuramento spontanee praestito firmaverit, se memorato T. super eadem ecclesia quaestionem de cetero non moturum, ei exinde appellatione remota perpetuum silentium imponatis, et ab eius molestia super hoc compesceretis eundem.

Having heard the complaint of our beloved son T., a cleric of our dearest in Christ son, the illustrious king of the Scots, that H., the persona (parson) of the church of Sander, was unduly harassing him concerning his church of Pelen., which, free then and vacant, by the presentation of the same king the aforesaid T. had obtained, although the same H. is said voluntarily to have sworn that he would raise no question against the aforesaid T. concerning the church of Porten., we have given in mandate to our venerable brother the bishop of London, and to you, son Archdeacon, that, the truth of the matter having been more fully inquired, if it should be clear to you that the aforesaid H. held the personate of another church, or by an oath spontaneously rendered had confirmed that he would not henceforth move any question against the aforesaid T. concerning the same church, you impose upon him therefrom perpetual silence, appeal being removed, and restrain that same man from his molestation herein.

Postmodum vero nuncius praefati H. ad praesentiam nostram accedens constanti nobis assertione proposuit, quod per violentiam idem H. eadem ecclesia fuerit spoliatus, et ideo ad vos nostras literas impetravit, ut, si constaret vobis veritate cognita, ipsum H. spoliatum esse, quum eidem renunciavit ecclesiae, contra eum testes alterius partis de iuramento et renunciatione spontanee facta nullatenus reciperetis, sed potius testes ipsius H., quibus intendebat posse probare, quod violenter praedicta ecclesia spoliatus fuerit, dummodo essent idonei, non differretis recipere, et secundum eorum depositiones et rationes et allegationes hinc inde productas in causa ipsa appellationis obstaculo remoto quod iustum esset iudicaretis, non obstantibus literis [nostris], si quae aliae ab alterutra parte impetratae fuissent, aut forma, quam expressimus in aliis literis super hoc impetratis. Addidimus insuper, quod, si in causa ipsa aliquid esset immutatum, postquam nuncius praedicti Henrici iter arripuit ad nostram praesentiam veniendi, totam causam ante ingressum principalis causae contradictione et appellatione cessante in eum statum reduceretis, in quo fuisse dignoscitur, quum nuncius ipsius H. est iter ipsum aggressus, nisi forte interim idem H. cum altera parte spontanea voluntate posset super ecclesia ipsa convenire. Nunc autem ex literis praedicti episcopi et tuis, fili archidiacone, nobis innotuit, quod vos, priorum literarum tenorem, [sicut debuistis] secuti, partes debita solennitate citastis. Quum vero post plures citationes die tandem peremtorio constituto, de iam dicti H. contumacia legitima probatione vobis plenius constitisset, idonearum personarum testimonio cognoscentes, saepe dictum H. non solum ecclesiae alterius personatum habere, sed etiam spontanea voluntate ecclesiam de Pelen.

Afterwards indeed the envoy of the aforesaid H., approaching into our presence, set forth to us with constant assertion that the same H. had been despoiled of the same church by violence; and therefore he obtained our letters to you, that, if it should be established to you, the truth being known, that H. himself had been despoiled, although he had renounced that church, you should by no means receive against him the witnesses of the other party concerning the oath and the renunciation made spontaneously, but rather that you should not delay to receive the witnesses of H. himself, by whom he intended to be able to prove that he had been violently despoiled of the aforesaid church, provided they were suitable, and that, the obstacle of appeal being removed, you should judge in the cause itself, according to their depositions and the reasons and allegations produced on this side and that, what would be just, notwithstanding the letters [ours], if any others had been obtained by either party, or the form which we expressed in other letters obtained on this matter. We added moreover that, if in the cause itself anything had been changed after the envoy of the aforesaid Henry took the road to come into our presence, you should restore the whole cause, before the entry into the principal cause, contradiction and appeal ceasing, to that state in which it is recognized to have been when the envoy of H. himself undertook that journey, unless perchance in the meantime the same H., by spontaneous will, could come to an agreement with the other party concerning the church itself. Now, however, from the letters of the aforesaid bishop and yours, son Archdeacon, it has become known to us that you, following the tenor of the prior letters, [as you ought] cited the parties with due solemnity. But when, after several citations, a peremptory day having at length been set, it had been made more fully clear to you by lawful proof concerning the contumacy of the already-said H., learning by the testimony of suitable persons that the often-mentioned H. not only holds the personate of another church, but also by spontaneous will the church of Pelen.

in faciem ecclesiae in perpetuum abiurasse, prohibuistis eidem, ne dictum T. super hoc de cetero molestaret. Licet autem nuncius eiusdem H. posteriores literas, sicut diximus, impetraverit, formam aliam continentes, quod, non obstantibus literis a parte altera impetratis, revocari deberet, si quid immutatum esset in causa, postquam idem nuncius iter ad nos arripuerit veniendi, quia tamen non intelleximus, nec intelligi debuit, ut revocaretur in irritum quod per vos factum esset auctoritate literarum nostrarum, sed si quid praesumptione vel violentia immutatum esset discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus sententiam, quam protulistis ante posteriorum literarum receptionem, occasione ipsarum nullatenus revocare tentetis, et, si contra sententiam ipsam aliquid statuistis, studeatis id, sublato appellationis obstaculo, revocare, et praefatum H. contra eandem sententiam nullatenus venire permittatis, sed potius sententiam contradictione et appellatione postposita faciatis auctoritate nostra inviolabiliter observari. Si vero post receptionem sequentium literarum sententia lata fuerit ea sententia non obstante in causa iuxta tenorem literarum ipsarum appellatione postposita procedatis, dummodo praefatus H. per violentiam spoliatus fuerit, et spoliatus illud praestiterit iuramentum.

having abjured in perpetuity in the face of the church, you prohibited the same man from harassing the said T. hereafter in this matter. Although the envoy of the same H., as we have said, obtained later letters containing a different form, namely that, notwithstanding the letters obtained by the other party, it ought to be revoked if anything had been changed in the case after that same envoy had taken the road to come to us, nevertheless we did not understand, nor ought it to have been understood, that what had been done by you by the authority of our letters should be revoked into nullity, but that, if anything had been changed by presumption or by violence, we command by apostolic writings, enjoining upon your discretion that you by no means attempt, on account of them, to revoke the sentence which you pronounced before the reception of the later letters; and if you have established anything contrary to that sentence, strive to revoke it, the obstacle of appeal being removed, and do not in any way permit the aforesaid H. to go against the same sentence, but rather, contradiction and appeal set aside, cause the sentence by our authority to be inviolably observed. But if, after the reception of the subsequent letters, a sentence shall have been delivered, proceed, that sentence notwithstanding, in the case according to the tenor of those letters, appeal being set aside, provided that the aforesaid H. was despoiled by violence, and, being despoiled, had taken that oath.

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Petenti restitutionem beneficii quaestio institutionis non canonicae referri non potest.

For one petitioning the restitution of a benefice, the question of a non-canonical institution cannot be referred.

Idem Brixiensi Episcopo.

The same to the Bishop of Brescia.

In literis tuis (Et infra: [cf. c.9.de off. iud. del.

In your letters (And below: [cf. c.9.de off. iud. del.

I. 29.]) Super illa quaestione, videlicet quum quis dicit, se de possessione violenter eiectumesse, et adversarius dicit, eum non fuisse canonice institutum, respondemus, prius de violenta eiectione, quam de canonica institutione agi debere, quia praedo etiam est secundum rigorem iuris restituendus. [Item quum etc. (cf. cap. seq.)]

I. 29.]) Concerning that question, namely when someone says that he has been violently ejected from possessionto have been, and the adversary says that he was not canonically instituted, we respond that there must be proceeding first on the violent ejection rather than on the canonical institution, because even a robber is to be restored according to the rigor of the law. [Likewise when etc. (cf. the following chapter.)]

CAP. VI.

CHAPTER 6.

Non obstat exceptio criminis agenti interdicto unde vi, vel quod vi aut clam.

The exception of crime does not stand in the way of one proceeding under the interdict unde vi, or under quod vi aut clam.

Idem Exonensi Episcopo.

The same, to the Bishop of Exeter.

Item quum quis dicit, se de possessione violenter eiectum, vel adversarium clam possessionem intrasse, et adversarius ei crimen obiicit, ut eum ratione criminis a sua intentione repellat, non occurrit quidem nobis, quod illius obiectio admitti debeat, vel principalis causae propter hoc exsecutio retardari, quoniam criminaliter adversus eum ante restitutionem agere non potest, quum praesumatur eius exsistere inimicus.

Likewise, when someone says that he has been violently cast out from possession, or that the adversary has secretly entered the possession, and the adversary objects a crime against him, so as to repel him from his intention by the reason of the crime, it does not indeed occur to us that that objection ought to be admitted, or that the execution of the principal cause should be delayed on this account, since he cannot proceed criminally against him before restitution, since he is presumed to be his enemy.

CAP. VII.

CHAPTER 7.

Spoliatus etiam a iudice, iuris ordine praetermisso, ante omnia restituatur.

Let the despoiled person also, by the judge, the order of law pretermitted, be restored before all things.

Idem Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Conquerente nobis R. clerico latore praesentium accepimus, quod, quum vacaret scholasticis disciplinis, ipsum [non citatum] ecclesia de Werfort sine iudicio spoliasti. Quia vero iam non decet honestatem tuam clericos tuae iurisdictionis sine manifesta causa et rationabili suis beneficiis spoliare, quibus teneris paterna provisione consulere, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta [praecipiendo] mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, praedicto clerico praefatam ecclesiam cum reditibus inde perceptis restitutas, et in pace eam possidere permittas. Restitutione autem facta, si quid [exinde] adversus eum super praescripta ecclesia proponere volueris, coram venerabili fratre nostro Exonensi episcopo delegato a nobis per te vel per sufficientem responsalem tuum cum eodem R. ordine iudicario poteris experiri, et quod [ipse] exinde statuerit suscipias firmiter et observes; nos enim eidem episcopo causam commissimus terminandam.

With R., a cleric, complaining to us, the bearer of these presents, we received that, when he was devoted to scholastic disciplines, you despoiled him [not cited] of the church of Werfort without judgment. But since it now no longer befits your honor to despoil the clerics of your jurisdiction of their benefices without a manifest and reasonable cause, for whom you are bound by a paternal provision to take care, to your fraternity through apostolic writings [by precept] we command, that, if it is so, you restore to the aforesaid cleric the aforesaid church with the revenues received therefrom, and permit him to possess it in peace. However, restitution having been made, if you wish to propose anything [therefrom] against him concerning the aforesaid church, before our venerable brother, the bishop of Exeter, delegated by us, through yourself or through your sufficient responsal you may proceed by the judicial order with that same R., and what [he himself] shall have decreed thereupon you shall accept firmly and observe; for we have entrusted that same bishop with the case to be brought to a termination.

CAP. VIII.

CHAPTER 8.

Restituitur coniunx viro probanti desponsationem et copulam, et de ipsius impunitate caventi; nisi magna sit viri saevitia.

The consort is restored to the husband who proves the betrothal and the copulation, and who gives security concerning her impunity; unless the man’s savagery be great.

Idem.

The same.

Ex transmissa nobis (Et infra:) Quia nobis de veritate liquere non potuit, causam experientiae vestrae duximus committendam; fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta Mandamus, quatenus, si vobis constiterit, quod praefata mulier praedicto militi legitime desponsata fuisset, et ab eo cognita, ipsam ei restitui faciatis, recepta tamen sufficienti cautione, quod illi non debeat aliquod malum inferre. Si autem capitali odio ita mulierem vir persequitur, quod merito de ipso diffidat et eum habeat suspectum, alicui probae et honestae mulieri usque ad causae decisionem custodienda studiosius committatur in loco, ubi vir vel parentes eius mulieri nullam possint violentiam inferre.

From what was transmitted to us (And below:) Since it could not be made clear to us about the truth, we have judged the case to be entrusted to your inquiry; to your fraternity by apostolic writings we mandate, to wit, that if it has been established for you that the aforesaid woman was legitimately espoused to the aforesaid soldier, and was known by him, you are to have her restored to him, sufficient surety, however, having been received, that he ought not to inflict any harm upon her. But if the husband persecutes the woman with mortal hatred to such a degree that she rightly distrusts him and holds him suspect, let her be more diligently committed for safekeeping to some upright and honorable woman until the decision of the case, in a place where the husband or his parents cannot inflict any violence upon the woman.

CAP. IX.

CHAPTER 9.

Per solutionem pensionis rei donatae, factam donatorio cum auctoritate donatoris, acquiritur illi donatario rei donatae possessio, adeo, quod, si ab illa expellitur, per interdictum recuperandae agere poterit.

Through the solution/payment of the rent of the donated thing, made to the donee with the donor’s authority, possession of the donated thing is acquired by that donee, to such a degree that, if he is expelled from it, he will be able to proceed by the interdict of recovery.

Idem.

The same.

Quum venisset ad nos dilectus filius noster G. canonicus sanctae Trinitatis de Hasul. a suo priore et capitulo destinatus, in audientia nostra proposuit, quod, quum venerabilis frater noster Eboracensis archiepiscopus ecclesiam de N. eis concessisset, et per scriptum proprium confirmasset, ita, quod post decessum G. de Pontino clerici, qui praefatam ecclesiam tunc temporis tenebat, usibus eorum omnibus modis proficeret, et interim de auctoritate ipsius archiepiscopi idem G. ipsis canonicis annuam solveret pensionem, nos postmodum eandem concessionem, scripto ipsius archiepiscopi diligenter inspecto, auctoritate apostolica duximus confirmandam. Mortuo autem praefato clerico iam dicti canonici, licet per ipsum archiepiscopum non fuissent in praedictae ecclesiae possessionem inducti, tamen de concessione et confirmatione nostra plurimum confidentes, ecclesiam ipsam, ne a quodam clerico turbaretur, qiu eos super eadem ecclesia nitebatur fatigare, sunt ingressi, et tam contra ipsum archiepiscopum, a quo gravari timebant, quam praefatum clericum ad nostram audientiam appellaverunt.

When our beloved son G., a canon of the Holy Trinity of Hasul., sent by his own prior and chapter, had come to us, in our audience he set forth that, when our venerable brother the archbishop of York had granted them the church of N. and had confirmed it by his own writing, to wit, that after the decease of G. of Pontino, a cleric who at that time held the aforesaid church, it should in every way profit their uses, and in the meantime by the authority of that same archbishop the said G. should pay to those canons an annual pension, we thereafter, the writing of that archbishop having been diligently inspected, judged that same grant ought to be confirmed by apostolic authority. But when the aforesaid cleric had died, the said canons, although they had not been inducted by the archbishop himself into possession of the aforesaid church, yet, placing very great confidence in our grant and confirmation, entered the church itself, lest it be disturbed by a certain cleric who was striving to harry them concerning the same church, and they appealed both against the archbishop himself, by whom they feared to be aggrieved, and the aforesaid cleric, to our audience.

Ipsis vero per duos de fratribus suis appellationem factam prosequentibus, saepe dictus archiepiscopus bladum et omnia bona ecclesiae, quae praefatus G. clericus suus moriens ibidem reliquit, fecit, quod vix credere possumus, invitis praedictis canonicis asportari. (Et infra:) Magister M. et A. clerici et nuncii eiusdem archiepiscopi, qui praesentes aderant, ipsum super his constanter excusaverunt, et adiecerunt, archiepiscopo iam praedicto per praefatos canonicos gravem iniuriam irrogatam, quia, et si ab ipso literas concessionis habuissent, ipsius postmodum auctoritate contempta, per se ipsos ingredi in possessionem non deberent. Nos itaque Respondemus, quod, si praefati canonici de praedicta ecclesia auctoritatem eiusdem archiepiscopi vivente clerico perceperunt annuam pensionem, eo mortuo, quamvis auctoritatem eiusdem archiepiscopi non quaesierunt, vitiose tamen non sunt possessionem ingressi, quum, sicut in saecularium legibus principum cautum est, is possideat, cuius nomine possidetur. Causam ipsam vobis, de quorum prudentia et honestate confidimus, committimus, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandantes, quatenus ante praesentiam vestram partibus convocatis, si de ipsorum assertione constiterit, bladum et omnia bona ecclesiae post appellationem de mandato ipsius archiepiscopi asportata ante ingressum principalis causae, auctoritate nostra, sublato appellationis obstaculo restitui faciatis: deinde archiepiscopum attentius moneatis, ut concessionem suam ratam habeat et praefatos canonicos amodo desinat super praefata ecclesia fatigare.

But as they themselves were prosecuting the appeal through two of their brothers, the oft-mentioned archbishop caused the grain and all the goods of the church, which his aforesaid clerk G., dying, left there, to be carried off—something which we can scarcely believe—with the aforesaid canons unwilling. (And below:) Master M. and A., clerics and nuncios of the same archbishop, who were present, steadfastly excused him in these matters, and added that a grave injury had been inflicted upon the already aforesaid archbishop by the aforesaid canons, because, even if they had letters of concession from him, afterwards, his authority being contemned, they ought not to enter into possession by themselves. We therefore Respond that, if the aforesaid canons, by the authority of the same archbishop, while the cleric was living, received the annual pension from the aforesaid church, he having died, although they did not seek the authority of the same archbishop, nevertheless they did not enter into possession in a faulty manner, since, as it is provided in the secular laws of princes, let him possess in whose name it is possessed. We commit the case itself to you, in whose prudence and honesty we have confidence, mandating by apostolic writings to your fraternity, that, the parties having been convoked before your presence, if it shall be established from their assertion, you cause the grain and all the goods of the church, after the appeal, carried off by the mandate of the same archbishop, to be restored, before entry into the principal cause, by our authority, the obstacle of the appeal being removed: then you should more earnestly admonish the archbishop, that he hold his concession ratified and from now on cease to harass the aforesaid canons concerning the aforesaid church.

Si vero commonitioni vestrae acquiescere noluerit, super ecclesia causam diligentius audiatis, et sine personarum acceptione sublato appellationis diffugio terminetis.

But if he should be unwilling to acquiesce in your admonition, hear the cause concerning the church more diligently, and, the subterfuge of an appeal removed, without acceptation of persons, bring it to a conclusion.

CAP. X.

CHAPTER 10.

Si, actore agente petitorio, reus super eadem re deducit possessorium, proceditur in solo possessorio, suspenso petitorio.

If, with the plaintiff prosecuting the petitory action, the defendant, concerning the same matter, brings the possessory action, proceeding is had in the possessory alone, the petitory being suspended.

Lucius III. Archidiacono et I. Archipresbytero Turonensibus.

Lucius 3. To the Archdeacon and I., Archpriest of Tours.

Ex conquestione B. mulieris ad nos noveritis pervenisse, quod, quum C. miles eam sibi matrimonio copulasset, et maritali affectione pertractans ex ipsa filiam suscepisset, sine iudicio ecclesiae postmodum a se removit eandem, et de accusando super consanguinitate matrimonio, remoto appellationis obstaculo, literas ad iudices impetravit. Quum autem prius, quam a delegatis iudicibus mulier citaretur, per dioecesanum episcopum virum sibi restitui petiisset, et ob hoc ipsa ad nos proprium nuncium destinasset, demum coram praefatis iudicibus constituta, modo per se, modo per procuratorem, ante ipsius causae ingressum et post virum sibi restitui postulabat. Iudices vero restitutione penitus negata, quod fieri non debuit, in principali procedere voluerunt, unde ipsa a tali gravamine ad nostram audientiam appellavit.

From the complaint of B., a woman, you are to know that it has come to us, that, when C., a soldier, had joined her to himself in matrimony, and, treating her with marital affection, had received from her a daughter, without judgment of the church he afterwards removed the same from himself, and, for accusing the marriage on account of consanguinity, the obstacle of appeal having been removed, he obtained letters to judges. But when, before the woman was cited by the delegated judges, she had sought through the diocesan bishop to have the husband restored to her, and for this she herself had sent to us her own messenger, finally, having appeared before the aforesaid judges, now by herself, now through a procurator, before the entry into the case itself and after, she was demanding that the husband be restored to her. But the judges, restitution being entirely denied, which ought not to have been done, wished to proceed to the principal matter, whence she appealed from such a grievance to our hearing.

Quia ergo iniuste gravatis apostolicum debemus patrocinium impertiri, discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo Mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, memoratae mulieri omni contradictione et appellatione cessante virum suum restitui faciatis, quae post appellationem ipsius acta sunt in irritum revocantes, postmodum super matrimonio causam audiatis attentius, et fine canonico terminetis. Datum Veronae XII. Kal.

Because therefore to those unjustly burdened we ought to impart apostolic patronage, enjoining to your discretion through apostolic writings We command that, if it is so, to the aforementioned woman, all contradiction and appeal ceasing, you cause her own husband to be restored, recalling into nullity the things that were done after her appeal; afterwards you hear the cause concerning the marriage more attentively, and you terminate it with a canonical end. Given at Verona 12 Kal.

Nov.

CAP. XI.

CHAPTER 11.

Violentus rem cum fructibus etiam qui percipi potuissent, restituere, damna resarcire, et de iniuriis satisfacere compellitur.

The violent wrongdoer is compelled to restore the thing with its fruits, even those which could have been collected, to make good the damages, and to satisfy for the injuries.

Coelestinus III.

Celestine 3.

Gravis ad nos querela (Et infra:) Ideoque fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta Mandamus firmiterque praecipimus, quatenus, partibus convocatis, si vobis constiterit de praemissis, praedictum archidiaconum ablata praenominati monasterii fratribus cum integritate restituere, et damna plenarie resarcire, et de illatis iniuriis competenter satisfacere, omni gratia, timore et amore postpositis, dilatione, contradictione et appellatione cessante per districtionem ecclesiasticam nostra freti auctoritate compellatis restitui, deinde archiepiscopum moneatis, ut concessionem suam ratam habeat et praefatos canonicos amodo desinat super praefata ecclesia fatigare. Si vero admonitioni vestrae acquiescere noluerit, cogatis Eum provisuri attentius, ut non tantum fructus a novo et violento possessore perceptos, sed quos, si eis possidere fuisset licitum, possessores veteres percepissent, per supradictam sententiam, sublato cuiuslibet appellationis, obstaculo, reddi faciatis eisdem. Praeterea si qui, quominus secundum mandatum nostrum memoratis fratribus restituantur ablata, se duxerint opponendos, vos auctoritate nostra suffulti eos, non obstante appellatione, anathematis sententia percellatis.

A weighty complaint has come to us (And below:) Therefore to your fraternity through apostolic writings we Command and we firmly enjoin, that, with the parties convened, if it is established to you concerning the aforesaid matters, you compel the aforesaid archdeacon to restore the things taken from the brothers of the abovenamed monastery with integrity, and to repair the damages plenarily, and to make competent satisfaction for the injuries inflicted, all favor, fear, and love set aside, delay, contradiction, and appeal ceasing, by ecclesiastical constraint, relying on our authority, you compel to be restored; then you should warn the archbishop to hold his concession as ratified and henceforth to desist from wearying the aforesaid canons over the aforesaid church. But if he is unwilling to acquiesce to your admonition, you should compel him making provision more attentively, that not only the fruits perceived by the new and violent possessor, but also those which, if it had been licit for them to possess, the former possessors would have perceived, through the above-said sentence, the obstacle of any appeal removed, you cause to be returned to the same. Moreover, if any, so that the things taken away may not be restored to the aforesaid brothers according to our mandate, shall deem themselves to be opposed, you, supported by our authority, notwithstanding appeal, strike them with the sentence of anathema.

Si praefatus vero archiepiscopus ad citationem commonitionis vestrae forte non venerit, vel mandato vestro parere noluerit, vos Dolensis monasterii testibus receptis secundum formam praedictam in toto negotio procedentes, secundum quod diximus, appellatione cessante exsequi procuretis omnimoda sollicitudine providentes, ne libertates praefato monasterio vestro a praedecessoribus nostris vobisque concessas, a quoquam sustineatis minui vel infringi.

But if the aforesaid archbishop should perhaps not come to the summons of your admonition, or should be unwilling to obey your mandate, you—having received witnesses of the monastery of Dol—proceeding according to the aforesaid form in the whole matter, should, as we have said, see to its execution, with any appeal ceasing, providing with every kind of solicitude that you do not allow the liberties granted to your aforesaid monastery by our predecessors and by you to be diminished or infringed by anyone.

CAP. XII.

CHAPTER 12.

Ingressus possessionem ignorante domino, ad quem pertinet, potest per ipsum dominum, statim quum sciverit, repelli etiam violenter, nec ex tali repulsione competit repulso contra dominum interdictum possessorium. H. d.

An entry into possession, the owner to whom it pertains being unaware, can be repelled, even by force, by the owner himself as soon as he has learned of it; nor from such a repulse does the repelled party have a possessory interdict against the owner. H. d.

Innocentius III. Episcopo et Capitulo Tridonensi.

Innocent 3. To the Bishop and Chapter of Tridon.

Olim causam, quae inter vos nomine Tridonensis ecclesiae, et dilectos filios B. magistrum et fratres militiae templi in Lombardia, super domo Calventiae vertebatur, dilecto filio de Locedio et de Columba abbatibus sub certa forma meminimus commisisse. Ipsi autem abbates, partibus convocatis, et lite in eorum praesentia contestata, testes receperunt ex utraque parte productos, et quum renunciatum fuisset, utrinque depositiones eorum solenniter publicarunt, et eas per manum publicam redigentes in scriptis, causam plene instructam ad nostram praesentiam remiserunt. Nos ergo dilecto filio C. canonico et procuratori ecclesiae Terdonensis et praedicto magistro dilectos filios nostros I. tit.

Formerly we remember to have committed, under a certain form, the cause which was pending between you in the name of the Tridonese church, and beloved sons B., the master and brothers of the militia of the Temple in Lombardy, concerning the house of Calventia, to the beloved son the abbots of Locedio and of Columba under a certain form. But the abbots themselves, the parties having been convoked, and the suit having been contested in their presence, received witnesses produced from each side, and when it had been reported, they solemnly published their depositions on both sides, and, reducing them into writings by a public hand, sent the case, fully instructed, back to our presence. We therefore, to the beloved son C., canon and procurator of the Terdonese church, and to the aforesaid master, our beloved sons I., of the title.

S. Stephani in Coelio monte presbyterum et H. S. Eustachii diaconum cardinales concessimus auditores, coram quibus fuit ex parte vestra propositum, quod, quum olim Humiliati quidam a bonae memoriae V. episcopo Terdonensi licentiam postulassent, hospitale et oratorium in loco Calventiae construendi, Episcopus Tridonensis possessiones quasdam a quibusdam militibus, qui eas tenebant in feudum, ab ecclesia Terdonensi redemit, et illas Humiliatis petentibus sub ea conditione concessit, quod ad honorem Dei et B. Virginis nomine Tridonensis episcopi oratorium ibidem et hospitale construerent, et tres solidos censuales Tridonensi episcopo annis singulis exhiberent, a quo etiam persona, quae loco praeficeretur eidem, investituram perciperet, et pro se et aliis fratribus ei et successoribus eius obedientiam faceret manualem, episcopo sibi loci dominium nihilominus retinente. Dictus vero magister ad eandem domum adspirans, et volens eum copulare domui de Casellis, ipsos, adeo circumvenit, quod praeter conscientiam vestram se et sua in eius manibus tradiderunt, ea tamen conditione apposita, si vobis quod facerent complaceret, sine quorum assensu se nihil posse facere asserebant. Magister vero conditionem acceptavit appositam, et quod aliter eos non reciperet affirmavit. (Et infra:) Tunc vero magister accedens Calventiam exinde paramenta ecclesiae, instrumenta domus et libros accepit, et nonaginta oves fecit abduci ac postmodum reversus ad vos, quum ei fuisset quod petierat denegatum, quia paratus esset vobis facere rationem, si forsan vos offenderit, adiecit.

We granted as auditors the cardinal presbyter of St. Stephen on the Caelian Hill and H., the cardinal deacon of St. Eustachius, before whom it was set forth on your part that, when once certain Humiliati had asked from V., of good memory, bishop of Terdona, a license for building a hospital and an oratory in the place of Calventia, the Bishop of Tridona redeemed certain possessions from certain knights, who were holding them in fief, from the church of Terdona, and those he granted to the Humiliati who were petitioning, under this condition, that to the honor of God and of the Blessed Virgin, in the name of the bishop of Tridona, they should build an oratory and a hospital there, and should render three censual solidi to the bishop of Tridona every year, from whom also the person who should be set over the place would receive investiture, and would make manual obedience to him and to his successors for himself and the other brothers, the bishop nevertheless retaining to himself the lordship of the place. But the said master, aspiring to that same house, and wishing to couple it to the house of Casellis, so circumvented them that, beyond your knowledge, they handed over themselves and their goods into his hands, yet with this condition added: if what they did should please you; without whose assent they asserted that they were able to do nothing. The master indeed accepted the condition that had been added, and affirmed that otherwise he would not receive them. (And below:) Then indeed the master, going to Calventia, from there took the ornaments of the church, the implements of the house, and the books, and had ninety sheep driven off; and afterward, returning to you, when what he had asked was denied to him, he added that he was ready to render you an account, if perchance he had offended you.

Vos autem intentionem eius malevolam attendentes, et ne se de domo intromitteret memorata districtius inhibentes, ad sedem apostolicam appellastis. Et quum tu, frater episcope, quae gesta fuerant audivisses, omnes pariter ad domum accessistis eandem, et eos, quos invenistis ibidem ad domus custodiam a magistro relictos, eiecistis ex ea, vim vi, secundum quod omnia iura permittunt, licite repellentes. Unde quum possessio praedictae domus sub conditione tradita fuerit eidem magistro, non exstante conditione traditio non tenebat.

But you, attending to his malevolent intention, and more strictly forbidding, lest he intromit himself concerning the aforesaid house, appealed to the Apostolic See. And when you, brother bishop, had heard what had been done, you all together went to that same house, and those whom you found there left by the master for the custody of the house you cast out from it, lawfully repelling force with force, according to what all laws permit. Wherefore, since the possession of the aforesaid house had been delivered to the said master under a condition, the condition not existing, the delivery did not hold.

Praeterea quum idem magister clam domum illam intraverit, nullum vobis est praeiudicium generatum, quo minus eum possetis repellere, quum id ad vestram audientiam perveniret; praesertim quum verus dominus controversiam ipsi moveret, vel suspicatus fuerit, vel debuerit suspicari. (Et infra:) Intelligentes autem, praedictam domum eidem magistro traditam sub conditione fuisse, et quod nullum iuri vestro praeiudicium fuerat irrogatum, ex eo, quod idem magister iustitiae vestrae non inscius, vobis ignorantibus, possessionem accepit, praesertim quum statim, ex quo id vobis innotuit, vim vi duxeritis repellendam, et quod idem magister sua temeritate possessionem praeter conscientiam vestram, ad quos ipsam possessionem noverat pertinere, et quos quaestionem sibi moturos suspicari debuerat, est ingressus, dictum procuratorem vestrum et vestro nomine ab impetitione ipsius magistri, nomine domus militiae templi, quoad faciendam restitutionem, quam petebat, de consilio fratrum nostrorum reddimus absolutum, salva ei quaestione proprietatis, de qua in hoc iudicio nihil est actum, sicut praedictus abbas de Locedio nobis exposuit viva voce, decernentes nihilominus, vos magistro ipsi satisfactionem debitam exhibere, si defendendo ius vestrum in offensam ipsius vel domus militiae templi modum forsitan excessistis.

Moreover, since the same master entered that house secretly, no prejudice has been generated to you, the less that you could repel him, when that should come to your hearing; especially since the true lord was moving a controversy against him, or had suspected, or ought to have suspected. (And below:) But understanding that the aforesaid house had been delivered to the same master under a condition, and that no prejudice had been inflicted upon your right from the fact that the same master, not unaware of your justice, while you were ignorant, took possession, especially since immediately, from the moment that became known to you, you judged force by force to be repelled, and that the same master, by his own temerity, entered upon the possession beyond your cognizance, to whom he knew that that possession pertained, and whom he ought to have suspected would move a question against him, we render your said procurator, and in your name, from the claim of that master, in the name of the house of the militia of the Temple, as to making the restitution which he was asking, by the counsel of our brothers, absolved, saving to him the question of ownership, about which in this judgment nothing has been dealt with, as the aforesaid abbot of Locedio explained to us viva voce, decreeing nonetheless that you exhibit to the master himself the due satisfaction, if in defending your right you have perhaps exceeded the measure into offense against him or the house of the militia of the Temple.

CAP. XIII.

CHAPTER 13.

Si contra petentem restitutionem coniugis opponitur consanguinitas in gradu prohibito, et offeruntur probationes paratae, recepto ab opponente iuramento de malitia, negabitur restitutio quoad torum, et fiet quoad reliqua. Si vero probationes promptae non sint, fiet plena restitutio, nisi sit magna viri saevitia.

If, against one seeking restitution of a spouse, consanguinity in a prohibited degree is pleaded, and prepared proofs are offered, after receiving from the pleader an oath concerning malice, restitution will be denied as to the bed, and will be made as to the rest. But if the proofs are not ready, full restitution will be made, unless there be great cruelty of the husband.

Idem Bituricensi Archidiacono.

The same to the Archdeacon of Bourges.

Literas tuas nuper recepimus, continentes, quod, quum quaedam matrimonialis causa venerabili fratre nostro Bituricensi archiepiscopo in remotis agente, in tua praesentia tractaretur, Gulielma mulier separari a B. viro suo instantissime postulabat, cui se quarto gradu consanguinitatis proponebat esse coniunctam. Apparebant etiam accusatores et testes exhibentes chartam ab utroque latere consanguinitatis lineam contingentem, qui se contracti matrimonii tempore absentes fuisse dicebant, et quod in continenti parati erant quae proposuerunt comprobare. Vir autem econtra sibi uxorem postulabat restitui, quae ab eo sua temeritate divertit, quemadmodum allegabat. Ceterum pars replicabat uxoris, tum propter futurum incestus periculum, tum quia probationibus paratis et promptis sine diffugio quod intendebatur poterat demonstrare, restitutionem penitus denegandam.

We have recently received your letters, containing that, when a certain matrimonial cause was being handled in your presence, our venerable brother the archbishop of Bourges being engaged in remote parts, the woman Gulielma was most urgently demanding to be separated from her husband B., to whom she put herself forward as being joined in the fourth degree of consanguinity. Accusers also appeared and witnesses, exhibiting a charter touching the line of consanguinity on both sides, who said that they had been absent at the time of the contracted marriage, and that on the spot they were prepared to prove what they had put forward. The husband, however, on the contrary was demanding that his wife be restored to him, who had departed from him by her own rashness, as he alleged. But the wife’s party replied that, both on account of the impending peril of incest, and because with proofs prepared and prompt, without evasion, they could demonstrate what was intended, restitution ought to be wholly denied.

Ad haec notam esse mariti saevitiam proponebat, cui erat impetuosa levitas et crudelitas bestialis, et, si liberam restitutae sibi facultatem haberet uxoris, eius amici timebant mortis ex hoc sibi periculum imminere vel corporis cruciatum, et sic ab accusatione desisterent, eam qualiter cunque vivere quam interire malentes; adiicientes, nihilominus ipsam licentiatam a viro recessisse cum lacrimis et incitam. Ipse vero miles nihilominus sibi uxorem petebat libere ac pacifice restitui, et, ne secus fieret, sedem apostolicam appellavit. Quum igitur in causis matrimonialibus exceptiones huiusmodi saepius proponantur, quid sit in talibus agendum, Rescripto petebas apostolico edoceri, ex praemissis velut quodam themate multas eliciens quaestiones, primo quidem utrum, quando aliquis consanguinitatis gradus obiicitur, in quo sedes apostolica dispensare non potest nec etiam consuevit, et probationes promptae sint et paratae, indulgenda restitutio sit, an neganda?

To these points she further alleged the husband’s savagery to be notorious, as he had impetuous levity and bestial cruelty; and, if he should have free power over his restored wife, her friends feared that from this there would be impending upon themselves the danger of death or torture of the body, and thus they would desist from the accusation, preferring that she live somehow rather than perish; adding, nonetheless, that she, having been dismissed by the husband, withdrew with tears and agitated. He himself, however, the soldier, nonetheless was asking that his wife be restored to him freely and peaceably, and, lest it be done otherwise, appealed to the Apostolic See. Since, therefore, in matrimonial causes exceptions of this kind are quite often advanced, what ought to be done in such cases, you were seeking to be instructed by an apostolic rescript, drawing many questions from the aforesaid as from a certain theme, first indeed, whether, when some degree of consanguinity is objected, in which the Apostolic See cannot dispense nor is even accustomed to do so, and the proofs are ready and prepared, restitution should be granted, or denied?

Secundo quaerebas, an idem iuris exsistat, si aliquis gradus dispensabilis vel aliud impedimentum dispensabile allegetur, et probationes similiter sint praesentes, utrum restitutio concedi debeat, an negari? Tertio loco quaerebas, si mariti crudelitas et saevitia nota sint iudici, ut propter motam controversiam indignatus uxorem torturis tractaturus sit et iniuriis affecturus, et sic accusatores de morte feminae metuentes accusare desistant: utrum hoc in primo vel in secundo casu restitutionis praebeat adminiculum denegandae? Postremo quaerebas, si deneganda sit restitutio in aliquo casuum praemissorum, et ad sedem apostolicam appelletur, utrum appellationi huiusmodi sit deferendum? Sane circa solutionem propositae quaestionis diversae sunt sententiae diversorum; aliis asserentibus restitutionem in praemissis casibus faciendam; aliis sentientibus in contrarium; nonnullis viam mediam eligentibus, ac dicentibus, eam faciendam interdum, quandoque vero penitus denegandam.

Second you were asking whether the same rule of law obtains, if some dispensable degree or some other dispensable impediment be alleged, and the proofs likewise be present, whether restitution ought to be conceded or denied? In the third place you were asking, if the husband’s cruelty and savagery are known to the judge, so that, angered on account of the controversy that has been set in motion, he is going to treat his wife with tortures and inflict injuries, and thus the accusers, fearing for the woman’s death, desist from accusing: whether this in the first or in the second case supplies an aid for denying restitution? Lastly you were asking, if restitution is to be denied in any of the aforesaid cases, and an appeal is made to the apostolic see, whether deference should be given to an appeal of this kind? Truly, concerning the solution of the proposed question, the opinions of different men are diverse; some asserting that restitution is to be made in the aforesaid cases; others opining to the contrary; some choosing a middle way, and saying that it is to be made sometimes, and at times indeed utterly to be denied.

Primi per decretalem epistolam bonae memoriae Lucii Papae praedecessoris nostri iuvari videntur, arguentis quosdam iudices delegatos, qui, restitutionem viri, qui sine iudicio ecclesiae uxorem dimiserat, et ei consanguinitatem postmodum opponebat, spoliatae ac repetenti coniugem denegabant, et mandantis, sibi prius restitui taliter spoliatam, et postea de matrimoniali causa cognosci. Horum autem assertionem incestus videtur periculum oppugnare; sed ipsi timorem incestus inanem esse respondent, quum etiam beneficio restitutionis obtento qui consanguinitatis habet notitiam nec exigere debitum contra conscientiam, nec solvere teneatur, quoniam, si secus egerit, aedificat ad gehennam, sicut nec consanguinitatis conscius, super cuius coniugio quaestio non movetur. Secunda vero assertio per oraculum felicis recordationis Clementis Papae praedecessoris nostri fulcitur, a quo quum fuisset quaesitum, utrum, muliere quadam quendam in virum petente, qui, ut eam repelleret, exceptionem consanguinitatis obiecit, prius esset de impedimento consanguinitatis agendum, quam super matrimonio sententia proferretur, sic inquisitioni factae respondit, quod, quum exceptione probata principalis quaestio perimatur, prius est cognoscendum de ipsa, quam ad diffinitionis articulum procedatur, quum etiam in multis casibus restitutio differatur secundum canonicas sanctiones.

The first seem to be aided by the decretal epistle of Pope Lucius of good memory, our predecessor, which reproves certain delegated judges who were denying to the despoiled woman, reclaiming her spouse, the restitution of the husband who had dismissed his wife without the Church’s judgment and afterwards was opposing consanguinity to her; and which commands that the woman so despoiled be first restored to herself, and afterwards that cognizance be taken of the matrimonial cause. But the peril of incest seems to attack the assertion of these; they, however, answer that the fear of incest is empty, since, even with the benefit of restitution obtained, he who has knowledge of consanguinity is neither bound to exact the debt against conscience nor to render it, because, if he should act otherwise, he builds toward Gehenna, just as one conscious of consanguinity with respect to whose marriage no question is moved. The second assertion, moreover, is supported by the oracle of Pope Clement of happy remembrance, our predecessor, by whom, when it had been asked whether, a certain woman suing a certain man as a husband, who, in order to repel her, put forward the exception of consanguinity, it ought first to be proceeded with concerning the impediment of consanguinity before sentence should be pronounced upon the marriage, he thus replied to the inquiry made: that, since, the exception having been proved, the principal question is extinguished, there must first be cognizance concerning it before proceeding to the article of definition, since also in many cases restitution is deferred according to canonical sanctions.

Opinioni autem ultimae videtur non incongrue adaptari, ut in gradibus consanguinitatis divina lege prohibitis restitutioni aditus praecludatur, sed constitutione interdictis humana restitutio locum habeat cum effectu, quum in illis dispensari non possit, et in istis valeat dispensari, sicut B. Gregorius et multi alii dispensarunt. Unde non peccat qui in hoc articulo ad mandatum ecclesiae reddit debitum coniugale. Nos autem ad praesens nullam de praedictis sententiis reprobamus, nec cuiquam earum aliquod praeiudicium ex nostra responsione volumus generari, quamvis praescriptum Lucii Papae mandatum ad possessorium, responsum vero patris et praedecessoris nostri Clementis ad petitorium referatur.

But the final opinion seems not inaptly to be adapted, namely, that in degrees of consanguinity prohibited by divine law, access to restitution be precluded, but that in those interdicted by human constitution restitution may have place with effect, since in the former no dispensation can be made, and in the latter a dispensation avails, as B. Gregory and many others dispensed. Hence he does not sin who in this article, at the mandate of the church, renders the conjugal debt. For our part, at present we reprobate none of the aforesaid opinions, nor do we wish any prejudice to any of them to be generated from our response, although the prescribed mandate of Pope Lucius is referred to the possessory, but the response of our father and predecessor Clement to the petitory.

Porro quum mulier illa, quae consanguinitatis habet notitiam, praesertim in gradibus, quos lex divina prohibuit, non possit huiusmodi viro sine mortali peccato carnaliter commisceri, quoniam omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, et quicquid fit contra conscientiam aedificat ad gehennam, frustra in tali casu adiudicaretur restitutio spoliato, quum illa contra Deum non debeat in hoc iudici obedire, sed potius excommunicationem humiliter sustinere. Sicque difficultas occurreret quasi perplexa, quia propter sententiam oporteret eam reddere debitum, et propter conscientiam debitum reddere non deberet. Unde contingeret eos graviter impediri; et utrique laqueus pararetur, quum inter se carnaliter coniungi non possent, nec alter alteri matrimonialiter copulari.

Moreover, since that woman, who has knowledge of consanguinity, especially in the degrees which the divine law has prohibited, cannot carnally commix with a man of this sort without mortal sin, since whatever is not of faith is sin, and whatever is done against conscience builds up unto Gehenna, in such a case restitution would be adjudged to the spoliated in vain, since she ought not, against God, to obey the judge in this, but rather to endure excommunication humbly. And thus a difficulty, as it were perplexed, would arise, because on account of the sentence she would have to render the debt, and on account of conscience she ought not to render the debitum. Whence it would come about that they would be gravely impeded; and a noose would be prepared for both, since they could not be carnally conjoined with one another, nor could the one be matrimonially coupled to the other.

Propterea melius nobis videtur, quod, quum opponitur consanguinitas, praesertim in gradibus divina lege prohibitis, et probationes offeruntur in continenti paratae, in ceteris quidem adiudicanda sit restitutio, sed ad maiorem cautelam iuramento recepto, quod talis obiectio malitiose non fiat, sola quoad commixtionem carnalem, maxime si fama consentit, est restitutio differenda, donec auditis probationibus et discussis causa sine diffugio terminetur, quum utrique sit melius taliter expediri, quam manere taliter impeditos. Quod si non habeat probationes in continenti paratas, sed dilationes exspectat longiores, quia praesumitur contra eam, quae sine iudicio ecclesiae sua tantum temeritate recessit a viro, ad restitutionem plenariam ecclesiastica debet censura compelli, quam tamen ipsa tori negando consortium debet humiliter tolerare, donec probationes offerat praeparatas, et tunc absolutione petita secundum formam ecclesiae absolvetur. Sed antequam fiat ei mandatum sub debito iuramenti, receptis probationibus procedatur, quemadmodum est praemissum.

For that reason it seems better to us that, when consanguinity is objected, especially in degrees prohibited by divine law, and proofs prepared at once are offered, in the other matters indeed restitution should be adjudged, but, for greater caution, an oath having been received that such an objection is not made maliciously, restitution is to be deferred only as regards carnal commixture—especially if public report agrees—until, the proofs having been heard and the cause examined, it is concluded without evasion, since for both it is better to be dispatched thus than to remain thus impeded. But if she does not have proofs prepared on the spot, but awaits longer delays, because a presumption lies against her who withdrew from her husband by her own rashness without the judgment of the Church, she ought to be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to full restitution, which, however, she herself, by denying the consortium of the bed, ought humbly to endure until she offers proofs prepared, and then, absolution having been sought, according to the form of the Church she will be absolved. But before a mandate is made to her under the obligation of an oath, let proceedings go forward, the proofs having been received, as has been set forth above.

Si vero tanta sit viri saevitia, ut mulieri trepidanti non possit sufficiens securitas provideri, non solum non debet illi restitui, sed ab eo potius amoveri; alioquin sufficienti, si fieri potest, securitate provisa profecto videtur coniunx ante causae cognitionem restituenda marito.

But if the man’s savagery be so great that sufficient security cannot be provided to the woman in trepidation, not only ought she not to be restored to him, but rather to be removed from him; otherwise, with sufficient security, if it can be done, provided, indeed it seems the spouse is to be restored to the husband before the cognition of the cause.

CAP. XIV.

CHAPTER 14.

Per solam traductionem mulieris ad domum viri factam, non praecedentibus sponsalibus vel invalidis, non acquiritur possessio, unde ea recedente propria auctoritate non competit restitutio.

By the sole traduction of the woman to the man’s house effected, with betrothals not preceding or being invalid, possession is not acquired, whence, she withdrawing by her own authority, restitution does not lie.

Idem Vulterano Episcopo.

The same, to the Bishop of Volterra.

Ex parte M. mulieris fuit propositum coram nobis, quod, quum eam adhuc intra pubertatis tempora constitutam quidam patruus suus filio H. Senensis civis, nondum VII. annorum, in matrimonio voluerit copulare, ac eadem traducta fuerit in domum civis eiusdem, ipsa, ex quo ad nubiles annos pervenit, ratum nolens habere quod a dicto patruo suo circa hoc procuratum fuerat, a venerabili fratre nostro Senensi episcopo nubendi alii licentiam postulavit. Quumque partes idem episcopus citasset, et praefata M. per procurutorem idoneum in iudicio compareret, quaerens possessiones et res alias sibi restitui dotis nomine pro se datas, et pars altera restitutionem peteret mulieris eiusdem, asserens eam non posse per alium causam agere, sed debere ipsius tractatui personaliter interesse, praefatus episcopus dubitans, quid super his statuere posset de iure, prout nobis suis literis intimavit, processu negotii supersedit. Quia igitur non credimus ambigendum, quin ipsa mulier, quamvis minor esse dicatur et causam possit matrimonii per procuratorem tractare, ac pars alia, quae mulieris restitutionem sibi fieri prius postulabat, restitui nequaquam debeat, utpote nullo iuris seu possessionis commodo destituta, quum per solam traductionem praedictam, quam non praecesserunt sponsalia vel consensus legitimus, nec fuerunt etiam subsecuta, nullum inter eos obligatorium vinculum sit contractum, ut finis litibus imponatur, fraternitati tuae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, non obstantibus exceptionibus supradictis, partibus convocatis, audias quae hinc inde partes duxerint proponenda, et quod canonicum fuerit appellatione remota decernas, [faciens quod decreveris etc.

On the part of the woman M., it was set forth before us that, when she, still within the time of pre-puberty, her certain paternal uncle had wished to couple in marriage to the son of H., a citizen of Siena, not yet 7 years old, in marriage, and she had been led into the house of the same citizen, she, from the time she came to marriageable years, being unwilling to hold as ratified what by the said paternal uncle of hers had been procured in this matter, asked from our venerable brother the bishop of Siena license to marry another. And when that same bishop had cited the parties, and the aforesaid M., by a suitable procurator, appeared in judgment, seeking that possessions and other things given for her under the name of dowry be restored to her, and the other party sought the restitution of the same woman, asserting that she could not prosecute the case through another, but ought to take part personally in its handling, the aforesaid bishop, doubting what he could determine in law concerning these matters, as he intimated to us by his letters, deferred the progress of the business. Therefore, since we do not believe there is room for doubt that the woman herself, although she is said to be and is a minor and can handle the cause of marriage through a procurator, and that the other party, who had previously demanded that the restitution of the woman be made to him, ought by no means to be restored, as being devoid of any benefit of right or possession, since by the mere aforesaid transfer—which neither was preceded by betrothal or lawful consent, nor was even followed thereafter—no binding bond was contracted between them, that an end may be put to the lawsuits, to your fraternity by apostolic writings we command that, if it is so, notwithstanding the aforesaid exceptions, the parties having been convoked, you hear what the parties on either side shall have chosen to put forward, and you determine, appeal removed, what shall be canonical, [doing what you will have decreed, etc.

Dat. Lat. III.

Given at the Lateran, 3.

Id. Ian. Pont. nostr.

The Ides of January, of our pontificate.

Ao. XI. 1209.]

Year 11. 1209.]

CAP. XV.

CHAPTER 15.

Interdictum unde vi non competit contra illum, qui non spoliavit, nec spoliari mandavit, nec spoliationem ratam habuit.

The interdict unde vi does not lie against him who did not despoil, nor commanded spoliation, nor held the spoliation ratified.

Idem.

The same.

Quum ad sedem apostolicam accessissent olim A. venerabilis fratris nostri Cumani episcopi, et frater G. dilectorum filiorum fratrum hospitalis Hierosolymitani procuratores, et instrumenta nobis et acta causae, quae super ecclesia et hospitali de Monte Cinaro inter eos agitabatur, prout gesta fuerant, in praesentia venerabilis fratris nostri Papiensis episcopi, qui ex delegatione nostra de causa cognoverat, praesentassent, nos, diligenter inspectis quae coram eodem episcopo acta fuerant, haberi ea decrevimus pro infectis, quum constiterit nobis, eum in causa ipsa iudicem non fuisse, sicut ipsemet ad ultimum recognovit, eandem dilecto filio, Abbati de Accon. causam, quae super ecclesia et hospitali de Monte Citano inter eos vertebatur, de assensu partium taliter duximus committendam, ut audiret omnia tam ad possessorium quam ad petitorium iudicium pertinentia, quae utraque pars duceret proponenda, et causam ipsam fine debito terminaret. Coram quo postea procurator hospitalis Hierosolymitani ecclesiam et hospitale praedicta cum possessionibus et pertinentiis suis, quae tenebat, dictus Cumanus episcopus iniuste sibi restitui postulavit, asserens, illa de iure ad hospitale Hierosolymitanum spectare, et quod ipsa diutius possedisset.

When to the Apostolic See there had approached formerly A., our venerable brother, bishop of Cuma, and brother G., of the beloved sons, the brothers of the Hospital of Jerusalem, as procurators, and when they had presented to us the instruments and the acts of the case which was being agitated between them concerning the church and hospital of Monte Cinaro, just as they had been transacted, in the presence of our venerable brother the bishop of Pavia, who had learned of the case by our delegation, we, after diligently inspecting the things which had been done before the same bishop, decreed that they be held as not done, since it was established to us that he had not been a judge in that very case, as he himself at last acknowledged, the same to our beloved son, the Abbot of Acre. The cause, which was turning between them concerning the church and hospital of Monte Citano, by the assent of the parties, we deemed to be committed in such manner that he should hear all matters pertaining both to the possessory and to the petitory judgment, which either party would deem to be proposed, and should terminate the case itself with due end. Before whom afterwards the procurator of the Hospital of Jerusalem, the church and the hospital aforesaid, with their possessions and appurtenances, which he held, the said Cumanus bishop unjustly, he demanded to be restored to himself, asserting that those things by right belong to the Hospital of Jerusalem, and that it had possessed them for a longer time.

Ad quae respondit procurator episcopi, se nec scire, nec credere, supradicta unquam ab hospitali Hierosolymitano possessa, vel ad illud aliquatenus pertinere, quae Cumanus episcopus, utpote in sua dioecesi constituta, rationabiliter detinebat. Quum igitur ad fundandam intentionem suam pars utraque testes produceret, dictus abbas deinde utriusque partis attestationibus, rationibus et instrumentis inspectis, procuratorem episcopi condemnavit ad restitutionem omnium praedictorum. (Et infra:) Nuper autem utriusque partis procuratoribus propter hoc comparentibus coram nobis, prioris actis iudicii nobis fideliter praesentatis, causam ipsam interdum per nos, quandoque per dilectos filios nostros P. tit.

To which the procurator of the bishop replied that he neither knew nor believed that the aforesaid things were ever possessed by the Hospital of Jerusalem, or in any way pertained to it, which the bishop of Cuma, inasmuch as they were established in his diocese, was reasonably detaining. Since therefore, to found their claim, each party was producing witnesses, the said abbot, then, after the attestations, reasons, and instruments of both parties had been inspected, condemned the procurator of the bishop to the restitution of all the aforesaid. (And below:) But recently, the procurators of both parties, on account of this, appearing before us, the acts of the prior judgment having been faithfully presented to us, the case itself, sometimes by us, at times by our beloved sons P. tit.

S. Marcelli et R. tit. S. Anastasiae presbyteros cardinales examinavimus diligenter, et quidem per testes videbatur esse probatum, quod Cratus Cumani episcopi nuncius cruces Hospitalariis olim abstulit, inhibendo ipsis, ne ad supradictam ecclesiam vel hospitale redirent, et quod episcopus supradicta omnia possidebat, unde procurator Hospitalariorum petiit dictam restitutionis sententiam auctoritate apostolica confirmari. Ex adverso vero proponebatur, quod, etsi per testes forsan esset sufficienter ostensum, quod per nuncium episcopi fuerint Hospitalarii spoliati, quum tamen non constiterit, quod de mandato eius hoc fecerit, vel quod episcopus ratum habuerit factum ipsius, restitutio sibi locum non potuit vendicare, quanquam constaret episcopum praedicta tenere, qui utique ipsa de iure possidet, utpote ad se spectantia et in sua dioecesi constituta.

we diligently examined the presbyter cardinals of St. Marcellus and R., of the title of St. Anastasia, and indeed through witnesses it seemed to have been proved that Cratus, the messenger of the bishop of Cumae, had formerly taken away the crosses from the Hospitalers, forbidding them to return to the aforesaid church or hospital, and that the bishop possessed all the aforesaid things; whereupon the procurator of the Hospitalers sought to have the said sentence of restitution confirmed by apostolic authority. On the other side, however, it was proposed that, although perhaps it had been sufficiently shown by witnesses that through the bishop’s messenger the Hospitalers had been despoiled, since, however, it had not been established that he did this by his mandate, or that the bishop had held his act ratified, restitution could not claim a place for itself, although it was clear that the bishop held the aforesaid things, who assuredly possesses them by right, as pertaining to himself and situated in his diocese.

Sed ad hoc pars altera replicavit, quod, quamvis per dicta testium evidenter mandatum episcopi vel ratihabitio non probetur, quia tamen iudex motum animi potuit ex aliis causis informare, pro sententia erat merito praesumendum. His igitur et aliis intellectis, quae utriusque partis procuratores proponere curaverunt, Nos prioris acta iudicii, quae nobis fuerant, sicut praemissum est, plene ac fideliter praesentata, diligentius recensentes, quia nec per dicta testium, vel confessiones partium, quum nullae penitus in iudicio factae fuerint, vel etiam instrumenta, quae nullatenus de spoliatione tractabant, nec etiam per evidentiam facti nobis constare potuerit, quod Cumanus episcopus supradictos Hospitalarios spoliaverit, vel mandaverit spoliari, vel spoliationem factam saltem ratam habuerit, de consilio fratrum nostrorum pronunciavimus in quaestione praedicta, interdictum Unde vi locum nullatenus habuisse, restitutionis sententiam a praedicto abbate prolatam, licet pars adversa proponeret, quod praesumendum esset pro sententia iudicis, qui motum animi sui potuit ex causis aliis informare, iustitia exigente cassantes.

But to this the other party replied that, although by the statements of the witnesses the bishop’s mandate or ratihabition is not clearly proved, yet, because the judge could have informed the motion of his mind from other causes, it was deservedly to be presumed in favor of the sentence. These things therefore, and other things understood, which the procurators of each party took care to propose, We, reviewing more diligently the acts of the former judgment, which had been, as aforesaid, fully and faithfully presented to us, since neither by the statements of the witnesses, nor by the confessions of the parties—inasmuch as none at all had been made in the court—nor even by the instruments, which in no way treated of the despoiling, nor even by the evidence of the fact, could it be made clear to us that the Cuman bishop had despoiled the aforementioned Hospitalers, or had ordered them to be despoiled, or had at least held the despoiling that had been done as ratified, by the counsel of our brethren we pronounced in the aforesaid question that the interdict “Unde vi” had in no way had place, quashing, as justice required, the sentence of restitution delivered by the aforesaid abbot, although the opposing party was alleging that there was to be a presumption in favor of the judge’s sentence, who could have informed the motion of his mind from other causes.

CAP. XVI.

CHAPTER 16.

Exceptio inopiae, de qua constat, a clerico opposita, impedit exsecutionem sententiae, etiam latae in possessorio. H. d. comprehendendo mentem literae et veram lecturam.

The exception of indigence, which is established, when opposed by a cleric, impedes the execution of the sentence, even one rendered in a possessory action. H. d. by comprehending the mind of the letter and the true reading.

Idem.

The same.

Olim vobis dedisse meminimus in mandatis, ut venerabilem fratrem nostrum Ovetensem episcopum ad debitam partis restitutionem Zamorensis dioecesis, quam tenebat, cum perceptis fructibus restituere cogeretis, [si dilectum filium Rainerium prius, quam super hoc mandatum apostolicum adimpleret, viam ingredi contingeret omnis carnis.] Verum quoniam inanis est actio quam inopia debitoris excludit, [fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta] mandamus, quatenus non prius episcopum ipsum ad restitutionem fructuum compellatis, quam ipse fuerit taliter restitutus, ut restituere possit quod percepit de proventibus alienis. [Nos autem etc. Dat.

Once we remember to have given you in mandates, that you should compel our venerable brother, the bishop of Oviedo, to restore, to the due restitution of the part of the diocese of Zamora which he held, together with the fruits received, [if it should befall that the beloved son Rainerius, before he fulfilled the apostolic mandate on this, would enter the way of all flesh.] But since the action is vain which the poverty of the debtor excludes, [to your fraternity through apostolic writings] we command, that you not compel the bishop himself to the restitution of the fruits before he shall have been thus restored, that he may be able to restore what he received from others’ proceeds. [But we, etc. Given.

Rom. etc. V. Kal.

Rome, etc., 5th before the Kalends.

Iun. 1198.]

June 1198.]

CAP. XVII.

CHAPTER 17.

Per excommunicationis probationem non probatur quasi possessio iurisdictionis, licet aliquibus diebus fuerit observata; ideo petens restitutionem, hoc solo probato, succumbit. Hoc dicit quoad intellectum.

By the proof of excommunication, quasi-possession of jurisdiction is not proven, although it was observed for some days; therefore the one seeking restitution, this alone having been proven, succumbs. He says this as to the understanding.

Idem.

The same.

Olim inter te pro abbatia tua, et venerabilem fratrem nostrum Parisiensem episcopum nomine Parisiensis ecclesiae super possessione iuris parochialis in parochia de Monte quaestione suborta (Et infra:) Nos attendentes, quod ex eo solo, quod populus praedictae parochiae timore sententiae suae per aliquot dies abstinuit a divinis, nullam in eos iuris parochialis possessionem idem episcopus fuerit assecutus, nec fuerit aliquo modo probatum, quod, eo tempore, quo sententiam ipse protulit, possessionem in ipsis iuris parochialis haberet, vel prius etiam habuisset, restitutionem ei adiudicare de iure nequivimus, quum ipsum non constiterit spoliatum fuisse.

Formerly, between you on behalf of your abbacy, and our venerable brother the bishop of Paris in the name of the church of Paris, a question having arisen over the possession of parochial right in the parish of Mont (And below:) We, considering that from this alone, that the people of the aforesaid parish, from fear of his sentence, abstained from the divine offices for several days, the same bishop had achieved no possession of parochial right over them, nor was it proved in any way that, at the time when he himself pronounced the sentence, he had possession among them of parochial right, or had even had it before, we could not in law adjudge restitution to him, since it was not established that he had been despoiled to have been.

CAP. XVIII.

CHAPTER 18.

Recipiens scienter rem invasam a spoliatore, tenetur eam spoliato restituere, licet non probet dominium.

One who knowingly receives a thing seized by a despoiler is bound to restore it to the despoiled, even if he does not prove ownership.

Idem in concilio generali.

The same in the general council.

Saepe contingit, quod spoliatus iniuste, per spoliatorem in alium re translata, dum adversus possessorem non subvenitur per restitutionis beneficium spoliato, commodo possessionis amisso, propter difficultatem probationum iuris proprietatis amittit effectum. Unde, non obstante iuris civilis rigore, sancimus, ut, si quis de cetero scienter rem talem receperit, quum spoliatori quasi succedat in vitium eo, quod non multum intersit, [praesertim] quoad periculum animae, iniuste detinere ac invadere alienum, contra possessorem huiusmodi spoliato per restitutionis beneficium succuratur.

It often happens that the despoiled person unjustly, the thing having been transferred by the despoiler to another, while no aid is afforded to the despoiled against the possessor through the benefit of restitution, with the advantage of possession lost, loses the effect of the right of proprietorship on account of the difficulty of proofs. Whence, notwithstanding the rigor of civil law, we sanction that, if anyone henceforth shall have knowingly received such a thing, since he as it were succeeds to the despoiler in the fault, for the reason that it does not differ much, [especially] as to the peril of the soul, to unjustly detain and to invade what is another’s, the despoiled shall be succored against such a possessor by the benefit of restitution.

CAP. XIX.

CHAPTER 19.

Occupans certum locum, in quo quis iura libere possidebat, si per ipsius occupationem non potest possessor sua iura libere possidere sicut prius, conveniri potest possessorio pro libertate possidendi, et restitutio fieri non potest, nisi dimittat locum in pristina libertate. H. d. valde singulariter.

One occupying a certain place in which someone was freely possessing rights—if through his occupation the possessor is not able to possess his rights freely as before—can be convened in a possessory action for the liberty of possessing; and restitution cannot be effected unless he releases the place into its pristine liberty. H. d. very singularly.

Gregorius IX. Episcopo Lucano.

Gregory 9. To the Lucanian Bishop.

Pisanis ac Lucanis civibus per gravem discordiam, quam diu inter se habuerant, afflictis graviter et attritis (Et infra:) P. subdiacono nostro dedimus in mandatis, ut possessione, quam in quibusdam castris constat Lucanam ecclesiam habuisse, sibi prius plene ac libere, sicut tempore motae discordiae habuerat, restituta, et super ea, de qua dubietas oriretur, sufficienti cautione recepta, quod iuri coram nobis praedicti Pisani parerent, prolatas pro occupatione castrorum ipsorum in eos sententias relaxaret. (Et infra:) Pisanis igitur asserentibus, quod per te stabat, quo minus tibi iuxta mandatum nostrum fieret restitutio, et instanter petentibus, ut dictas sententias praefatus subdiaconus relaxaret, ipse, receptis cautionibus de parendo iustitiae coram nobis, sententias relaxavit easdem, propter quod tu reputans te gravatum ad nostram praesentiam accessisti, impugnaturus processum subdiaconi saepe dicti. (Et infra:) Porro duo in nostro continebantur mandato, ut videlicet possessio, quam constabat Lucanam ecclesiam habuisse tempore motae discordiae, prius restitueretur eidem, et ut eiusdem possessionis restitutio fieret plene ac libere, sicut eam habuerat tempore supradicto, quorum primum ad factum, alterum vero referebatur ad modum.

With the Pisan and Lucanian citizens grievously afflicted and worn down by the grave discord which they had long had between themselves (And below:) we gave to our subdeacon P. a mandate that, the possession which it is established the Lucanian church had in certain castles having first been restored to it fully and freely, just as it had had it at the time the discord was stirred up, and, upon sufficient caution being received concerning that point about which doubt might arise, that the aforesaid Pisans would obey the law before us, he should relax the sentences pronounced against them for the occupation of those castles. (And below:) Therefore, the Pisans asserting that it was owing to you that restitution was not made to you according to our mandate, and urgently requesting that the aforesaid subdeacon relax the said sentences, he, after receiving cautions to comply with justice before us, relaxed those same sentences; wherefore you, deeming yourself aggrieved, came into our presence, intending to impugn the proceeding of the oft-mentioned subdeacon. (And below:) Moreover, two things were contained in our mandate, namely, that the possession which it was established the Lucanian church had at the time the discord was stirred up should first be restored to it, and that the restitution of that same possession should be made fully and freely, just as it had had it at the aforesaid time, of which the first pertained to the fact, but the other referred to the mode.

Unde licet, prout pars Pisanorum dicebat, in facto mandati formam subdiaconus ipse adimplere nequiverit, quia non poterat facere tibi restitui possessionem castrorum, de qua non constabat eidem, nec etiam, secundum quod tu ipse dicebas, affictuum et pensionum possessio poterat tibi restitui, quia ea non fueras spoliatus, fuit tamen in modo peccatum, quia debuit facere, ut Pisani possessionem pensionum et affictuum, quam per eorum confessionem constabat te in castris praedictis habere, tibi dimitterent plene ac libere, sicut ecclesia tua illam habuerat tempore motae discordiae, quod quidem esse non poterat, nisi Pisani castra ipsa omnino dimitterent, quia illis detinentibus castra et munitiones castrorum, in quibus dictas pensiones recipis et affictus, ea plene ac libere habere non posses, sicut habebas, quando ipsi castra eadem minime detinebant, eo, quod, quamdiu ea detinent, in eorum potestate relinquitur, te non admittere vel repellere, quando velint. His ergo diligenter auditis, processum huiusmodi de fratrum nostrorum consilio irritum iudicamus.

Whence, although, as the party of the Pisans said, in the matter of fact the subdeacon himself was unable to fulfill the form of the mandate, because he could not cause the possession of the castles to be restored to you, concerning which it was not established to him, nor yet, according to what you yourself said, could the possession of afficts (ground-rents) and pensions be restored to you, because you had not been despoiled of them, nevertheless there was fault in the manner: for he ought to have procured that the Pisans should cede to you fully and freely the possession of the pensions and afficts, which by their confession it was established that you had in the aforesaid castles, just as your church had had it at the time of the stirred-up discord; which indeed could not be, unless the Pisans altogether relinquished the castles themselves, because, with them detaining the castles and the fortifications of the castles in which you receive the said pensions and afficts, you could not have them fully and freely, as you had them when they in no way were detaining the same castles, since, so long as they detain them, it remains in their power to admit you or to repel you when they wish. Therefore, these things having been diligently heard, by the counsel of our brothers we judge a proceeding of this kind void.

TITULUS XIV. DE DOLO ET CONTUMACIA.

TITLE 14. ON DECEIT AND CONTUMACY.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Reus, qui mittendum in possessionem ad mandatmn iudicis non admisit, non mulctabitur de canonica aequitate, si infra annum caveat stare iuri. H. d.

The defendant, who did not admit the sending into possession at the mandate of the judge, will not be mulcted by canonical equity, if within a year he gives caution to abide by the law. H. d.

Alexander III. Herfordensi Episcopo.

Alexander 3. To the Bishop of Hereford.

Ad haec quum contingat, actorem multoties mittendum esse in possessionem causa rei servandae propter absentiam partis adversae, et per eius dolum sive potentiam non possit actor rem custodiendam nancisci, ac imminente fine anni reus, ne possessionem amittat, debitam offerat cautionem, cuiusmodi sit poena reus mulctandus, quia iussioni non paruit iudicis, a nobis tua fraternitas requisivit. Ad quod dicimus, quod in ecclesiasticis personis et negotiis rigor et districtio iuris non requiritur, nec exercetur; sed, quum iustitia propter hoc non periclitatur, patienter tolerari et admitti debet, quum reus per cautionem standi iudicio se adstringit.

To these things, since it happens that the plaintiff must many times be sent into possession for the sake of preserving the thing on account of the absence of the opposing party, and through his fraud or power the plaintiff cannot obtain the thing to be guarded, and with the end of the year impending the defendant, lest he lose possession, offers the due caution, of what sort the penalty is with which the defendant is to be mulcted, because he did not obey the judge’s order, your fraternity has asked of us. To which we say, that in ecclesiastical persons and affairs the rigor and coercion of law are not required, nor is it exercised; but, since justice is not endangered on this account, it ought patiently to be tolerated and admitted, when the defendant by caution binds himself to stand to judgment.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Propter contumaciam rei potest iudex rem petitam sequestrare, et ipsum contumacem in expensis condemnare, quas propter ipsius contumaciam vel dolosam exceptionem actor fecit. Hoc dicit Panorm.

On account of the contumacy of the defendant, the judge can sequester the thing sought, and condemn the contumacious one himself in the expenses which the actor incurred because of his contumacy or a dolose exception. Thus says Panorm.

Idem Abbati de Ramese et Archidiacono Heliensi.

The same. To the Abbot of Ramsey and the Archdeacon of Ely.

Ex literis vestris ad nos directis accepimus, quod, quum vobis causam, quae inter dilectos filios nostros monachos de Etoll. et canonicos Linconenses nec non etiam Gervasium clericum super ecclesiis de V. et M. vertitur, duxerimus committendam, et canonici citati legitime se contumaciter absentaverint, vos, licet monachi essent ob contumaciam adversae partis in possessionem rerum petitarum mittendi, intuitu tamen religionis suae cum eis mitius agere volentes, possessionem sequestrari fecistis, ut sic saltem canonici affecti taedio stare iudicio cogerentur. Tandem vero, partibus in praesentia vestra constitutis, et memoratis monachis ecclesias sibi restitui postulantibus, canonici responderunt, auctoritatem vestram penitus exspirasse eo, quod a nobis ad alios iudices literas impetrarunt, quae praeiudicare prioribus videbantur.

From your letters sent to us we have received that, when we judged that the cause which is being contested between our beloved sons the monks of Etoll. and the canons of Lincoln, and also Gervase the cleric, concerning the churches of V. and M., was to be committed to you, and the canons, having been lawfully cited, contumaciously absented themselves, you—although the monks, on account of the contumacy of the adverse party, were to be sent into possession of the things sought—yet, wishing to deal more mildly with them out of regard for their religion, caused the possession to be sequestered, so that thus at least the canons, being affected with weariness, might be forced to stand to judgment. Finally, indeed, the parties having been set in your presence, and the aforesaid monks asking that the churches be restored to them, the canons answered that your authority had utterly expired, for this reason: that they had obtained letters from us to other judges, which seemed to prejudice the prior ones.

Verum quoniam in posterioribus literis non fuit mentio facta priorum, nec in eis nomina continebantur ecclesiarum, quae in prioribus posita fuerant, sed indefinite dicebatur: super quibusdam ecclesiis: nos attendentes, malitiam et dolum nulli patrocinari debere, et nolentes tantam illusionem impunitam relinquere discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus, quum exinde requisiti fueritis, partes ante vestram convocetis praesentiam, et praedictam causam secundum formam priorum literarum, non obstantibus posterioribus, terminetis, expensas, quas propter hoc monachi fecisse noscuntur, eis a canonicis restitui facientes.

However, since in the later letters no mention was made of the earlier, nor did they contain the names of the churches which had been set forth in the earlier, but it was said indefinitely: concerning certain churches: we, considering that malice and deceit ought to patronize no one, and, unwilling to leave so great an illusion unpunished, by prescribing to your discretion through apostolic writings, command that, when you have thereupon been required, you convene the parties before your presence, and that you determine the aforesaid cause according to the form of the earlier letters, the later notwithstanding, causing the expenses which the monks are known to have incurred on this account to be restored to them by the canons.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Actore contumace testes recipi et sententia ferri debent, etiam lite non contestata, reo instante. Hoc dicit secundum communem intellectum.

With the plaintiff contumacious, witnesses ought to be received and sentence to be delivered, even with the suit not contested, at the defendant’s insistence. He says this according to the common understanding.

Idem Exonensi et Vintoniensi Episcopis et Abbati Herfordensi.

The same to the Bishops of Exeter and Winchester, and to the Abbot of Herford.

Causam, quae inter nobiles viros F. et R. de Ardenna quondam filium Agathae de nativitate ipsius vertitur, vobis, fratres episcopi, et venerabili fratri nostro Londonensi episcopo sub certa forma commisimus terminandam. (Et infra: cf. c. 17.de off. iud.

The case, which is in dispute between noble men F. and R., of Ardenne, the son of the late Agatha, concerning his own birth, we have committed to you, brother bishops, and to our venerable brother the bishop of London to be concluded under a certain form. (And below: cf. c. 17.on the office of judges.

del. I. 29.) Ceterum, si adversarius suus legitime citatus ad praesentiam vestram accedere, vel iudicio vestro parere contempserit, aut etiam si ita, sicut nobis proponitur, se absentaverit a multis retro diebus, quum de Anglia recessisse dicatur, nec in terra postea manifeste comparuisse, neque ad praesentiam vestram accesserit, procuratorem eius, si quem forte reliquerit, ad praesentiam vestram nihilominus convocetis, qui sive procurator venerit sive non, aut si procuratorem non dimisit, denunciationibus [omnibus] ad domum eius missis, secundum ordinem iuris causam audiatis attentius, et receptis testibus alterius partis, infra tres menses post harum literarum susceptionem iuxta dictam formam sublato appellationis obstaculo ad proferendam sententiam procedatis, ita quod ultra tres menses causam ipsam decidere minime differatis, nullis obstantibus literis, sive quae de restitutione possessionis R. de Ardenna facienda, sive quae de possessionis iudicio regi relinquendo fecerint mentionem, sive quibuslibet aliis, quae antea fuerint impetratae, aut si quas in posterum, non exposito tenore literarum istarum contigerit impetrari. Sane si intra praescriptum tempus nequiveritis vel nolueritis in eorum quae dicta sunt, exsecutione procedere, volumus quod commissio nostra debeat propter hoc exspirare.

del. 1. 29.) Moreover, if his adversary, having been legitimately cited, has scorned to come to your presence or to obey your judgment, or even as it is set forth to us has absented himself for many days past, since he is said to have withdrawn from England, and has not afterwards manifestly appeared in the land, nor come into your presence, you shall summon his procurator nonetheless into your presence, if he has by chance left any; and whether the procurator shall have come or not, or if he did not appoint a procurator, with denunciations [all] sent to his house, according to the order of law you shall hear the cause attentively, and having received the witnesses of the other party, within three months after the reception of these letters, according to the said form, the obstacle of appeal having been removed, you shall proceed to render sentence, such that you by no means defer deciding the case itself beyond three months, with no letters standing in the way, whether those which have made mention of the restitution to be made of the possession of R. of Ardenna, or those which have made mention of leaving the judgment of possession to the king, or any others whatsoever which were previously obtained, or if any in future should happen to be obtained without the tenor of these letters having been set forth. But if within the prescribed time you have been unable or unwilling to proceed to execution in the things that have been said, we will that our commission ought on this account to expire.

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Si reus post litem contestatam est contumax, si alias liquet de causa, fertur diffinitiva sententia; si non liquet, actor in veram possessionem inducitur.

If the defendant, after the suit has been contested, is contumacious, if otherwise it is clear about the case, a definitive sentence is delivered; if it is not clear, the plaintiff is inducted into true possession.

Urbanus III. de Novo loco et de Viger. Prioribus.

Urban III. To the Priors of Novo Loco and Viger.

Prout nobis vestris literis annotastis etc. (Et infra:) Reum, quia contumaciter a praesentia vestra recesserat, iuratoriam coegistis exponere cautionem, quod coram vobis per omnia iuri pareret; quumque die praefixa vestro se conspectui praesentasset, praetextu advocati, quem non habebat, respondere solita malitia recusavit. Tandem actore instante respondit, quod quadraginta annis decimas, de quibus erat contentio, percepisset, variisque postmodum excusationibus utens in vocem appellationis prorupit, et contumaciter iuramento contempto recessit. Ideoque vobis praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus ad convincendam eius malitiam semel eum ad praesentiam vestram convocetis, et, si venerit, audiatis quae fuerint proponenda, et appellatione cessante finem imponatis negotio competentem.

As you have noted to us by your letters, etc. (And below:) The defendant, because he had contumaciously withdrawn from your presence, you compelled to set forth juratory security, that before you he would, in all things, obey the law; and when, on the day fixed, he presented himself to your sight, under the pretext of an advocate, which he did not have, he refused to answer with his customary malice. At length, with the plaintiff pressing, he answered that for forty years he had received the tithes about which there was contention, and afterwards, using various excuses, burst out into a voice of appeal, and contumaciously departed, his oath scorned. Therefore, by commanding you we order that, to overcome his malice, you summon him once to your presence; and, if he shall come, hear what shall be proposed, and, the appeal ceasing, impose a fitting end upon the business.

Quod si vocatus venire contempserit, vos nihilominus causam, utpote lite, quae ingeritur, contestata, diffinitiva sententia terminetis, vel praesenti saltem adiudicetis possessionem, servata duntaxat quaestione proprietatis absenti. Super eo vero etc. (cf. c.4.de paroch. III.29.)

But if, though called, he should contemn to come, you nonetheless should terminate the cause, inasmuch as the suit which is brought has had the issue joined, by a definitive sentence, or at least adjudge possession to the party present, the question of property being preserved solely for the absent. Concerning this matter indeed, etc. (cf. c.4.de paroch. 3.29.)

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Qui fundata intentione actoris exceptionem peremptoriam obiicit, quam non probat in continenti, sed accipit inducias, si defecerit in probando, condemnatur in continenti, diffinitiva non exspectata, in expensis, ac solvere cogitur; quod si non potest, punietur in corpus secundum arbitrium iudicis. H. d. notab. iste text.

He who, with the plaintiff’s intention founded, objects a peremptory exception, which he does not prove on the spot but obtains a respite, if he fails in proving, is condemned on the spot, without a definitive sentence being awaited, in the expenses, and is compelled to pay; but if he cannot, he will be punished in his body according to the judge’s arbitrium. Here note: this text.

secundum lecturam, quae placet Panorm.

according to the reading which pleases the Panormitan.

Innocentius III.

Innocent III.

Finem litibus cupientes imponi, ne partes ultra modum graventur laboribus et expensis, praesertim quum de beneficiis vel officiis ecclesiasticis litigatur, quae sine dispendio diu vacare non possunt, praesenti decreto statuimus, ut, postquam intentionem suam altera pars fundaverit, si reliqua forte voluerit legitimam exceptionem opponere, quam nolit aut nequeat in continenti probare, quia frequenter ad impediendum vel differendum processum exceptiones huiusmodi per excogitatam malitiam opponuntur, ad solvendas alteri parti moderatas expensas extunc in iudicio faciendas, cum acceptis induciis, si forsitan in probatione defecerit, condemnetur. Et si solvendo non fuerit, alias secundum arbitrium discreti iudicis puniatur, ut hoc saltem timore perterritus non facile quis in gravamen alterius falsas exceptiones opponat.

Desiring that an end be imposed to lawsuits, lest the parties be burdened beyond measure with labors and expenses, especially when there is litigation concerning ecclesiastical benefices or offices, which cannot remain vacant long without loss, by the present decree we establish that, after one party has grounded its claim, if the other should perchance wish to oppose a legitimate exception which it is unwilling or unable to prove on the spot, since such exceptions are frequently put forward by contrived malice to impede or defer the process, it shall be condemned to pay to the other party the moderate costs to be incurred from then on in the suit, with continuances granted, if perhaps it should fail in the proof. And if it be not solvent, let it otherwise be punished according to the discretion of the discreet judge, so that, terrified at least by this fear, no one may easily, to the prejudice of another, oppose false exceptions.

CAP. VI.

CHAPTER 6.

Citatus ad totam causam, certo termino ad comparendum assignato, tenetur comparere in termino, et dato impedimento in termino debet comparere quam citius potest post terminum; alias condemnabitur in expensis a tempore citationis emissae.

Cited to the whole cause, with a certain term assigned for appearing, he is bound to appear within the term; and, if an impediment has arisen within the term, he ought to appear as soon as he can after the term; otherwise he shall be condemned in expenses from the time of the citation issued.

Idem Praenestino Episcopo apostolicae sedis Legato et Decano Brinensi.

The same to the Bishop of Praeneste, Legate of the Apostolic See, and to the Dean of Brindisi.

Quum dilecti filii magister S. Leodiensis et H. Laudunensis canonici nuncii dilecti filii H. dicti Leodicensis electi pro eo quondam ad sedem apostolicam accessissent, dilectus filius [L.] archidiaconus et H. canonicus Leodicensis ecclesiae nomine suo et quorundam concanonicorum suorum, L. archidiaconi, H. cantoris, L. praepositi sancti Petri et quorundam aliorum, quorum literas super eodem negotio nobis exhibuere de rato, ad nostram postmodum praesentiam venientes, contra eundem electum quaedam crimina proponebant, per quae nitebantur eum ab electione Leodiensis ecclesiae repellere ut indignum. (Et infra:) Quamvis autem ex eo, quod idem electus a gravamine adversae partis appellaverit, et appellationem non fuerit interpositam per sufficientes procuratores, quum possit, illis prosequentibus, prosecutus, his non levis exorta esset suspicio contra eum, volentes tamen in omnibus iuris ordinem observare, ipsi districte praecipiendo mandamus, quatenus usque ad dominicam, qua cantatur: Ego sum pastor bonus, transactam per se vel per procuratorem sufficientem sufficienter instructum, ne postmodum per dilationes vel occasiones quaslibet subterfugere videretur examen, ad praesentiam nostram accederet, super praedictis omnibus responsurus; alioquin, quum assignaremus ei pro peremptorio terminum supradictum, sciret, quod, quantum de iure possemus, procederemus extunc in negotio memorato. Exspectantibus igitur adversariis eius apud apostolicam sedem, ipsum diu etiam ultra terminum duximus exspectandum; sed ipse nec venit, nec sufficientem procuratorem direxit, sed simplicem solummodo nuncium excusationis eius literas afferentem.

When the beloved sons, master S., a Liège canon, and H., a Laon canon, envoys of the beloved son H., the so-called elect of Liège, had formerly come to the Apostolic See on his behalf, the beloved son [L.] the archdeacon and H., a canon of the church of Liège, in his own name and in that of certain of his fellow-canons, L., the archdeacon; H., the cantor; L., the provost of Saint Peter’s; and certain others, whose letters to us on the same business they exhibited as ratified, afterwards coming into our presence, were alleging certain crimes against that same elect, by which they strove to repel him from the election of the church of Liège as unworthy. (And below:) Although, moreover, from the fact that that same elect appealed from the grievance of the adverse party, and the appeal had not been interposed by sufficient procurators, since he could, with them prosecuting, have prosecuted it, from this no light suspicion arose against him, nevertheless, wishing in all things to observe the order of law, we, strictly enjoining, command him that by the Sunday on which it is sung, I am the good shepherd, having the matter conducted by himself or by a sufficient procurator sufficiently instructed, lest thereafter by delays or by any occasions he might seem to evade the examination, he should come into our presence to answer concerning all the aforesaid; otherwise, since we assigned to him as peremptory the aforesaid term, let him know that, so far as by right we can, we would proceed thenceforth in the aforesaid business. Therefore, with his adversaries of his at the Apostolic See awaiting, we deemed that he should be awaited long, even beyond the term; but he neither came, nor [did he] send a sufficient procurator, but only a simple messenger bringing letters of his excuse.

Scribebat enim, quod praedictum magistrum S. nuncium suum, cui nos, quum a nobis recederet, iniunximus viva voce, ut citaret eundem, sero receperat; unde non poterat, tum propter termini brevitatem, tum propter viarum discrimina, nostro se conspectui praesentare. Sed contra hoc faciebat, quod, sicut excusatorem ad nos direxerat, sic dirigere potuerat responsalem, quum ei non fuisset iniunctum, ut ad causam in propria persona duntaxat veniret, sed vel ipse accederet, vel procuratorem idoneum destinaret. Praeterea quum mandatur alicui, ut ad certum terminum se iudici repraesentet, duo sub hac forma mandantur, ut ad iudicem veniat, et ad diem sibi praefixam accedat.

For he wrote that he had received late the aforesaid master S., his envoy, to whom we, when he was departing from us, had enjoined viva voce that he summon the same; whence he was not able, both on account of the brevity of the term and on account of the perils of the roads, to present himself to our sight. But this was countered by the fact that, just as he had sent to us an excuser, so he could have directed a responsal, since it had not been enjoined upon him that he come to the case only in his own person, but either that he himself should come, or should dispatch a suitable procurator. Moreover, when it is mandated to someone that he present himself to the judge at a certain term, two things are mandated under this form: that he come to the judge, and that he accede to the day appointed for him.

Unde si venire non possit ad diem assignatum, tenetur nihilominus se iudici praesentare, sicut ratio suggerit et legitima sanctio manifestat. Si enim mandatur alicui, ut alii ad certum diem certam rem exsolvat, non ideo erit a mandato solutus, si solvere nequiverit die data; immo ad solutionem elapso etiam die solutioni praefixo tenetur. Quapropter quia dictus electus nec venerat, nec sufficientem miserat responsalem, ad diem sibi statutum vel post etiam diutius exspectatus, nec de vicino eius adventu spes erat, utpote qui per literas utcunque excusaverat moram suam, et calores aestivos et insidias sibi positas formidabat, eum de consilio fratrum nostrorum reputavimus contumacem, et ad legitimas et moderatas expensas, quas adversarii eius fecerant a tempore citationis emissae, quem extunc exspectare inceperant, ipsum curavimus condemnare, quod de H. praeposito sancti Dionysii dicebatur interim ab aliquibus attentatum fricolum reputantes.

Whence, if he cannot come to the assigned day, he is nonetheless bound to present himself to the judge, as reason suggests and a legitimate sanction makes manifest. For if one is commanded to pay out to another a certain thing on a certain day, he will not on that account be released from the mandate if he has been unable to pay on the given day; rather, he remains bound to the payment even after the day fixed for payment has elapsed. Wherefore, because the said elect neither came nor sent a sufficient responsal, having been awaited on the day appointed for him and even longer thereafter, nor was there hope of his arrival being near, inasmuch as he had in some fashion excused his delay by letters and was fearing the summer heats and ambushes laid for him, we, by the counsel of our brothers, judged him contumacious, and took care to condemn him to the legitimate and moderate expenses which his adversaries had incurred a the time of the citation issued, from which time they had begun to await him, considering as frivolous what in the meantime was said by some to have been attempted concerning H., the provost of Saint Denis.

CAP. VII.

CHAPTER 7.

Sententia in causa beneficiali non transit in rem iudicatam respectu superioris, quo minus possit de iuribus partium inquirere, maxime quando sententia fuit lata contra absentem, licet contumaciter et indefensum.

A sentence in a benefice cause does not pass into res judicata with respect to the superior, so as to prevent him from inquiring into the rights of the parties, especially when the sentence was delivered against an absent person, albeit contumacious and undefended.

Idem Armachano et Caselensi Archiepiscopo.

The same to the Archbishop of Armagh and of Cashel.

Quum olim D. clericus Coelestino Papae praedecessori nostro, diversis praelatorum Hyberniae literis praesentatis, se assereret in episcopum Roscensem fuisse electum, nullusque appareret, qui aliquid contra eum proponeret: dictus praedecessor noster ei per bonae memoriae A. Albanensem episcopum munus fecit consecrationis impendi, et ad suam eum remisit ecclesiam consecratum. Postmodum vero dilecti filii F. et G. monachi ad eiusdem praedecessoris nostri praesentiam accedentes, uterque se asseruit a canonicis Roscensis ecclesiae fuisse electum, et idem F., quod praedictus D. ad eandem ecclesiam apud sedem apostolicam, quam per falsas literas circumvenerat, fuerat consecratus, exposuit. Propter quod idem praedecessor noster causam eorum vobis, fratres, Cassellensis et Laonensis episcopi, sub ea forma commisit, ut de forma et processu electionis memorati D. sollicite quaereretis, et, si eum electum canonice fuisse constaret ipsum faceretis pacifica possessione gaudere; alioquin inter praedictos F. et G. audiretis causam, et cuius electionem canonicam et magis rationabiliter factam inveneritis, ratione praevia, alterius curaretis electioni praeferre, ac tu, frater Cassellensis, alterum, quem rationabiliter duceres confirmandum, in episcopum consecrares. Verum, sicut ex literis vestris accepimus, quum dictae commissionis vobis fuissent literae praesentatae, iuxta tenorem earum primo de electione praedicti D. inquirere voluistis, quumque a vobis dictus D. tertio citatus vestro se nollet conspectui praesentare, procedentes in causa, tam ex testimonio cleri et populi Roscensis ecclesiae, quam ex assertione illustris regis Coarcaiae et praelatorum ipsius provinciae, de praedicto F. electionem fuisse celebratam canonice didicistis, et eam postmodum curastis auctoritate apostolica confirmare, praesertim quum capitulum Roscensis ecclesiae dictum D. se non elegisse constanter assereret, nec de praedicti G. monachi electione aliquatenus cogitasse. Interim autem memoratus D. ad apostolicam sedem accedens, [et] nullam penitus de commissione praedicta, vel etiam de praedictorum electionibus faciens mentionem, [nobis suggerere non expavit, quod quum ad Roscensem dioecesia cum praedictis praedecessoris nostri literis remearet, supradictus rex Corcaiae ipsi fecerat inhiberi, ne dioecesin vel ecclesiam Roscensem intraret, donec ei certam solveret vel saltem promitteret pecuniae quantitatem.

When once D., a cleric, to Pope Celestine, our predecessor, having presented diverse letters of the prelates of Hibernia, asserted that he had been elected bishop of Ross, and no one appeared who would allege anything against him, our said predecessor caused by A., bishop of Albano, of good memory, the office of consecration to be conferred upon him, and sent him back consecrated to his church. Afterwards indeed the beloved sons F. and G., monks, coming into the presence of that same our predecessor, each asserted that he had been elected by the canons of the church of Ross, and the same F. set forth that the aforesaid D. had been consecrated to the same church at the Apostolic See, which he had circumvented by false letters, he explained. Wherefore that same our predecessor committed their case to you, brethren, the bishops of Cashel and of Laon, under this form, that you should diligently inquire into the form and process of the election of the aforesaid D., and, if it were established that he had been canonically elected, you should cause him to enjoy peaceful possession; otherwise you should hear the case between the aforesaid F. and G., and whose election you should find to be canonical and more reasonably made, reason going before, you should take care to prefer the election of that one, and you, brother of Cashel, should consecrate the other, whom you should deem reasonably to be confirmed, as bishop. But, as we have gathered from your letters, when the letters of the said commission had been presented to you, according to their tenor you wished first to inquire about the election of the aforesaid D., and when the said D., cited by you a third time, was unwilling to present himself to your sight, proceeding in the case, both from the testimony of the clergy and people of the church of Ross and from the assertion of the illustrious king of Coarcaia and the prelates of that province, you learned that the election of the aforesaid F. had been celebrated canonically, and afterwards you took care to confirm it by apostolic authority, especially since the chapter of the church of Ross steadfastly asserted that it had not elected the said D., nor had it in any way thought about the election of the aforesaid monk G. Meanwhile the aforesaid D., coming to the Apostolic See, [and] making absolutely no mention at all of the aforesaid commission, or even of the aforesaid elections, [did not fear to suggest to us that when he was returning to the Roscensian diocese with the aforesaid letters of our predecessor, the above-said king of Corcaia had caused it to be prohibited to him that he should enter the diocese or the church of Ross, until he should pay to him, or at least promise, a certain quantity of money.

Quum autem postmodum amici eius praeter ipsius conscientiam certa regi munera promisissent, ipse ad ecclesiam suam admissus, in ea per annum dimidium ministravit. Sed quum promissam ab amicis suis pecuniam noluisset exsolvere, rex ira commotus decano mandavit, ut ei reverentiam nullatenus exhiberet. Qui licet dicto D. iuramento teneretur adstrictus, quia tamen ab eo pro filio suo adhuc parvo archidiaconatum non potuit obtinere, quinta feria maioris hebdomadae oleum, quod benedici debuerat, furari praesumpsit; et quamvis propter hoc ab eo fuerit excommunicationis vinculo innodatus, nihilominus tamen tertia feria septimanae sequentis Roscensis ecclesiae libros surripuit, et ad regem contra ipsum se transferre minime dubitavit.

But when afterwards his friends, beyond his own knowledge, had promised certain gifts to the king, he himself, admitted to his church, ministered in it for half a year. But when he was unwilling to disburse the money promised by his friends, the king, moved by ire, commanded the dean that he should in no way exhibit reverence to him. He, although held constrained by oath to the said D., yet because he could not obtain from him the archdeaconry for his son still small, on the Thursday of the Greater Week presumed to steal the oil which ought to have been blessed; and although on account of this he had been knotted by him in the bond of excommunication, nonetheless on the Tuesday of the following week he purloined the books of the Roscensian church, and did not at all hesitate to transfer himself to the king against him.

Quorum duorum molestiis fatigatus, terram ipsius regis coactus exivit, propter quod a nobis ad venerabilem fratrem nostrum Fernensem episcopum et coniudices suos literas impetravit, qui memoratum regem diligentius inducerent et monerent, ut ipsum sine alicuius exactione pecuniae ad ecclesiam suam secure redire permitteret, et administrationem episcopatus tam in temporalibus quam spiritualibus exercere; alioquin eum excommunicationis vinculo innodarent, et terram eius subiicerent interdicto, neutram relaxaturi sententiam, donec super receptione ipsius mandatum apostolicum adimpleret; memoratum quoque decanum, si eis de praemissis constaret, ab officio beneficioque suspensum ad sedem apostolicam venire compellerent, et, donec resipisceret, excommunicatum facerent publice nunciari.] Praeterea super quibusdam aliis gravaminibus et iniuriis contra dictum F. et quosdam alios literas impetravit, [asserens eundem episcopum iura Roscensis ecclesiae detinere, ac eundem F. monachum in archidiaconum et clericos manus iniecisse temere violentas. Ceterum eodem D. a nobis cum huiusmodi literis recedente, fere post trium mensium spatium] dictus F. monachus ad sedem apostolicam accessit, et postmodum ex parte vestra nobis literas praesentavit, quae qualiter a vobis in commissione praedicta processum fuerat continebant. Cum fratribus igitur nostris habito super hoc diligenti tractatu, timentes, ne, sicut praedecessor noster per literas, quas idem D. ei praesentaverat, dicitur circumventus, nos etiam circumveniri contingeret per literas vestras, nobis ab eodem monacho praesentatas, Volentes igitur adhuc misericorditer agere cum absente, ut [et] eius malitia [fortius] convicatur, dictum F. monachum ad vos communiter duximus remittendum, fraternitati vestrae per apostolica scripta districtius praecipiendo mandantes, quatenus eo non obstante, quod eiusdem F. fuit electio confirmata, saepe dictum D., si in Hibernia poterit inveniri, legitime citetis ad causam, et, facultate sibi defensionis indulta, solum Deum habentes prae oculis in causa ipsa canonice procedatis.

Wearied by the molestations of these two, he was compelled to go out of the land of that king; wherefore he obtained from us letters to our venerable brother, the bishop of Ferns, and his co-judges, that they should more diligently induce and admonish the aforesaid king to permit him to return securely to his church without any exaction of money, and to exercise the administration of the bishopric both in temporals and in spirituals; otherwise they should bind him with the bond of excommunication and subject his land to interdict, to relax neither sentence until he should fulfill the apostolic mandate concerning his reception; and that they should also compel the aforesaid dean, if the facts aforesaid should be established to them, suspended from office and benefice, to come to the apostolic see, and should have him be publicly announced as excommunicated until he should come to his senses.] Moreover, concerning certain other grievances and injuries against the said F. and certain others he obtained letters, [asserting that the same bishop detains the rights of the church of Ross, and that the same monk F. had rashly laid violent hands upon the archdeacon and clerics. However, with the same D. departing from us with letters of this kind, almost after the space of three months] the said F. the monk came to the apostolic see, and afterward on your part presented letters to us, which contained how it had been proceeded by you in the aforesaid commission. Therefore, having held with our brothers a diligent deliberation on this, fearing lest, just as our predecessor is said to have been circumvented by the letters which the same D. had presented to him, it might happen that we also be circumvented through your letters, presented to us by the same monk, Wishing therefore still to act mercifully with the absentee, that [also] his malice [more strongly] be convicted, we have deemed the said F. the monk to be sent back to you jointly, more strictly commanding through apostolic writings your fraternity, mandating that, this notwithstanding, that the election of that same F. was confirmed, you lawfully cite the oft-said D., if he can be found in Ireland, to the cause, and, with the faculty of defense granted to him, having only God before your eyes proceed canonically in that cause.

Qui si inventus infra tres menses vestro se conspectui contempserit praesentare, ad consecrationem dicti F., omni occasione postposita procedatis. Si autem in Hibernia inventus non fuerit, indulto sibi unius anni spatio, ex quo ad nos, etsi non verbo, facto tamen intelligitur provocasse, arrepto itinere ad sedem apostolicam veniendi, dicto F. administrationem Roscensis ecclesiae in spiritualibus et temporalibus committatis, quo elapso eum non differatis in episcopum consecrare. [Ne autem etc.

If he, being found within three months, shall have scorned to present himself to your sight, proceed to the consecration of the said F., every pretext set aside. But if he shall not have been found in Ireland, a space of one year being granted to him from the point at which he is understood to have appealed to us, even if not by word yet in fact, having taken up the journey to come to the apostolic see, commit to the said F. the administration of the Church of Ross in spirituals and temporals; and, when that has elapsed, do not defer to consecrate him as bishop. [Lest however etc.

Dat. Perusii XV. Kal. Oct. 1198.]

Dated at Perugia, September 17. 1198.]

CAP. VIII.

CHAPTER 8.

Si proceditur per viam inquisitionis contra absentem contumaciter, etiam lite non contestata testes recipi possunt, et sententia diffinitiva ferri, etiam per viam depositionis, si hoc meretur delictum.

If it is proceeded by the way of inquisition against one contumaciously absent, even with the suit not contested, witnesses can be received, and a definitive sentence can be delivered, even by the way of deposition, if the delict merits this.

Idem.

The same.

Veritatis est verbum organo dominicae vocis emissum, quod arbor, quae terram inutiliter occupat, digne excidi, et in ignem mitti censetur, ut terra, quae sub nociva occupatione inutilis arboris sterilis habetur, per novam plantationem ad fructificandum culturam recipiat congruentem. Huic nimirum arbori H. quondam Curiensis episcopus non immerito comparatur, qui Curiensem ecclesiam usque modo per violentiam detinuit, et, Sicut dilecti filii canonici Curienses V. S. et R. et Be. Ro. plebanus S. Georgii ex parte vestra in nostro auditorio retulerunt, quod praedictus H. Curiensis episcopus ecclesiam suam non solum dilapidando depressit, sicut publica praedicabat infamia, sed homicidio, incestu aliisque criminibus polluit. Nos autem, utpote quibus haec imminent corrigenda, quum ipsi canonici vestri bono zelo, ut arbitramur, inducti praedictum episcopum accusare, [et,] intuentes enormitates eiusdem, ad aures nostras deferre curarunt, timendo, ne, sicut in decreto Gelasii continetur, apostolicam offensam incurrerent, si huiusmodi excessus auditui catholicae ecclesiae supprimendos putarent, super his commisimus primo causam venerabili fratri nostro Tridonensi episcopo, et dilectis filiis abbati Montis sanctae Mariae et praeposito de Insula, secundo quoque venerabili fratri nostro Brixiensi episcopo, et ipsis iterum abbati et praeposito.

It is the word of Truth, emitted by the instrument of the Lord’s voice, that the tree which occupies the ground uselessly is deemed worthy to be cut down and cast into the fire, so that the ground, which under the harmful occupation of the useless tree is held barren, may, through a new plantation, receive a cultivation congruent for bearing fruit. To this tree, indeed, H., formerly bishop of Chur, is not undeservedly compared, who has up to now detained by violence the Church of Chur, and, As beloved sons, the canons of Chur, V. S. and R. and Be. Ro., pleban of St. George, on your part, reported in our audience, that the aforesaid H., bishop of Chur, not only by dilapidation brought his church low, as public infamy was proclaiming, but polluted it with homicide, incest, and other crimes. But we, as those to whom these things are imminent to be corrected, when your canons themselves, induced, as we think, by good zeal, took care to accuse the aforesaid bishop, [and,] considering his enormities, to bring them to our ears, fearing lest, as is contained in the decree of Gelasius, they should incur apostolic offense, if they should think that such excesses ought to be suppressed from the hearing of the catholic church, concerning these things we first committed the case to our venerable brother the bishop of Trento, and to our beloved sons the abbot of Mount of Saint Mary and the provost of Insula, and secondly also to our venerable brother the bishop of Brescia, and to the same again the abbot and the provost.

etc. Verum quum episcopus ipse priorum iudicum praesentiam adire per contumaciam contempsisset etc., auctoritate nostra fuit per ipsos primos iudices ab officio beneficioque suspensus. (Et cet.:) Tandem vero coram iudicibus canonica citatione vocatus, praesentiam suam difficulter exhibuit; sed frivolam tunc excusationem malitia concepta praetendens, experiri cum canonicis in iure neglexit.

etc. But when the bishop himself had, through contumacy, scorned to approach the presence of the prior judges, etc., by our authority he was suspended by those same first judges from office and benefice. (Et cet.:) At length, however, having been summoned before the judges by a canonical citation, he with difficulty exhibited his presence; but then, putting forward a frivolous excuse conceived in malice, he neglected to proceed to trial with the canons in law.

Qua de causa nos de consilio fratrum nostrorum suspendentes episcopum ipsum, vel potius suspensionem a iudicibus factam auctoritate apostolica confirmantes, tertio super his venerabili fratri nostro Cumano episcopo et dilecto filio abbati sancti A. causam ad superandam malitiam ipsius episcopi commisimus audiendam, qui partibus citatis, adhibitis secum viris prudentibus et honestis, quum nec per se, nec per responsalem idoneum comparuerit, in eundem episcopum propter inobedientiam excommunicationis sententiam protulerunt, testes ex parte vestra, quemadmodum in mandatis a nobis acceperant, admittentes, scilicet abbates, priores, praepositos et alios religiosos viros, per quos quemlibet articulum criminum praedictorum constat fuisse probatum. (Et infra:) Nos igitur videntes, ordinem iudiciarium in hoc facto fuisse servatum, considerato praeterea, quod post sententias in se datas celebrare praesumpserit, quum multi praelati ecclesiarum contra eundem episcopum scripserint, nec unus pro eo defendendo vel aliquatenus excusando, in nomine Domini cum Apostolo omnem inobedientiam ulcisci volentes, licet absentes corpore, praesentes tamen spiritu, iuxta verbum eiusdem Apostoli tulimus sententiam perpetuae depositionis in ipsum, et eum tam a pontificali quam ab omni officio sacerdotali privantes, sine spe restitutionis aliqua duximus condemnandum, ea nihilominus in irritum revocantes, quaecunque post inhibitionem apostolicae sedis seu factam suspensionem et excommunicationem de rebus ecclesiae alienare praesumpsit.

For which cause we, by the counsel of our brothers, suspending that bishop himself, or rather confirming by apostolic authority the suspension made by the judges, for the third time in these matters committed the case to be heard to our venerable brother Cumanus the bishop and to the beloved son the abbot of Saint A., to overcome the malice of that bishop, who, the parties having been cited, prudent and honest men being employed with them, since he appeared neither in person nor by a suitable representative, pronounced against the same bishop the sentence of excommunication for disobedience, admitting witnesses on your side, just as they had received in mandates from us, namely abbots, priors, provosts, and other religious men, through whom it is established that each article of the aforesaid crimes was proven. (And below:) We therefore, seeing that the judicial order had been observed in this matter, and moreover considering that after the sentences given against himself he presumed to celebrate, since many prelates of the churches had written against that same bishop, and not one for him by defending or in any way excusing, desiring in the name of the Lord with the Apostle to avenge all disobedience, although absent in body, yet present in spirit, according to the word of the same Apostle we bore the sentence of perpetual deposition upon him, and, depriving him both of the pontifical and of every sacerdotal office, we judged him to be condemned without any hope of restitution, nonetheless revoking into nullity whatever things he presumed to alienate of the goods of the church after the inhibition of the apostolic see or the suspension and excommunication made.

CAP. IX.

CHAPTER 9.

Actor non admissus in possessionem sibi decretam per iudicem causa rei servandae, vel ab ea expulsus, per lapsum anni verus efficitur possessor.

The plaintiff, not admitted into the possession decreed to him by the judge for the sake of preserving the thing, or expelled from it, by the lapse of a year becomes the true possessor.

Idem in concilio generali.

The same in the general council.

Contingit interdum, quod, quum actori ob contumaciam adversae partis adiudicatur causa rei servandae possessio, propter rei potentiam sive dolum actor infra annum rem custodiendam nancisci non potest, vel acquisitam amittit, et sic, quum secundum multorum assertionem verus non efficeretur post lapsum anni possessor, reportet commodum de malitia sua reus. Ne igitur contumax melioris quam obediens conditionis exsistat, de canonica aequitate sancimus, ut in casu praemisso actor verus constituatur elapso anno possessor. [Ad hoc etc. (cf. c.8.de arb.

It happens sometimes that, when to the plaintiff, on account of the contumacy of the opposing party, possession for the purpose of preserving the thing is adjudged, because of the defendant’s power or fraud the plaintiff is not able within a year to obtain the thing to be kept, or loses what he has acquired; and thus, since according to the assertion of many he would not become, after the lapse of a year, the true possessor, the defendant would reap an advantage from his own malice. Lest therefore the contumacious be of a better condition than the obedient, by canonical equity we sanction that, in the aforesaid case, the plaintiff be constituted, with a year elapsed, the true possessor. [To this etc. (cf. c.8.on arb.

I. 43.)]

1. 43.)]

CAP. X.

CHAPTER 10.

Si reus non invenitur, sufficit publice citationem ad ecclesiam suam proponi.

If the accused is not found, it suffices for the citation to be publicly posted at his church.

Gregorius IX. Archiepiscopo Burdegalensi.

Gregory IX. To the Archbishop of Bordeaux.

Venerabilis frater noster (Et infra:) Volentes finem imponi litibus, ne immortales exsistant, mandamus, quatenus ad initium proxime venturae Quadragesimae, quod tibi peremptorium terminum duximus assignandum, super iure primatiae, quod Bituricensis archiepiscopus in te ac in provincia tua se habere proponit, per te vel per procuratorem idoneum sufficienter instructum ad litem contestandam et ad alia omnia negotia peragenda, quae necessaria decisioni negotii videbuntur, nostro te conspectui repraesentes. Nos vero nihilominus archidiacono Transuigensi et magistro M. canonico Turonensi dedimus in mandatis, ut et ipsi ad eundem terminum auctoritate nostra iuxta praemissam formam te peremptorie citare procurent, et, si non poteris inveniri, faciant, ut citationis edictum per ipsos vel alios apud ecclesiam tuam publice proponatur.

Our venerable brother (And below:) Wishing that an end be imposed upon lawsuits, lest they become immortal, we command that by the beginning of the soon forthcoming Lent, which we have deemed should be assigned to you as a peremptory deadline, concerning the right of primacy which the archbishop of Biturica (Bourges) asserts that he has over you and your province, you present yourself before our presence either in person or through a suitable proctor, sufficiently instructed for contesting the suit and for accomplishing all other business that shall seem necessary to the decision of the matter. We, moreover, have nonetheless given mandates to the archdeacon of Transuigensis and to Master M., canon of Tours, that they too, by the same deadline, in our authority, according to the aforesaid form, procure to cite you peremptorily, and, if you cannot be found, make it so that an edict of citation be publicly posted at your church by themselves or by others.

TITULUS XV. DE EO, QUI MITTITUR IN POSSESSIONEM CAUSA REI SERVANDAE.

TITLE 15. ON ONE WHO IS SENT INTO POSSESSION FOR THE CAUSE OF PRESERVING THE PROPERTY.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Missus in possessionem ex primo decreto in reali, per lapsum anni veram et incommutabilem illius rei possessionem acquirit, licet passus missionem habuerit infra annum voluntatem cautionem praestandi, quam tamen non deduxit ad effectum suo defectu. Hoc dicit secundum verum intellectum.

He who is sent into possession by the first decree in a real (action), by the lapse of a year acquires true and incommutable possession of that thing, although the one who has undergone the missio may within the year have had the will to furnish a caution (security), which nevertheless he did not bring to effect through his own default. This is said according to the true understanding.

Alexander III. Priori et Fratribus de Guiseburch.

Alexander 3. To the Prior and Brothers of Guiseburch.

Constitutis in praesentia nostra dilecto filio nostro R. canonico vestro, et responsalibus dilecti filii nostri G. praepositi de Beril. super possessione ecclesiae de Lamento, in quam de mandato et auctoritate nostra per iudices delegatos, videlicet Exoniensem episcopum et priorem de Chinelwi, causa rei servandae fueratis inducti, hinc inde fuit coram nobis aliquamdiu disputatum. Tandem vero post rationes et allegationes utrinque productas ex utriusque partis assertione tenuimus, quod licet causa rei servandae tantum in eiusdem ecclesiae possessionem inducti fueritis, infra annum tamen altera pars super eadem causa vobiscum standi iuri non praestitit cautionem: licet voluntatem ipsam cautionem praestandi habuerit, et vos eam parati recipere fuissetis.

With our beloved son R., your canon, and the representatives of our beloved son G., the provost of Beril., having been set in our presence concerning the possession of the church of Lamento, into which by our mandate and authority through delegated judges, namely the Bishop of Exeter and the prior of Chinelwi, you had been inducted for the cause of preserving the thing, there was for some time dispute on this side and that before us. At length, indeed after reasons and allegations had been produced on both sides, from the assertion of each party we held that, although you had been inducted into possession of that same church only for the cause of preserving the thing, nevertheless within a year the other party on the same cause with you did not provide the caution to stand in law: although it had the will of furnishing that very caution, and you would have been ready to receive it.

Inde est, quod nos de communi fratrum nostrorum consilio auctoritate apostolica decernimus, ut vos amodo possessionem praescriptae ecclesiae, salvo iure, quod idem praepositus in petenda ecclesia habere dignoscitur, libere et absque contradictione qualibet habeatis, nec praefatus praepositus super eadem possessione vos audeat aliquatenus de cetero vexationibus fatigare. Ut autem nostrae diffinitionis sententia futuris temporibus inviolabiliter observetur, eam apostolico duximus patrocinio roborandam, statuentes, ut nulli omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae diffinitionis infringere. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei et Apostolorum Petri et Pauli se asserit incursurum.

Hence it is, that we, by apostolic authority with the common counsel of our brothers, decree that you from now on may have possession of the aforesaid church, saving the right which the same provost is recognized to have in seeking the church, freely and without any contradiction whatsoever, nor shall the aforesaid provost henceforth dare in any way to harass you with vexations over the same possession. And that the sentence of our definition in future times may be observed inviolably, we have deemed it should be strengthened by apostolic patronage, ordaining that it be permitted to no human being at all to infringe this page of our definition. But if anyone shall presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of almighty God and of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Tempus annale non currit missionem passo, si infra illud cautionem iudicibus vel alteri eorum aliis absentibus obtulit, licet per eos seu per eum recepta non fuerit. Et est casus notabilis secundum hunc intellectum.

The annual time does not run for one who has suffered a missio, if within it he offered a caution to the judges or to one of them with the others absent, even if it was not received by them or by him. And it is a notable case according to this understanding.

Clemens III. Episcopo et Archidiacono Eboracensibus.

Clement 3. To the Bishop and the Archdeacon of York.

Quum, sicut accepimus, inter dilectum filium P. subdecanum Baiocensem et dilectas in Christo filias, abbatissam et conventum sanctae Trinitatis de Cadomo super ecclesia de Capit. quaestio verteretur, de Thaurino et de Corinth. abbates, ac archidiaconus Chima.

When, as we have learned, between the beloved son P., subdean of Bayeux, and the beloved daughters in Christ, the abbess and the convent of the Holy Trinity of Caen, concerning the church of Capit., a question was in controversy, the abbots of Turin and of Corinth, and the archdeacon of Chima.

a sede apostolica delegati, moniales ipsas rei servandae causa in possessionem rei petitae miserunt, quod in personas contumacium iuris videtur constitutio decrevisse. Unde, quum hoc ad subdecani notitiam pervenisset, ad archidiaconum praedictum accessit, et offerens ei sistendi iudicio cautionem, quoniam abbas de Corinth. profectus erat in Angliam, et abbas Thaurinensis viam fuerat universae carnis ingressus, possessionem infra annum sibi iuris ordine resignari cum instantia postulavit, sed non potuit obtinere. Processu vero temporis moniales, quas diximus, ad venerabilem fratrem nostrum W. Rothomagensem archiepiscopum et dilectos filios abbatem S. Catharinae et I. de Veteri Ponte archidiaconum Rothomagensem literas alias impetrarum, quorum iudicium ideo subdecanus, sicut asserunt, subire recusat, quod praedictum archiepiscopum habet certa ratione suspectum, et metuit, ne coniudices ad partem quamlibet eius auctoritate de facili trahantur.

delegated by the apostolic see, they sent the nuns themselves, for the sake of preserving the matter, into possession of the thing sought, which the constitution of law seems to have decreed against the persons of the contumacious. Whence, when this had come to the subdean’s notice, he approached the aforesaid archdeacon, and, offering him a security for appearing in judgment, since the abbot of Corinth. had departed into England, and the Thaurinensian abbot had entered the way of all flesh, he with insistence demanded that the possession be resigned to him within a year by the order of law, but he could not obtain it. In the course of time, indeed, the nuns of whom we have spoken obtained other letters to our venerable brother W., the archbishop of Rouen, and to our beloved sons, the abbot of St. Catherine and I. de Veteri Ponte, the archdeacon of Rouen, whose judgment therefore the subdean, as they assert, refuses to undergo, because he holds the aforesaid archbishop suspect for a certain reason, and he fears lest the co-judges be easily drawn to any side by his authority.

Quia vero nemo invitus suspectorum iudicum compellitur iudicio subiacere, Discretioni vestrae per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus, si certam suspicionis causam contra archiepiscopum ostenderit subdecanus, audiatis negotium, et appellatione remota mediante iustitia terminetis, in primis tamen, si, ita est sistendi iudicio ab eo cautione recepta, ei possessionem restitui faciatis. Nec obstare volumus, quod annus elapsus esse proponitur, si per eum non steterit, quo minus infra annum et possessionem receperit, et dederit cautionem. Si quid autem per praedictas literas, ex quo suspectos iudices recusavit, adversus eum super hoc noveritis contra iustitiam innovatum, in statum debitum reducatis, in his omnibus sine appellationis obstaculo processuri.

Because indeed no one is compelled, against his will, to be subject to the judgment of suspected judges, we command to your Discretion by apostolic writings, that, if the subdean shall show a definite cause of suspicion against the archbishop, you hear the business, and, the appeal removed, terminate it by the mediation of justice, yet first, if, as it is, the security for appearing to judgment has been received from him, you cause possession to be restored to him. Nor do we wish it to be an obstacle that a year is alleged to have elapsed, if it was not through his default that he failed within the year both to receive possession and to give security. But if you know that by the aforesaid letters, from the time he recused the suspected judges, anything has been innovated against him on this matter contrary to justice, you restore it to the due state, proceeding in all these things without the obstacle of an appeal.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Si passus missionem, repetens possessionem, allegat se contumacem non fuisse, restituitur in pristinum statum praestita cautione, et dilata condemnatione expensarum, quam evitat, si postea constiterit, eum non fuisse contumacem.

If, having suffered dispossession, when seeking to recover possession he alleges that he was not contumacious, he is restored to his pristine state upon a caution (security) being provided, and the condemnation of expenses is deferred, which he avoids if thereafter it is established that he was not contumacious.

Innocentius III. Urbinati et Senagolensi Episcopis.

Innocent III. To the Bishops of Urbino and Senigallia.

Quum venissent ad apostolicam sedem dilecti filii abbas sancti Angeli pro monasterio suo, et nobilis vir P. Gal. miles pro se, patre et uxore suis, idem P. proposuit coram nobis, quod, quum praedictus abbas eum super quadam possessione coram dilecto filio nostro Ioanne tit. S. Priscae presbytero cardinali, tunc apostolicae sedis legato in Marchia traxit in causam, quod ei secundum bonam terrae consuetudinem responderet, coram eodem asseruit cardinali. Verum legatus ipse causam ipsorum commisit iudicibus secundum ius et bonam terrae illius consuetudinem terminandam.

When there had come to the apostolic see beloved sons, the abbot of Saint Angel for his monastery, and the noble man P. Gal., knight for himself, his father, and his wife, the same P. set forth before us that, when the aforesaid abbot had drawn him into a case concerning a certain possession before our beloved son John, presbyter cardinal of the title of St. Prisca, then legate of the apostolic see in the March, he asserted before that same cardinal that he would answer him according to the good custom of the land. But the legate himself committed their case to judges to be terminated according to law and the good custom of that land.

Qui quum secundum ius tantum, et non huiusmodi consuetudinem vellent in causa procedere, praefatus P. ab eis, tanquam qui formam mandati volebant excedere, ad nostram audientiam appellavit; sed iudices nihilominus partem adversam in possessionem rerum petitarum inducendam causa custodiae decreverunt ita, quod, si miles ipse usque ad annum et diem praestaret sistendi iudicio cautionem, et parti alteri triginta libras restitueret pro expensis, et reciperet possessionem eandem. Quumque postmodum dilectus filius noster G. tit. S. Mariae trans Tiberim presbyter cardinalis sedis apostolicae legatus infra annum fuisset terram illam ingressus, ipse cautionem standi iuri obtulit coram eo, et possessionem sibi restitui postulavit.

Who, when they wished to proceed in the case according to law only, and not such a custom, in the case, the aforesaid P., from them, as those who wished to exceed the form of the mandate, to our hearing appealed; but the judges nonetheless decreed that the opposing party be inducted into possession of the things demanded for the sake of custody, in such wise that, if the knight himself should furnish a caution for appearing to judgment within a year and a day, and should restore to the other party thirty pounds for expenses, and he would receive back the same possession. And when afterwards our beloved son G., presbyter cardinal of the title of St. Mary across the Tiber, legate of the apostolic see, had entered that land within the year, he offered a caution of standing to right before him, and asked that possession be restored to himself.

Sed idem legatus praedictum abbatem citavit ad causam, cui postmodum paratus idem miles expensas restituere factas in lite, quae sex librarum summam, sicut asserit, non excedunt; sed abbas triginta librarum sibi restitui petiit quantitatem. (Et infra:) Nos igitur, quum saepe dictus miles possessionem sibi restitui peteret, abbas vero ex secundo decreto verum possessorem se constitui postularet, intelligentes, abbatem ipsum esse confessum in iure, quod saepe dictus miles infra legitimum tempus cardinalem interpellasset eundem, immo etiam infra annum coram eodem cardinali cautionem obtulit standi iuri, et cardinalis ad eum infra annum suas literas destinavit, licet ad longiorem terminum citaretur, ipsum P. cautione praestita in possessionem credimus reducendum, hoc etiam decernentes, ut, si consuetudinem illam, quam miles allegat, laudabilem esse constiterit, quia ex hoc sequitur, eum rationabiliter appellasse, ad restituendas expensas nullatenus compellatur. Alioquin, quodsi consuetudinem illam inveneritis reprobandam, quum ex hoc appareat, eum frustratorie appellasse, ad restitutionem cogatur expensarum illarum, quas abbatem constiterit propter hoc necessarias in lite fecisse.

But the same legate cited the aforesaid abbot to the cause, to whom afterwards ready was the same knight to restore the expenses incurred in the suit, which, as he asserts, do not exceed the sum of six pounds; but the abbot requested that the quantity of thirty pounds be restored to him. (And below:) We therefore, when the oft-mentioned knight was seeking to have possession restored to himself, but the abbot, by the second decree, was petitioning that he be constituted the true possessor, understanding that the abbot himself had confessed in law that the oft-mentioned knight had interpellated the same cardinal within the lawful time, nay even within a year had offered before the same cardinal security to stand to the law, and that the cardinal sent to him his letters within the year, although he had been cited to a longer term, believe that this P., security having been furnished, must be led back into possession, also decreeing this: that, if the custom that which the knight alleges shall have been established to be laudable, since from this it follows that he appealed reasonably, he is by no means to be compelled to restore the expenses. Otherwise, but if you shall have found that custom to be reprobate, since from this it appears that he appealed in a frustratory manner, he is to be compelled to the restitution of those expenses which it shall have been established that the abbot made as necessary in the suit on this account.

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Contra absentem, qui non dimisit procuratorem, facta citatione domi, nullo defendente, fit missio. H. d. supplendo ad literam maxime, ut dicitur in gloss. Et est verus et notabilis intellectus.

Against an absentee who has not appointed a procurator, once a citation has been made at his home, with no one defending, the missio (entry into possession) is effected. This dictum (h. d.) is to be supplied most literally, as is said in the gloss. And it is a true and notable understanding.

Gregorius IX.

Gregory 9.

Si adversarius tuus post citationis edictum, ad remota loca se transferens, procuratorem legitimum non dimisit, et denunciatione publice facta domi non apparet qui defendat eundem, iure petere potes, ut in possessionem earum terrarum, de quibus quaestio vertitur, causa custodiae inducaris.

If your adversary, after the edict of citation, transferring himself to remote places, has not left a lawful procurator, and, with denunciation made publicly, there appears at the house no one to defend the same, you can in law petition that you be inducted into possession of those lands, about which the question turns, for the sake of custody.

TITULUS XVI. UT LITE PENDENTE NIHIL INNOVETUR.

TITLE 16. THAT WITH LITIGATION PENDING NOTHING BE INNOVATED.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Privilegium etiam a principe impetratum, per quod privatur quis sine causae cognitione, lite pendente, usu possessionis, tanquam surreptitium non valet, seu tanquam rationi obvium est revocandum.

Even a privilege obtained from the prince, by which someone, without cognition of the cause, while the suit is pending, is deprived of the use of possession, as surreptitious does not avail, or, as contrary to reason, is to be revoked.

Alexander III. Eboracensi Archiepiscopo.

Alexander III. To the Archbishop of York.

A memoria, nostra non excidit, qualiter in primo anno nostrae promotionis transscriptum literarum felicis memoriae praedecessoris nostri Honorii Papae nobis feceris praesentari, in quo continebatur, antecessoribus tuis apostolica benignitate esse indultum, ut tam eis, quam successoribus suis liberum esset per totam Angliam ante se crucem deferre. Nos vero antecessoris nostri vestigiis inhaerentes, tibi sub scripti nostri munimine confirmavimus quod antecessoribus tuis fuerat a praedecessore nostro clementer indultum. Postmodum vero sanctae et venerandae memoriae T. quondam Cantuariensis archiepiscopus existimans hoc in depressionem iuris et suae dignitatis redundare, exinde coepit quaestionem movere.

It has not slipped from our memory, how in the first year of our promotion you caused a transcript of the letters of our predecessor of happy memory, Pope Honorius, to be presented to us, in which it was contained that by apostolic benignity it had been indulted to your predecessors that it should be free for them, as well as for their successors, to bear a cross before themselves throughout all England. But we, adhering to the footsteps of our predecessor, under the muniment of our writing confirmed to you what had been mercifully indulted to your predecessors by our predecessor. Afterwards indeed T., of holy and venerable memory, formerly archbishop of Canterbury, thinking that this redounded to the depression of right and of his dignity, from that began to raise a question.

Et propter hoc ad sedem apostolicam appellavit, affirmans, si bene meminimus, quod tibi et praedecessoribus tuis id nullatenus licuisset. Sicque factum est, quod nos tibi per scripta nostra prohibuerimus, ne in provincia Cantuariensis ecclesiae, donec de ipsa causa cognosceretur, ante te crucem deferre aliqua ratione auderes. Quia ergo per dilectos filios nostros I. et A. clericos tuos gravem coram nobis querimoniam deposuisti, asserens, quod te de possessione huius rei, quam tu et antecessores tui habuistis, ante cognitionem iudicii spoliassemus, volentes nos tibi tanquam venerabili fratri nostro deferre, et iura tua integra [et] illibata servare, praesentibus literis Statuimus, ut literae prohibitionis nostrae, quas ad petitionem archiepiscopi Cantuariensis tuae fraternitati direximus, nullum tibi praeiudicium faciant, quo minus tibi et successoribus tuis liberum sit, quemadmodum vobis est beneficio privilegiorum apostolicae sedis indultum, et tu et praedecessores tui id consuevistis facere, ante vos per totam Angliam deferre crucem, quousque diffinitiva sententia decernatur, an ecclesia tua de iure hoc debeat habere.

And on account of this he appealed to the apostolic see, affirming, if we remember well, that to you and your predecessors this had by no means been permitted. And thus it came about that we, by our writings, forbade you, that in the province of the Church of Canterbury, until cognizance should be taken of the case itself, you should by no means dare to carry a cross before you. Since therefore, through our beloved sons I. and A., your clerics, you laid before us a grave complaint, asserting that we had despoiled you of the possession of this matter—which you and your predecessors held—before the cognition of the judgment, wishing to defer to you as to our venerable brother, and to keep your rights entire [and] inviolate, by these present letters we have decreed that the letters of our prohibition, which at the petition of the archbishop of Canterbury we directed to your fraternity, shall work no prejudice to you, whereby it may be free to you and to your successors, as it has been by the benefice of the privileges of the apostolic see indulged, and as you and your predecessors have been accustomed to do this, to carry the cross before you through all England, until a definitive sentence be decreed, whether your church ought by right to have this.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Accusatus de adulterio ad separationem tori non debet lite pendente privari possessione coniugali.

One accused of adultery, for a separation of the bed, ought not, while the suit is pending, to be deprived of conjugal possession.

Clemens III.

Clement 3.

Laudabilem (Et infra: [cf. Comp. II. c. 3.de cogn. spir.

Praiseworthy (And below: [cf. Comp. 2, ch. 3.on spiritual cognizance.

IV. 6.]) Quaerisiterum, quando matrimonium accusare contingit, an statim sit carnale commercium suspendendum, aut quamdiu dissimulari possit vel potius sustineri. Ad quod breviter respondemus, quod, quum Alexander II. aperte prohibeat, ne ab invicem, donec causae iustae fiat examinatio, separentur, et Symmachi Papae contineat institutum, ut praelatus aliquis accusatus, antequam ea, quae obiiciuntur, luce clarescant, relinqui non debeat a subiectis, in praesenti articulo, coniugum alteruter accusatus ante probatam accusationem iure, quod habet in altero, privari non potest. [Insuper etc. (cf. c. 4.qui matr. acc.

4. 6.]) You askagain, when it happens that a marriage is accused, whether at once the carnal commerce is to be suspended, or how long it can be dissembled or rather sustained. To which we briefly respond that, since Alexander 2 openly forbids that they be separated from one another until an examination of a just cause is made, and the institution of Pope Symmachus contains that any prelate who is accused ought not to be abandoned by his subjects before the things objected become clear in the light, in the present article, either one of the spouses, if accused, cannot, before the accusation has been proved, be deprived of the right which he has in the other. [Moreover etc. (cf. c. 4.qui matr. acc.

poss. IV. 18.)]

poss. 4. 18.)]

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Qui rem litigiosam alienavit ita, quod rehaberi non potest, debet aequivalentem substituere in locum illius, quam alienare non poterit. H. d. cum sequ.

He who has alienated a litigious thing in such a way that it cannot be had back must substitute an equivalent in its place, one which he will not be able to alienate. This holds with what follows.

Innocentius III. Abbati et Conventui sancti Silvestri.

Innocent 3. To the Abbot and Convent of Saint Sylvester.

Ecclesia sanctae Mariae in Via lata contra Ioannem de Ateia, qui quasdam possessiones ipsius dicebatur contra iustitiam detinere, movit tempore B. Carosomi dicti senatoris sub L. iudice quaestionem (Et infra: [cf. c.10.de constit. I.2.]) Prohibemus, ne possessiones, quae successerunt in locum et ius illarum, quas ab Ioanne de Ateia ecclesia sanctae Mariae petierat, in monasterium vestrum ab eodem Ioanne lite pendente translatas alienare interim praesumatis, ut, si ecclesia sanctae Mariaevel de vitio litigiosi contractus vel de proprietate forsitan voluerit experiri, ne, si obtinuerit in iudicio, in vanum laboret, monasterio vestro minime possidente, sit quod evincere valeat et habere. [Dat.

The church of Saint Mary on the Via Lata, against John of Ateia, who was said to detain certain possessions of hers contrary to justice, brought a question under litigation in the time of the Blessed Carosomus, called senator under the judge L. (And below: [cf. c.10.de constit.1. 2.]) We forbid you to presume in the meantime to alienate the possessions which have succeeded to the place and right of those which the church of Saint Mary had sought from John of Ateia, transferred into your monastery by that same John while the suit was pending, so that, if the church of Saint Mary shouldperhaps wish to make trial either on account of the defect of a litigious contract or concerning the property, it may not be that, if she shall prevail in judgment, she labor in vain, your monastery by no means possessing, and there be something which she may be able to evict and to have. [Dat.

Lat. V. Kal. Dec.

Lateran. November 27.

1199.]

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Idem dicit, quod in praecedenti.

He says the same as in the preceding.

Idem.

The same.

Ecclesia sanctae Mariae (Et infra: [cf. c.10.de constit. I.2.]) Possessionem, qua fuerat praetermisso iuris ordine praedicta ecclesia spoliata, sibi restitui postulabat (Et infra:) Nos quicquid ab aliis factum fuit, postquam praedecessor noster ad curiam suam idem negotium revocavit, irritum decernimus et inane (Et infra:) Verum quoniam praefatam possessionem post restitutionem vobis factam ab Ioanne de Ateia alii locationis titulo assignastis, neque restituere poteratis ecclesiae spoliatae, loco ipsius tantundem possessionum aequivalentium ad arbitrium bonorum virorum ipsi ecclesiae fecimus assignari, quas, quoniam alii fuerant pignori obligatae, per vos liberari fecimus a creditoribus, qui nobis instrumentum pignoris postea resignaverunt. [Et quia etc. (cf. c.10.de constit.

The church of Saint Mary (And below: [cf. ch.10.on constitutions 1.2.]) was petitioning that the possession, in which, with the order of law omitted, the aforesaid church had been despoiled, be restored to itself (And below:) We declare whatever was done by others, after our predecessor recalled that same matter to his court, null and void (And below:) But since, after restitution had been made to you by John of Atheia, you assigned the aforesaid possession to another by the title of lease, and you were not able to restore it to the despoiled church, in place of it we caused just as much of equivalent possessions to be assigned to that same church at the arbitration of good men, which, since they had been obligated in pledge to others, we caused to be released by you from the creditors, who afterwards resigned to us the instrument of pledge. [And because etc. (cf. ch.10.on constitutions

I. 2.)Dat. Lat. V. Kal.

1. 2.)Given at the Lateran, on the 5th day before the Kalends.

Dec. 1199.]

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Lis decidenda est secundum iura exsistentia tempore controversiae, non autem secundum privilegium impetratum lite pendente; nisi de litis pendentia mentionem faciat.

The suit is to be decided according to the laws existing at the time of the controversy, and not according to a privilege obtained while the suit is pending, unless it makes mention of the pendency of the suit.

Honorius III. Cancellario, Cantori et A. Canonico Parisiensibus.

Honorius 3. To the Chancellor, the Precentor, and A., Canon of Paris.

Dilectus filius magister A. persona ecclesiae de Bassevilla exposuit coram nobis, quod, quum inter praedecessorem suum ex parte una, et priorem ac monachos de Bassevilla Carnotensis dioecesis ex altera super decimis novalium infra fines parochiae suae consistentium quaestio emersisset, ea pendente coram iudicibus a sede apostolica delegatis, abbas et conventus sancti Martini maioris monasterii Turonensis, quibus subsunt prior et monachi supradicti, pro se ac membris suis obtinuerunt a sede apostolica indulgentiam super perceptione huiusmodi decimarum, cuius praetextu iam dicti prior et monachi supradictas decimas sibi vendicare contendunt, licet in indulgentia ipsa de supra dicta quaestione facta mentio non fuisset. Ideoque discretioni vestrae mandamus, quatenus auctoritate nostra eisdem iudicibus, quibus commissa fuit ipsa quaestio, iniungatis, ut indulgentia non obstante praedicta in negotio ipso procedant iuxta traditam sibi formam.

The beloved son, Master A., parson of the church of Basseville, set forth before us that, when a question had arisen between his predecessor on the one part and the prior and monks of Basseville, of the Chartres diocese, on the other, concerning the tithes of newly‑cleared lands lying within the bounds of his parish, while it was pending before judges delegated by the Apostolic See, the abbot and convent of the Greater Monastery of Saint Martin of Tours, to whom the aforesaid prior and monks are subject, obtained from the Apostolic See, for themselves and their members, an indulgence concerning the perception of tithes of this kind; under the pretext of which the already‑said prior and monks strive to claim the aforesaid tithes for themselves, although in the indulgence itself no mention had been made of the above‑said question. Wherefore we command your discretion, that, by our authority, you enjoin the same judges, to whom the question itself was committed, that, the aforesaid indulgence notwithstanding, they proceed in the matter itself according to the form handed over to them.

TITULUS XVII. DE SEQUESTRATIONE POSSESSIONUM ET FRUCTUUM.

TITLE 17. ON THE SEQUESTRATION OF POSSESSIONS AND FRUITS.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Res, in quam facta est missio, non debet sequestrari, etiam si missus inde fuerit violenter eiectus. Vel notabilius sic: Sequestrum factum loco missionis propter scandalum evitandum revocari debet, oblata cautione et restitutis expensis.

The thing into which missio has been effected ought not to be sequestered, even if the party so put in has been violently ejected. Or, more notably thus: a sequestration made in place of missio, for the avoidance of scandal, ought to be revoked, once security has been offered and expenses restored.

Innocentius III. Mediolanensi Archiepiscopo.

Innocent III. To the Archbishop of Milan.

Ad hoc unxit nos Deus [oleo laetitiae prae consortibus nostris, ut diligamus iustitiam et odiamus iniquitatem, quod tunc laudabiliter adimplemus, quum via regia incedentes non declinamus ad dexteram, neque ad sinistram aliquatenus deviamus, sed iuste quod iustum est persequentes, nec pauperis personam attendimus, nec honoramus vultum potentis, quia non est personarum acceptio apud Dominum; dum etiam merita subtili examinatione discutimus, et precum attendimus qualitatem, ut cuilibet reddamus ius suum, et preces, quae rationi non consonant, rationabiliter repellamus.] Veniens siquidem ad apostolicam sedem Abbas de Regula nobis [et fratribus nostris] exposuit, quod quum M. [quondam Mediolanensis archiepiscopus] praedecessor tuus super causa, quae inter ipsum et monasterium suum diutius fuerat agitata, post multas commissiones tandem obtinuisset [venerabili fratri nostro] Veronensi episcopo [Romanae ecclesiae cardinali] literas destinari, et ipse [iudex delegatus partibus in sua praesentia constitutis] super iudicio possessorio partim pro monasterio, partim pro archiepiscopo sententiam protulisset, procuratore ipsius monasterii quaestionem de proprietate postmodum intentare volente, [pars archiepiscopi dilationes et inducias saepius postulavit. Quumque saepenumero idem archiepiscopus praefato Veronensi per literas direxisset, quod ipsius iudicium nullatenus declinaret, utraque parte apud Novariam coram nuncio ipsius episcopi, qui ad hoc missus fuerat, exsistente,] archiepiscopus iurisdictionem episcopi opposuit exspirasse, asserens, causam possessionis tantum, et non proprietatis fuisse commissam, et quia super possessione pronunciaverat, semel functus officio suo, super quaestione proprietatis deinceps cognoscere non valebat. [Et his allegatis, praedictus archiepiscopus appellavit.] Ad haec pars monasterii contra proposuit, quod causa, quae inter archiepiscopum et monasterium vertebatur, fuerat memorato episcopo absolute et indistincte commissa, et sic continentiam causae dividi non debere dicebat.

To this end God has anointed us [with the oil of gladness before our consorts, that we may love justice and hate iniquity, which we then laudably fulfill, when, proceeding by the royal road, we do not turn aside to the right, nor in any way deviate to the left, but, justly pursuing what is just, we neither regard the person of the poor nor honor the face of the powerful, because there is no acceptance of persons with the Lord; while also we sift merits with subtle examination, and attend to the quality of petitions, so that we may render to each his right, and reasonably repel prayers which are not consonant with reason.] Indeed, coming to the apostolic see the Abbot of Regula set forth to us [and to our brothers] that when M., [formerly archbishop of Milan] your predecessor, concerning the cause which had been litigated longer between him and his monastery, after many commissions at length had obtained that letters be sent to [our venerable brother] the bishop of Verona [cardinal of the Roman Church], and he, [the judge delegated, the parties having been set in his presence], had rendered a sentence on the possessory judgment partly for the monastery, partly for the archbishop, when the procurator of that monastery afterwards wished to bring an action on the question of property, [the archbishop’s side repeatedly requested delays and adjournments. And when very often the same archbishop had directed by letters to the aforesaid Veronese that he would nowise decline his judgment, with each party being at Novara before the envoy of that bishop, who had been sent for this,] the archbishop objected that the bishop’s jurisdiction had expired, asserting that the cause of possession only, and not of property, had been committed; and because he had pronounced on possession, once having discharged his office, he could not thereafter take cognizance concerning the question of property. [And these things having been alleged, the aforesaid archbishop appealed.] To these things the monastery’s side put forward in opposition that the cause which was turning between the archbishop and the monastery had been committed to the aforesaid bishop absolutely and indistinctly, and thus he said the continuity of the cause ought not to be divided.

[Adiecit etiam, quod, quum archiepiscopus toties postulaverit dilationem et locum a iudice, in quo ante illum super illa proprietatis quaestione respondere deberet, eum postea recusare nequivit, vel aliquatenus appellare; praesertim quia absente parte adversa, sicut est praelibatum, ipsemet eundem iudicem postulaverat, et in rescripto apostolico fecerat appellationis remedium inhiberi.] Sed iudex actorem in possessionem, quae fuerat per ipsum [episcopum eidem] archiepiscopo adiudicata, [usus consilio virorum prudentum] propter eiusdem contumaciam mitti decrevit, a qua tamen archiepiscopus violenter monasterium eiecit. Quumque [dilectus filius G. tunc prior, nunc vero abbas eiusdem monasterii, et G. nuncius adversae partis] propter hoc ad sedem apostolicam accessissent, bonae memoriae Coelestinus Papa praedecessor noster, supra dictis omnibus per [dilectos filios nostros Hug. tit.] sancti Martini presbyterum et sanctae Mariae in Aquiro diaconum cardinales, quos eis auditores concesserat, plenius intellectis, per [bonae memoriae] Al. tunc Albanensem episcopum sic suum interpretatus fuit rescriptum, quod tam causa possessionis quam proprietatis fuerat iudici delegata, quum absolute et indistincte commissa fuerit, et eius continentia dividi non deberet, [et quod idem iudex ob dictas rationes ab archiepiscopo non potuisset etiam per appellationis obstaculum recusari.] Volens igitur idem praedecessor noster archiepiscopo et abbati sine iustitiae laesione deferre, Praelibatam quoque possessionem apud venerabilem fratrem nostrum Vercellensem et bonae memoriae Novariensem episcopos pro suo arbitrio sequestrari praecepit, iniungens [venerabili fratri nostro] Reginensi et [felicis recordationis tunc] Mutinensi episcopis, ut [partes ad suam praesentiam convocarent et nullius contradictione vel appellatione tam super principali quam super incidenti obstante] de causa possessionis et proprietatis infra duos menses plenius cognoscentes, eam debito fine deciderent, et possessionem ei parti postmodum resignarent, quae obtineret de proprietate triumphum.

[He added, moreover, that, since the archbishop had so often requested a delay and a place from the judge in which before him he ought to answer concerning that question of property, he could not afterward recuse him or in any way appeal; especially because, with the opposing party absent, as was premised, he himself had requested that same judge, and had caused the remedy of appeal to be inhibited in the apostolic rescript.] But the judge, [making use of the counsel of prudent men] decreed that the plaintiff be put into the possession which had been adjudged by the same [bishop to the said] archbishop, on account of his contumacy; from which, however, the archbishop violently cast out the monastery. And when [the beloved son G., then prior, but now abbot of the same monastery, and G., the nuncio of the opposing party,] had come to the apostolic see on this account, Pope Celestine, our predecessor, of good memory, when [by our beloved sons Hugh, priest of the title] of Saint Martin, and the cardinal deacon of Saint Mary in Aquiro, whom he had granted to them as auditors, the above‑said matters had been more fully understood, through [of good memory] Al., then Bishop of Albano, so interpreted his rescript, that both the cause of possession and of property had been delegated to the judge, since it had been committed absolutely and indistinctly, and the continence of the case ought not to be divided, [and that the same judge, for the said reasons, could not have been recused by the archbishop even by the obstacle of an appeal.] Wishing, therefore, that same our predecessor to show favor to the archbishop and the abbot without injury to justice, he also ordered the aforesaid possession to be sequestered with our venerable brother the Bishops of Vercelli and of [of blessed memory] Novara, at their arbitration, enjoining [our venerable brother, the] Bishop of Reggio and [then of happy memory] the Bishop of Modena, that [they should convoke the parties to their presence, and with no one’s contradiction or appeal impeding, both on the principal and on the incidental matter,] fully inquiring into the cause of possession and of property within two months, they should decide it with due conclusion, and thereafter should resign the possession to that party which would obtain triumph concerning the property.

[Quumque literae ipsae ad dictos Mutinensem et Reginensem episcopos pervenissent, partibus in ipsorum praesentia constitutis, procurator archiepiscopi cautionem obtulit, ut contumaciam, si qua praecesserat, expurgaret; quam procurator monasterii recipere noluit, nisi possessionis sequestratione praemissa, et salvo iure, quod ei ex commissione huiusmodi competebat, ut a se tanquam a possessore peteret in iudicio. Quumque procuratur archiepiscopi e contrario responderet, quod ab eo peti velut a possessore deberet, disceptatione protracta in longum terminus exspiravit, infra quem episcopi memorati de proprietate cognoscere debuissent. Ceterum nuncius monasterii iterum ad ecclesiam Romanam accedens, per archiepiscopum stetisse asseruit, quod nec possessio sequestrata fuerat, nec super proprietate processum in causa.

[And when those letters had come to the aforesaid bishops of Modena and Reggio, the parties being set in their presence, the archbishop’s procurator offered a caution, that he might purge the contumacy, if any had preceded; which the procurator of the monastery was unwilling to receive, unless a sequestration of the possession were first premised, and with the right saved which was competent to him from a commission of this sort, that he might demand from himself as from the possessor in judgment. And when the archbishop’s procurator on the contrary replied, that it ought to be demanded from him as from the possessor, the dispute being prolonged to a great length, the term expired within which the aforesaid bishops ought to have taken cognizance concerning the property. Moreover, the nuncio of the monastery, approaching again to the Roman church, asserted that it stood by the archbishop that neither had the possession been sequestered, nor had there been any process in the case concerning the property.

Propter quod dictus praedecessor noster venerabili fratri nostro Bobiensi episcopo per apostolica scripta mandavit, ut, possessione cum fructibus perceptis ex ipsa monasterio restituta, audirent postmodum si quid haberent partes inter se invicem quaestionis. Qui quum abbatem iuxta tenorem mandati apostolici in possessionem, quam Veronensis adiudicaverat, per suum nuncium mandasset induci, Hugo de Camerario ipsum abbatem ex ea violenter eiecit, qui cum suis complicibus tam nuncium episcopi, quam abbatem et monachos armata manu fugavit, et navi, cuius vehiculo illuc accesserant, igne combusta, cellas monasterii depraedatus, conversis pluribus verberatis, domos extra claustri ambitum constitutas cum quibusdam animalibus et quodam homine non erubuit concremare. Quod postquam ad eiusdem praedecessoris nostri audientiam nuncio ipsius abbatis referente pervenit, venerabili fratri nostro Ferrariensi episcopo districte praecipiendo mandavit, quatenus partibus convocatis, et possessione cum fructibus a tempore sententiae per dictum Veronensem prolatae perceptis ex ipsa monasterio restituta, de proprietate cognosceret, et, eo in adiudicata sibi possessione indemni servato, quod iustum esset statueret, et faceret auctoritate apostolica sublato appellationis obstaculo firmiter observari; eos autem, qui se apostolicis mandatis opponerent, vel monasterium super possessione alterius molestarent, per sententiam excommunicationis appellatione remota compesceret, et dictum Hugonem et eius complices, donec monasterio de ablatis omnibus et illatis iniuriis satisfacerent competenter, et cum literis eius apostolico se conspectui praesentarent, nunciaret excommunicatos, et faceret ab omnibus evitari, nisi tu, frater archiepiscope, hanc in ipsos districtionem, prout tibi mandatum fuerat, exerceres.

On account of which our said predecessor, by apostolic writings, commanded our venerable brother the Bishop of Bobbio that, the possession together with the fruits taken from it having been restored to the monastery, they should afterward hear if the parties had any question among themselves. When he had ordered that the abbot be inducted, according to the tenor of the apostolic mandate, into the possession which the Veronese had adjudged, through his own messenger, Hugh de Camerario violently cast that abbot out of it, who, with his accomplices, put to flight with an armed hand both the bishop’s messenger and the abbot and the monks, and, the ship burned with fire by whose vehicle they had come there, having depredated the cells of the monastery, with many of the converts beaten, did not blush to burn to ashes the houses situated outside the circuit of the cloister together with certain animals and a certain man. Which, after it had come to the hearing of that same our predecessor, the messenger of the said abbot reporting, he strictly, by way of command, ordered our venerable brother the Bishop of Ferrara that, the parties having been convoked, and the possession together with the fruits from the time of the sentence pronounced by the said Veronese having been restored to the monastery, he should take cognizance concerning the property, and, with him kept unharmed in the possession adjudged to him, should establish what was just, and should make it be firmly observed by apostolic authority, the obstacle of appeal having been removed; and that he should restrain, by a sentence of excommunication, appeal removed, those who would set themselves against the apostolic mandates, or would molest the monastery concerning the possession of another; and that he should announce the said Hugh and his accomplices excommunicated until they should competently satisfy the monastery for all things taken away and for the injuries inflicted, and should present themselves with his letters to the apostolic sight, and should make them be avoided by all—unless you, brother archbishop, were to exercise this coercion upon them, as it had been mandated to you.

Dictus vero Ferrariensis, receptis super hoc literis apostolicae sedis, sicut ex literis eius accepimus, admonitione praemissa in Hugonem de Camerario et complices eius; te infra statutum terminum eum excommunicare nolente, excommunicationis sententiam promulgavit, et, quum tu legitime citatus ab ipso nec accederes, nec sufficientem mitteres responsalem, sed absentiam tuam verbis et literis excusares, salva quaestione proprietatis possessionem monasterio restituendam pronunciavit; et, quum abbatem in eam per nuncium suum fecisset induci, idem abbas ab ea deiectus fuit te, frater archiepiscope, Hugone de Camerario et dilectis filiis consulibus Mediolanensibus mandantibus per violentiam armatorum. Propter quod idem abbas postulabat a nobis, ut sententiam restitutionis toties latam pro eo deberemus auctoritate apostolica confirmare, et possessione sibi cum fructibus restituta faceremus eum absque molestatione gaudere. Verum dilectus filius Passaguerra procurator tuus et socii eius petitionem abbatis non esse admittendam ea praesertim ratione dicebant, quod abbas ipse in literis, quas ad Bobiensem et Ferrariensem episcopos a sede apostolica impetravit, veritatem suppresserat et expresserat falsitatem.

But the said Bishop of Ferrara, having received on this matter letters of the apostolic see, as we learned from his letters, after admonition first given against Hugo de Camerario and his accomplices; you being unwilling to excommunicate him within the set term, promulgated the sentence of excommunication, and, when you, though lawfully cited by him, neither appeared nor sent a sufficient representative, but excused your absence by words and letters, he pronounced that, the question of ownership being reserved, possession ought to be restored to the monastery; and, when he had caused the abbot to be inducted into it through his messenger, that same abbot was cast out of it by you, brother archbishop, Hugo de Camerario, and the beloved sons the consuls of Milan ordering it, by the violence of armed men. Wherefore that same abbot asked of us that we should by apostolic authority confirm the sentence of restitution so often rendered for him, and, possession with the fruits restored to him, make him enjoy it without molestation. But the beloved son Passaguerra, your procurator, and his associates said that the abbot’s petition was not to be admitted, especially for this reason, that the abbot himself, in the letters which he obtained from the apostolic see to the Bishops of Bobbio and Ferrara, had suppressed the truth and expressed falsehood.

Suggesserat enim, Veronensem episcopum salva quaestione proprietatis super possessione promulgasse sententiam, quum non nisi causa rei servandae abbatem decrevisset in possessionem induci. Tacuit etiam veritatem, quum de satisdatione coram dictis Reginensi et Mutinensi episcopis oblata per archiepiscopum nullam fecit apud sedem apostolicam mentionem.] Nos igitur [habito super his et aliis, quaecunque fuerunt hinc inde proposita, cum fratribus nostris archiepiscopis et episcopis apud sedem apostolicam constitutis consilio maturo, intelligentes, quod dictus Veronensis abbatem in possessionem causa rei servandae solummodo decrevisset induci, sicut erat consentaneum rationi, utpote coram quo super proprietate lis non fuerat contestata, et quod per eundem M. quondam archiepiscopum non stetisset, quin satisdationem infra annum oblatam praestiterit, et contumaciam, si qua praecesserat, expurgavit, attendentes etiam, abbatem ipsum per suppressionem veritatis et falsitatis expressionem literas ad Bobiensem et Ferrariensem episcopos impetrasse, non sententiantes, quia lis coram nobis contestata non fuit, sed respondentes abbati, petitionem eius iuxta formam praescriptam non esse admittendam respondimus, et ipsum scriptis carere mandavimus, quae per mendacium impetravit;] In eum statum continentiam causae reducimus, in quo fuerat, quum praedictus praedecessor noster causam proprietatis et possessionis Reginensi et Mutinensi episcopis commisit, mandato sequestrationis penitus revocato. [Sententiam tamen excommunicationis in Hugonem de Camerario et complices eius prolatam volumus et mandamus usque ad satisfactionem condignam inviolabiliter observari.] Ne autem monasterio videamur in suo iure deesse, moderatas expensas, ex quo episcopus Veronensis ipsum in possessionem induci decrevit usque ad satisfactionis tempus oblatae propter hoc factas, sibi restituendas esse censemus, et a te sufficientem praeberi standi iudicio cautionem.

For he had suggested that the bishop of Verona, with the question of property saved, had promulgated a sentence concerning possession, whereas he had decreed that the abbot be put in possession only for the sake of preserving the thing. He also kept silence about the truth, since, concerning the suretyship offered before the said bishops of Reggio and Modena by the archbishop, he made no mention at the Apostolic See.] We therefore [having, upon these and other matters—whatever had been proposed on either side—taken mature counsel with our brothers, the archbishops and bishops established at the Apostolic See, understanding that the said Veronese had decreed that the abbot be put in possession solely for the sake of preserving the thing, as was consonant with reason, inasmuch as before him the suit about ownership had not been joined, and that, as to the same M., once archbishop, there had been no default—he did furnish within a year the surety that had been offered, and purged the contumacy, if any had preceded—considering also that the abbot himself, by suppression of the truth and expression of falsehood, had obtained letters to the bishops of Bobbio and Ferrara, not delivering sentence (since the suit had not been joined before us), but answering the abbot, we replied that his petition, according to the prescribed form, was not to be admitted, and we ordered that he be deprived of the writings which he obtained by a lie;] We restore the posture of the case to that state in which it had been when our aforesaid predecessor committed the cause of ownership and possession to the bishops of Reggio and Modena, the mandate of sequestration being entirely revoked. [Nevertheless, we will and command that the sentence of excommunication pronounced against Hugh de Camerario and his accomplices be inviolably observed until condign satisfaction.] Lest we seem to fail the monastery in its own right, we judge that the moderate expenses incurred for this, from the time when the bishop of Verona decreed that he be put in possession up to the time of the satisfaction offered, are to be restored to it, and that by you sufficient security be furnished for abiding the judgment.

[Sententiam autem etc. Dat. Lat.

[But the sentence, however, etc. Given at the Lateran.

VI. Non. Mart. 1198.]

6. Nones of March. 1198.]

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Si missus in possessionem causa custodiae fructus dissipat, dissipati revocantur, et cum aliis sequestrantur.

If one sent into possession for the purpose of custody dissipates the fruits, the dissipated are recalled, and are sequestered together with the others.

Honorius III. Priori Deben. et Decano de Calin.

Honorius III. To the Prior of Deben. and to the Dean of Calin.

Dilectus filius R. rector ecclesiae de Bethusia sua nobis petitione monstravit, quod, quum inter ipsum ex parte una, et abbatem, et conventum de Cisteria Londoniensis dioecesis ex altera super eadem ecclesia coram abbate de Sibiton. et eius collegis ex delegatione apostolica quaestio verteretur, et iudices ipsi, prout erant plus debito parti alteri favorabiles, post appellationem ab eodem R. legitime interpositam praedictos abbatem et conventum in possessionem ipsius ecclesiae causa custodiae induxerunt, qui fructus ipsius ecclesiae medio tempore perceptos pro suae distrahunt libito voluntatis in eius praeiudicium et gravamen. Quocirca discretioni vestrae mandamus, quatenus, si est ita, facientes usque ad decisionem negotii fructus sequestrari praedictos, si quid interim de ipsis per eos distractum inveneritis, in statum pristinum revocetis, contradictiones per censuras ecclesiasticas compescentes.

The beloved son R., rector of the church of Bethusia, showed to us by his petition that, when between him on the one side, and the abbot and convent of Cisteria of the London diocese on the other, concerning the same church, before the abbot of Sibiton. and his colleagues by apostolic delegation a dispute was pending, and the judges themselves, insofar as they were more than was due favorable to the other party, after an appeal had been lawfully interposed by the same R., inducted the aforesaid abbot and convent into possession of that church for the sake of custody, who are selling off the fruits of that church received in the meantime at the mere pleasure of their will, to his prejudice and burden. Wherefore we command your discretion that, if it is so, causing until the decision of the business the aforesaid fruits to be sequestered, if you find that anything in the meantime of them has been alienated by them, you restore it to its pristine state, restraining contradictions by ecclesiastical censures.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Si reus possessor appellat a sententia contra eum lata, licite rei petitae fructus sequestrantur, si dissipantur ab eo.

If the defendant-possessor appeals from a sentence issued against him, the fruits of the thing claimed are licitly sequestered, if they are being dissipated by him.

Gregorius IX.

Gregory 9.

Ab eo, qui a sententia provocavit, fructus possessionis, si dissipentur ab ipso, possunt lite pendente rationabiliter sequestrari.

From him who has appealed from the judgment, the fruits of the possession, if they are dissipated by him, can, with the suit pending, reasonably be sequestered.

TITULUS XVIII. DE CONFESSIS.

TITLE 18. ON CONFESSIONS.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Ad solum dictum confitentis crimen proprium non est alteri infligenda poena aliqua; infamato tamen est indicenda purgatio.

On the sole statement of one confessing his own crime, no punishment at all is to be inflicted on another; to the defamed person, however, a purgation is to be enjoined.

Clemens III.

Clement III.

Quum monasterium (Et infra: [cf. c.13.de elect. I.6.])Super eo vero, quod tuis literis adnectere studuisti, quid tibi faciendum sit de quodam eiusdem monasterii sacerdote, qui diabolo instigante quendam ex fratribus, sicut eum publice proposuisti confessum, occidit, hoc fraternitati tuae rescribimus et per apostolica scripta mandamus, quatenus eum solenniter ab omni officio divino non differas degradare, et in monasterium aliquod Cisterciensis ordinis recludere, in quo iniunctam sibi tanti facinoris poenitentiam agens ibi, dum vixerit, digne lugeat quod commisit. Eos, autem, de quorum suggestione scelus homicidii presbyter se perpetrasse proponit, nisi tibi aliis modis et iustis rationibus verum esse constiterit, nulli censemus poenae subdendos, quum secundum utriusque iuris statuta de se confessi super aliorum conscientiis interrogari non debent, et, crimine laesae maiestatis excepto, de reatu proprio confitentis periculosa confessio non est adversus quemlibet admittenda. Si tamen eos infamia huiusmodi laborare cognoveris, singulis eis, adiunctis tribus sociis sui ordinis, purgationem iniungas.

When a monastery (And below: [cf. ch.13.on elections1. 6.])As to that, moreover, which you have endeavored to append to your letters—what you should do about a certain priest of the same monastery who, the devil instigating, killed one of the brothers, as you publicly declared him to have confessed—this we write back to your fraternity and by apostolic writings we command: that you do not delay to degrade him solemnly from every divine office, and to shut him up in some monastery of the Cistercian Order, in which, performing the penance enjoined upon him for so great a crime, he may there, so long as he lives, worthily lament what he has committed. But those at whose suggestion the presbyter avers he perpetrated the crime of homicide, unless it has been established to you by other means and just reasons that it is true, we judge to be subjected to no penalty, since, according to the statutes of both laws, those who have confessed as to themselves ought not to be questioned about the consciences of others, and—except for the crime of lèse-majesté—the perilous confession of one confessing his own guilt is not to be admitted against anyone. If, however, you perceive that they labor under infamy of this sort, you shall enjoin upon each of them purgation, with three associates of his order adjoined.

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Si de crimine contingente causam principalem constat contra aliquem per eius confessionem, punitur poena ordinaria, etiamsi directe contra eum non agatur. H. d. secundum glossam. Et est casus notabilis et verus in se. Vel summa sic secundum alium intellectum non minus notabilem, quem etiam sentit glossa, licet non perfecte explicet: Si quis confitetur crimen in iudicio incidenter, potest iudex ordinarius novum inchoando processum illum punire poena ordinaria.

If, concerning a crime touching the principal cause, it is established against someone by his own confession, he is punished with the ordinary penalty, even if proceedings are not being carried on directly against him. This holds, according to the Gloss. And it is a notable case and true in itself. Or the sum is thus, according to another understanding no less notable, which the Gloss also holds, although it does not explain it perfectly: If someone confesses a crime in court incidentally, the ordinary judge, by initiating a new process, can punish him with the ordinary penalty.

H. d. singulariter. Abbas.

In this place, singularly. Abbot.

Innocentius III. Canonicis de Bethlehem.

Innocent III. To the Canons of Bethlehem.

Quum super electione Bethlehemitanae ecclesiae inter R. subdiaconum vestrum et P. canonicum sepulcri dominici nuper in nostra praesentia quaestio verteretur (Et infra: [cf. c.4.de causa poss. II.12.])Ceterum Quoniam V. canonicus Bethlehemitanus fuit in iure confessus, quod pro praestando alterius electioni consensu quingentorum Sarracenorum obligationem receperat et promissum, et mediator exstitit simoniacae pravitatis, nos intelligentes, contractum huiusmodi continere simoniacam pravitatem, quoniam vitium huiusmodi persequi volumus, ut debemus, ipsum ab omni ordine clericali per diffinitivam sententiam duximus ab omni beneficio et officio ecclesiastico deponendum.

When concerning the election of the Bethlehemite church a question was in dispute between R., your subdeacon, and P., canon of the Lord’s Sepulcher, recently in our presence (And below: [cf. c.4.on the cause of possession2. 12.])Moreover Since V., a Bethlehemite canon, had confessed in law that, for furnishing consent to the election of the other, he had received an obligation and a promise of five hundred Saracens, and stood forth as a mediator of simoniacal depravity, we, understanding that a contract of this kind contains simoniacal depravity, since we wish, as we ought, to prosecute a vice of this kind, have judged by a definitive sentence that he is to be deposed from every clerical order, and removed from every ecclesiastical benefice and office.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

Confessio facta in iure per oeconomum ecclesiae nocet ipsi ecclesiae; potest tamen revocari, si ante finitum negotium doceatur per errorem facti emanasse. H. d.

A confession made in law by the church’s oeconomus (steward) harms the church itself; it can, however, be revoked, if before the business is concluded it is shown to have issued from an error of fact. Thus it is decided.

Gregorius IX. B. Iudici Viterbiensi.

Gregory 9. To B., Judge of Viterbo.

Ex parte [dilectorum filiorum] abbatis et conventus monasterii sancti M. [in monte Viterbien. Cistercien. ordinis] fuit propositum [coram nobis], quod, quum inter ipsos ex parte una, et V. [civem Viterb.] nomine suae uxoris ex altera coram te quaestio verteretur, [tandem in te tanquam in arbitrum fuit a partibus poena interposita compromissum.

On the part of [beloved sons] the abbot and the convent of the monastery of Saint M. [on Mount Viterbo, of the Cistercian order] it was proposed [before us] that, since between them on the one side, and V. [a citizen of Viterbo] in the name of his wife on the other, before you a question was pending, [at length upon you, as upon an arbitrator, there was by the parties a compromise entered, with a penalty interposed.

Quumque coram te lis procederet suo Marte], oeconomus monasterii memorati [qui causam prosequebatur eandem] quaedam per errorem facti fuit in iure confessus, ex quibus timet sibi praeiudicium generari. [Quare super hoc sibi petierunt a nobis congrue provideri.] Quum igitur negotio nondum finito nemini noceat error facti, mandamus, quatenus, si [praedicti abbas et conventus] de huiusmodi potuerit errore docere, [super hoc auctoritate nostra] provideas, ut nullum sibi super hoc praeiudicium generetur. [Dat.

And when the suit was proceeding before you of its own accord], the steward of the aforesaid monastery [who was prosecuting the same cause] made in law a confession of certain things through an error of fact, from which he fears that prejudice may be generated for himself. [Wherefore concerning this they asked of us that suitable provision be made for them.] Since, therefore, with the matter not yet finished, an error of fact harms no one, we command that, inasmuch as, if [the aforesaid abbot and convent] can show such an error, you provide [in this matter by our authority] that no prejudice be generated for them on this account. [Given.

Reatin. XII. Kal.

At Rieti. 12th day before the Kalends.

Febr. A. V. 1232.]

Feb., in the 5th year. 1232.]

TITULUS XIX. DE PROBATIONIBUS.

TITLE 19. ON PROOFS.

CAP. I.

CHAPTER 1.

Reus actori suo propria instrumenta edere non tenetur. Ita communiter summatur.

The defendant is not bound to produce his own instruments/documents to his plaintiff. Thus it is commonly summarized.

Gregorius Tancredo Regi Vincestriae.

Gregory to King Tancred at Winchester.

Ex epistolae verbis (Et infra:) Tua excellentia postulavit, ut [piissimo] imperatori scriberem, quatenus pacta in chartophylacio requireret, quae dudum inter piae memoriae Iustinianum principem et praedecessores tuos fuerunt emissa, ut ex his colligeret, quid tibi servare deberet. Sed ad hoc faciendum hoc mihi vehementer obstitit, quia nulli dicendum est: ea, quae contra te sunt, apud temetipsum debes documenta requirere, in mediumque proferre. [Ex qua re etc.]

From the words of the letter (And below:): Your Excellency requested that I write to the [most pious] emperor, to the extent that he would search in the chartophylacium for the pacts which long ago were issued between Justinian, a prince of pious memory, and your predecessors, so that from these he might gather what he ought to observe for you. But this very much stood in my way for doing this, because one must not say to anyone: you must look for the documents which are against you in your own keeping, and bring them forth into the open. [From which matter etc.]

CAP. II.

CHAPTER 2.

Actor, qui plene probavit, non debet compelli iurare.

The plaintiff (actor), who has fully proved, ought not to be compelled to swear an oath.

Alexander III.

Alexander 3.

Sicut consuetudo laudabilis nulla debet novitate convelli, sic quod noscitur contra ius moribus introductum obvia ratione debet dissolvi. Sane quoniam apud vos consuetum esse didicimus, ut, quum aliquis intentionem suam fundaverit instrumentis aut testibus introductis, ei sacramentum nihilominus deferatur, quod si subire noluerit, fides probationibus exhibitis non habetur, quod quum nulla sit ratione subnixum, sed manifeste legibus adversetur: nos, quum tunc demum ad huiusmodi sit suffragium recurrendum, quum aliae legitimae probationes deesse noscuntur, talem consuetudinem reprobamus, nec ullam habere firmitatem deinceps sancimus.

Just as a laudable custom ought to be shaken by no novelty, so that which is known to have been introduced by customs contrary to law ought to be dissolved by a countervailing reason. Indeed, since we have learned that among you it is customary that, when someone has founded his claim by instruments or witnesses introduced, nevertheless an oath is tendered to him, and if he is unwilling to undergo it, credit is not given to the proofs exhibited, which, since it is supported by no reason, but manifestly is opposed to the laws: we, since recourse ought then and only then to be had to such a support, when other lawful proofs are known to be lacking, reprobate such a custom, and we decree that henceforth it have no firmness whatever.

CAP. III.

CHAPTER 3.

In communi iudicio probant actor et reus; et si pariter probant, reus absolvitur, nisi favorabilem causam foveat actor.

In a common trial the plaintiff and the defendant offer proof; and if they prove equally, the defendant is absolved, unless the plaintiff supports a favorable cause.

Lucius III. Cistrensi Episcopo.

Lucius 3. To the Bishop of Cisterne.

Ex literis tuis intelleximus, te et archidiaconum confines habere praebendas in villis, quas singuli singulas possidetis, et praetextu terminorum inter vos controversiam agitari eo, quod dicas, eum antiquos fines egressum, partemque tui fundi occupasse; illo in contrarium asserente, se partem eandem fundi possedisse quadraginta annorum spatio inconcusse. Tu autem, quod per idem tempus quiete illam possederis, asseveras, quare utrum incumbat petitori vel possessori probatio quaesivisti. Ad quod scire debes, quod iudicium finium regundorum tale est, ut in eo utraque persona vices duorum habeat, videlicet actoris et rei.

From your letters we have understood that you and the archdeacon hold bordering prebends in the villas which each of you individually possesses, and that under the pretext of the boundaries a controversy is being litigated between you, because you say that he has gone beyond the ancient bounds and has occupied a part of your fund (estate); while he, to the contrary, asserts that he has possessed that same part of the fund for the space of forty years without disturbance. You, however, asseverate that you have quietly possessed it during the same time, and therefore you have inquired whether the burden of proof lies upon the petitioner or upon the possessor. To which you ought to know that the action of regulating boundaries (iudicium finium regundorum) is such that in it each person has the roles of both, namely of plaintiff and defendant.

Unde hinc inde testes rite produci possunt ad cognitionem iudicis instruendam, quibus examinatis iudex quos praecellere intellexerit ad fidem sibi faciendam admittat. Quod si forte ambarum partium testes sint aeque idonei, possessoris testes praeferentur, quum promptiora sint iura ad absolvendum quam ad condemnandum, praeterquam in liberali causa, in qua si utriusque partis testes forte aequales fuerint, pro libertate tamen semper sententia proferetur. Nam possessori probationem aliquando dari, iuris manifesti est, quum iure ita cautum sit, quod, qui obiecerit praescriptionem longissimi temporis, quam nemo recte obiicit, nisi qui possidet, et eam probaverit, in causa debeat obtinere.

Whence on both sides witnesses can be duly produced to instruct the judge’s inquiry; and when these have been examined, the judge should admit those whom he has understood to excel, for the purpose of inducing belief in himself. But if perhaps the witnesses of both parties are equally fit, the possessor’s witnesses will be preferred, since the laws are readier to acquit than to condemn, except in a case of liberty, in which, if the witnesses of each party should perhaps be equal, in favor of freedom yet always a sentence will be delivered. For that proof is sometimes given to the possessor is manifest in law, since it is thus provided by law that he who has put forward the prescription of the longest time—which no one rightly puts forward except one who possesses—and has proved it, ought to prevail in the case.

CAP. IV.

CHAPTER 4.

Non creditur marito asserenti etiam cum iuramento, uxorem se cognovisse, si uxor per matronas attestantes per ipsius corporis aspectum probat contrarium.

The husband is not believed, asserting even with an oath, that he has known his wife, if the wife, through matrons attesting, proves the contrary by the inspection of her own body.

Gregorius VIII. Praeposito sancti Cataldi.

Gregory 8. To the Provost of Saint Cataldus.

Proposuisti nobis, dilecte fili praeposite, quod causa matrimonii, quae inter dilectum filium nostrum O. de Casa nova, et S. filiam O. de Pisco mulierem vertitur, tibi fuit de mandato apostolico delegata. Quumque partes essent in tua praesentia constitutae, mulier proposuit, se nec a viro cognitam, nec potuisse cognosci, quod tam proprio iuramento, quam testimonio septem mulierum probavit, quae per aspectum corporis eam esse virginem asseverant; viro autem per iuramentum suum contrarium asserente, vos in negotio procedere minime voluistis, donec de hoc nostrum consilium haberetis. Videtur igitur nobis, quod iuramento puellae et testimonio illarum septem mulierum, quae ipsam per experientiam virginem asseverant, fides est potius adhibenda.

You set forth to us, beloved son provost, that the cause of matrimony, which is being contested between beloved son our O. of Casa Nova, and S., the daughter of O. of Pisco, a woman, was delegated to you by apostolic mandate. And when the parties had been set in your presence, the woman alleged that she had neither been known by the man, nor could have been known, which she proved both by her own oath and by the testimony of seven women, who, by inspection of the body, asseverate her to be a virgin; the man, however, asserting the contrary by his oath, you were not at all willing to proceed in the matter, until you should have our counsel on this. It therefore seems to us that faith is rather to be given to the maiden’s oath and to the testimony of those seven women, who through experience asseverate her to be a virgin.

CAP. V.

CHAPTER 5.

Singulares de universitate possunt ad commodum universitatis reprobare instrumentum falso confectum nomine universitatis.

Individual members of the universitas can, for the advantage of the universitas, disprove an instrument forged in the name of the universitas.

Clemens III.

Clement III.

Tertio quippe loco fuit a nobis ita quaesitum: Ecce quidam regularis sigillo capituli quoddam instrumentum cuidam amico suo signavit, in quo facta ei alienatio quarundam rerum ecclesiae immobilium continetur. Quo exhibito in iudicio procurator universitatis illud asseruit de assensu conventus non fuisse confectum, et adulterinum vel furtivum esse sigillum. Quumque, volens falsitatem civiliter revelare, fratres regulares ad perhibendum testimonium produxisset, iurati dixerunt, quod eo tempore, quo adversarius allegabat idem instrumentum sibi fuisse collatum, quotiens de hoc inter fratres aliqua erat mentio, consilium totius conventus et vox fuit unanimis, quod nolebant alienationem rerum illarum, sed res domus suae fore integras et conservari volebant.

In the third place indeed it was thus inquired by us: Behold, a certain regular sealed with the seal of the chapter a certain instrument for a certain friend of his, in which is contained the alienation made to him of certain immovable things of the church. When this was produced in judgment, the procurator of the universitas asserted that it had not been drawn up with the assent of the convent, and that the seal was adulterine or stolen. And when, wishing civilly to reveal the falsity, he had produced the regular brethren to give testimony, the sworn men said that at the time when the adversary alleged that the same instrument had been conferred upon him, whenever there was any mention of this among the brethren, the counsel of the whole convent and the voice was unanimous, that they did not wish the alienation of those things, but that the goods of their house would be intact and they wished them to be preserved.

Sed quoniam contra hoc nihil pars adversa probavit, respondemus secundum assertionem testium tantummodo iudicandum.

But since the opposing party has proved nothing against this, we reply that it must be judged solely according to the assertion of the witnesses.

CAP. VI.

CHAPTER 6.

Ubi agitur de matrimonio contrahendo, probato impedimento et publicatis attestationibus alii testes super defectu impedimenti admittendi non sunt.

Where it is a matter of contracting marriage, once the impediment has been proven and the attestations have been published, other witnesses on the defect of the impediment are not to be admitted.

Idem.

The same.

Iuravit quidam, ut asseris se quandam in uxorem legitimam accepturum. Quam quum vellet traducere, quidam iuramentis secundum morem exhibitis legitime probaverunt, ipsos in quinto consanguinitatis gradu sibi invicem attinere. Quia vero requisisti a nobis, quid agendum sit, quum quidam alius probare velit contra praedictam probationem iuramentis canonicis factam et partibus publicatam, nullo eos sese consanguinitatis gradu contingere, fraternitati tuae in praesenti articulo respondemus, quod standum est probationi priori.

A certain man, as you assert, swore that he would take a certain woman as a legitimate wife. When he wished to conduct her home, certain persons, by oaths exhibited according to custom, legitimately proved that they were related to one another in the 5th degree of consanguinity. But because you have asked of us what is to be done, when a certain other wishes to prove, against the aforesaid proof made by canonical oaths and published to the parties, that they touch one another in no degree of consanguinity, we respond to your fraternity in the present article that the prior proof must be stood by.

Nec de unius testimonio tantum curandum est. Illud etiam, ut matrimonium remaneat, non suadet, quod sponsus et sponsa constanti assertione proponunt, se carnaliter cognovisse, quum commercium carnale inter non legitimas personas matrimonium de iure facere non possit.

Nor should only the testimony of a single person be cared for. That also does not persuade, that the matrimony remain, which the bridegroom and the bride put forward with constant assertion, namely that they have known one another carnally, since carnal commerce between non-legitimate persons cannot make matrimony by law.

CAP. VII.

CHAPTER 7.

Si per literas ordinarii probatur quis excommunicatus, a procuratione repelletur. H. d. et haec summatio convenit textui et titulo, et nullam patitur calumniam, et ideo eam tene.

If by letters of the ordinary someone is proved excommunicated, he shall be repelled from procuration. Here declared: and this summation agrees with the text and the title, and suffers no calumny; and therefore hold it.

Innocentius III. Archidiacono Parisiensi.

Innocent III. To the Archdeacon of Paris.

Post cessionem [dilecti filii abbatis olim S. Martini Trecensis, canonicorum eiusdem ecclesiae votis in electionem divisis, quidam ex ipsis dilectum filium Manassem, ecclesiae S. Lupi canonicum elegerunt, aliis in dilectum filium P. venerabilis fratris nostri ŠŠ Senonensis archiepiscopi capellanum transferentibus vota sua; propter quod causam ipsam venerabili fratri nostro ŠŠ Cabilonensi episcopo et dilecto filio ŠŠ abbati Cluniacensi terminandam commisimus sub hac forma, ut, de utriusque electionis iuribus et electorum meritis inquirentes, electionem quam invenirent de persona idonea canonice celebratam, auctoritate apostolica confirmarent. Si vero neutram canonicam invenirent, utraque electione cassata de persona idonea facerent eidem ecclesiae provideri. Qui, partes ad suam praesentiam convocantes, ac de causa solenniter cognoscentes, tam super eligentium facto, quam contra personas testes plurimos receperunt, et, quum usque ad publicationem testium processissent, ŠŠ procurator dicti P. capellani, ad sedem apostolicam provocavit.

After the cession [of our beloved son, formerly abbot of St. Martin of Troyes, the canons of the same church, their votes divided for the election, some of them elected our beloved son Manasses, a canon of the church of St. Lupus, others transferring their votes to our beloved son P., chaplain of our venerable brother ŠŠ, archbishop of Sens; wherefore we committed the case itself to our venerable brother ŠŠ, bishop of Chalon, and to our beloved son ŠŠ, abbot of Cluny, to be terminated under this form: that, inquiring into the rights of each election and the merits of the elect, they should, by apostolic authority, confirm the election which they should find to have been canonically celebrated of a suitable person. But if they should find neither to be canonical, with both elections annulled they should see to it that provision be made to the same church from a suitable person. They, summoning the parties to their presence and taking cognizance of the cause solemnly, received very many witnesses both concerning the deed of the electors and with respect to the persons; and when they had proceeded up to the publication of the witnesses, ŠŠ, the procurator of the said chaplain P., appealed to the Apostolic See.

Iudices vero pro eo, quod alter eorum abbas scilicet Cluniacensis, maioribus erat negotiis occupatus, nec causae cognitioni poterat interesse, appellationi huiusmodi de prudentum virorum consilio detulerunt, partibus iniungentes, ut cum receptis attestationibus ad nostram praesentiam festinarent, super ipsa causa definitivam a nobis sententiam recepturae. Actis itaque iudicii ab utraque parte receptis, quidam ex canonicis supradictis procuratorem constituerunt V. concanonicum suum in praesentia episcopi memorati, sicut in eiusdem episcopi literis perspeximus contineri. Verum, eodem V. in itinere constituto ad sedem apostolicam veniendi, quum interim dictus archiepiscopus Senonensis visitandi gratia Nivernensem dioecesim peragraret, ad ipsum supradictae ecclesiae nuncii accesserunt; insinuantes eidem, quod omnes canonici in P. capellanum ipsius, praeter paucos, qui, licet non contradicerent, non tamen consentiebant expresse, contulerant vota sua, ipsum archiepiscopum deprecantes, ut ad locum quam citius properaret ecclesiae provisurus.

The judges indeed, because one of them—namely the abbot of Cluny—was occupied with greater business and could not be present at the cognition of the cause, allowed an appellation of this kind by the counsel of prudent men, enjoining the parties that, with the attestations received, they should hasten to our presence, to receive from us a definitive sentence upon the case itself. Accordingly, the acts of the judgment having been received from both sides, certain of the aforesaid canons appointed V., their fellow-canon, as procurator in the presence of the aforesaid bishop, as we have perceived to be contained in that bishop’s letters. However, with the same V. set on the journey to come to the apostolic see, while meanwhile the said archbishop of Sens, for the sake of visiting, was traversing the diocese of Nevers, messengers of the aforesaid church approached him; making known to him that all the canons had conferred their votes upon P., his chaplain, except for a few who, although they did not gainsay, nevertheless did not consent expressly, beseeching the archbishop himself to hasten to the place as quickly as possible, to provide for the church.

Ad quem quum propter eorum instantiam accessisset, universi, qui prius consensum suum exprimere recusabant, praeter solum Vitalem, qui absens erat, ad aliorum concordiam redeuntes, in supradictum capellanum voluntarie consenserunt, de dissensu praeterito veniam postulantes. Sicque factum est, quod ad postulationem omnium in festo Apostolorum Petri et Pauli apud maiorem ecclesiam Trecensem idem P. a metropolitano iam dicto munus benedictionis accepit, ac postmodum in ecclesiam S. Martini cum omnium tripudio et gaudio generali solenniter introductus, et a dilecto filio ŠŠ decano Trecensi, sicut moris est, installatus in eiusdem ecclesiae capitulo professiones recepit publice singulorum. Dictus autem Vitalis, ad nostram praesentiam veniens, acta nobis iudicum praesentavit, sollicite postulans, ut eum dignaremur quam citius expedire.

To whom, when he had come by reason of their urgency, all who had previously refused to express their consent, except only Vitalis, who was absent, returning to the concord of the others, voluntarily consented to the aforesaid chaplain, asking pardon for their past dissent. And thus it was done that, at the petition of all, on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul at the greater church of Troyes, that same P., from the already-mentioned metropolitan, received the office of benediction, and afterwards, into the church of St. Martin, with the jubilation of all and general joy, being solemnly introduced, and by our beloved son ŠŠ, the dean of Troyes, as is the custom, installed, in the chapter of that same church he publicly received the professions of each. But the said Vitalis, coming into our presence, presented to us the acts of the judges, earnestly requesting that we deign to expedite his case as quickly as possible.

Ipso vero aliquamdiu exspectante, dicti P. capellani procurator interim supervenit. Quibus in nostra praesentia constitutis, procurator iam dictus humiliter petiit, quatenus dignaremur quod de dicto capellano per archiepiscopum factum fuerat approbare, ac saepedictum V. utpote excommunicatum in nullo penitus audiremus. Asserebat siquidem, quod idem V. L. quondam abbatem S. Martini usque ad effusionem sanguinis verberavit; Ioannem quoque, eiusdem ecclesiae sacerdotem tam gravibus verberibus flagellavit, quod de ipsius vita omnes eius socii desperabant; quendam etiam presbyterum eiusdem ecclesiae nuper a sede apostolica redeuntem tunsionibus tam duris affecit, ut eius facies afflicta videretur nimium et horrenda; propter quos excessus et alios, super quibus a dicto metropolitano citatus et monitus satisfacere noluit vel etiam comparere, excommunicationis fuit vinculo innodatus.

But while he himself was waiting for some time, the procurator of the said P., the chaplain, meanwhile arrived. When they were set in our presence, the aforesaid procurator humbly requested that we deign to approve what had been done concerning the said chaplain by the archbishop, and that we should in no way at all hear the oft‑mentioned V., inasmuch as he was excommunicated. For he asserted that the same V. beat L., sometime abbot of St. Martin, even to the effusion of blood; John also, a priest of the same church, he scourged with blows so grievous that all his companions despaired of his life; likewise a certain presbyter of the same church, lately returning from the apostolic see, he afflicted with beatings so hard that his face, having been battered, seemed excessively marred and horrendous; on account of which excesses and others, for which, having been cited and admonished by the said metropolitan, he was unwilling to make satisfaction or even to appear, he was knotted by the bond of excommunication.

Ad quod probandum idem procurator tam dicti archiepiscopi Senonensis quam decani Trecensis literas exhibebat. Ad haec fuit pro parte iam dicti Vitalis ex adverso responsum, quod huiusmodi excommunicationis obiectu non debebat aliquatenus impediri. Ipsi siquidem canonici, eum usque ad haec tempora non vitantes, tam in o fficiis quam in iudicio communionem ipsius nullatenus declinarunt; quin immo, quum in praesentia dicti Cabilonensis episcopi procurator exstitit constitutus, ipsum sine contradictione qualibet admiserunt.

To prove this, the same procurator was producing letters both of the said archbishop of Sens and of the dean of Troyes. To these things it was answered on the adversary side on behalf of the already-said Vitalis, that he ought not in any way to be impeded by the objection of such excommunication. For the canons themselves, not avoiding him up to these times, declined in no way his communion both in the offices and in judgment; nay rather, when in the presence of the said bishop of Chalon the procurator had been constituted, they admitted him without any contradiction whatsoever.

Archiepiscopus etiam iudicibus vel confratribus ipsum excommunicationi subiectum minime nunciavit, quare, se admitti debere in iudicio sicut quemlibet alium, proponebat, exceptione huiusmodi non obstante. Contra quod procurator ex parte altera replicabat, quod, si quando idem V. cum canonicis suis divinis interfuit, hoc ipsis omnino displicuit; sed ipse, licet inhibitus, se divinis officiis, illis dolentibus, ingerebat, sicut ex literis praedicti decani colligitur manifeste; sed nec in iudicio communicarunt eidem, quia, licet de numero illorum fuerit, qui electioni capellani se opposuere praedicti, non tamen est in iudicio facta fides, quod idem V. procurator in illo iudicio fuerit sive testis, vel quod alias ei communicaverint canonici saepedicti. Adiecit etiam, quod nec illud poterat praeiudicium generare, quod idem V. non fuit tanquam excommunicatus exclusus, quando coram praedicto episcopo constitutus exstitit procurator, quoniam hoc in eorum absentia factum fuit.

The archbishop also in no way announced to the judges or confrères that he was subject to excommunication, wherefore he was proposing that he ought to be admitted in judgment just like anyone else, the exception of this sort notwithstanding. Against this the procurator on the other side replied that, if ever that same V. attended the divine offices with his canons, this altogether displeased them; but he, although inhibited, thrust himself into the divine offices, they grieving, as is manifestly gathered from the letters of the aforesaid dean; nor did they communicate with him in court, because, although he was of the number of those who opposed the election of the aforesaid chaplain, nevertheless no proof was made in court that that same V. was a procurator in that proceeding or a witness, or that on other occasions the aforesaid canons communicated with him. He added also that neither could that generate prejudice, namely that the same V. was not excluded as though excommunicated when, constituted before the aforesaid bishop, he appeared as procurator, since this was done in their absence.

Adiecit quoque, quod, si archiepiscopus ipsum in illo iudicio non denunciaverit excommunicationi subiectum, quia nec scivit ipsum in illo iudicio litigare, postquam tamen per literas suo sigillo munitas ipsum excommunicatum denunciaverat, tanquam excommunicatus est ab omnibus evitandus.] Quum igitur super hoc coram nobis disceptatum fuisset, quia per literas iudicis ordinarii, quibus standum est, donec probetur contrarium, nobis constiterit, quod V. tunc excommunicatus erat, quum procurationis officium assumpsit, ipsum tanquam procuratorem non duximus admittendum. [Verum etc. Dat.

He added also, that, if the archbishop did not denounce him in that trial as subject to excommunication, because he did not even know that he was litigating in that trial, nevertheless, after he had, by letters fortified with his own seal, denounced him as excommunicated, as excommunicated he is to be avoided by all.] When therefore on this matter it had been disputed before us, because by the letters of the ordinary judge, which must be abided by until the contrary be proved, it was established for us that V. then was excommunicated when he assumed the office of procuration, we did not deem him to be admitted as procurator. [But etc. Given.

Lat. IV. Non. Oct.

Lateran, the 4th day before the Nones of Oct.

Ao. IX. 1206.]

Year 9. 1206.]

CAP. VIII.

CHAPTER 8.

Si rogatus restituere totam hereditatem, eo sine liberis decedente intret monasterium, evanescit fideicommissum, et hereditas applicatur monasterio; nec ad invalidandum ingressum sufficit probare minorem aetatem tempore ingressus, si ex adverso geminatus probetur ingressus. H. d. intelligendo, quod substitutio fuit fideicommissaria. Si vero fuit directa, summa sic: substitutio facta filio, eo decedente sine liberis, evanescit per ingressum monasterii.

If the one requested to restitute the whole inheritance, he dying without children, should enter a monastery, the fideicommiss vanishes, and the inheritance is applied to the monastery; nor does it suffice for invalidating the entry to prove minority at the time of entry, if on the other side a doubled entry is proven. To be understood here, that the substitution was fideicommissary. But if it was direct, the sum is thus: a substitution made to the son, he dying without children, vanishes through entry into the monastery.

Et tunc adde id, quod est in primo summario ibi: nec ad invalidandum etc., usque ad finem, et uterque intellectus est verus in se. Dico tamen, quod primus est verior, quod hic fuit substitutio fideicommissaria, licet Dom. Anton. hic dicat, quod fuit compendiosa.

And then add that which is in the first summary there: nor for invalidating etc., up to the end, and each interpretation is true in itself. I say, however, that the first is truer: that here there was a fideicommissary substitution, although Dom. Anton. here says that it was compendious.

Idem Abbati et Conventui Cassensi.

The same to the Abbot and the Convent of Cassino.

In praesentia dilecti filii nostri G. sancti Hadriani diaconi cardinalis G. subdiaconus et B. mulier soror eius, Verulanenses fratres cum vestro syndico constitutos coram ipso fecere proponi, quod, quum quondam A. frater ipsorum conderet testamentum, M. filium suum sibi heredem instituit, et praecepit, ut, si absque liberis forte decederet, ad eos G. et B. bona devolverentur ipsius, unde illa, quae de bonis ipsius vestrum monasterium detinebat, sibi restitui postulabant, et petebant vos super hoc a sua molestatione compesci. Verum syndicus ipse proposuit ex adverso, quod praedictus M. monasterio vestro obtulit se et sua, unde universa, quae habuerat, erant ad monasterium devoluta, quare universa, quae ipsi de bonis eius invaserant, restitui monasterio vestro petebat, et super ceteris silentium illis imponi. Ad haec autem pars altera replicavit, quod dictus M. oblationis suae tempore fuerat minor annis, sicut per testes legitime comprobavit, et quod voti facti poenitens id, quod fervore infirmitatis fecerat, post convalescentiam revocavit.

In the presence of our beloved son G., deacon cardinal of Saint Hadrian, G., subdeacon, and B., woman, his sister, Verulanese, the brothers with your syndic, having been constituted before him, caused it to be set forth that, when once A., their brother, drew up a testament, he appointed his son M. as his heir, and ordered that, if he should perhaps die without children, his goods should devolve to them, G. and B.; wherefore they demanded that those things of his goods which your monastery was detaining be restored to them, and they asked that you be restrained from their molestation in this matter. But the syndic himself put forward on the opposite side that the aforesaid M. offered himself and his property to your monastery, whereupon all that he had was devolved to the monastery; wherefore he asked that all the things which they had seized from his goods be restored to your monastery, and that silence be imposed upon them concerning the rest. To these things, however, the other party replied that the said M. at the time of his oblation was a minor in years, as he legitimately proved through witnesses, and that, repenting of the vow made, that which he had done in the fervor of illness he revoked after convalescence.

Unde tum ex eo, quod Milo infra aetatem legitimam monasterio Casemarii obtulit se et sua, tum quia quod inconsulte fecerat postmodum revocavit, eius oblatio non tenebat. Unde quum sine liberis decessisset, ex testamento patris illius ad ipsos erat eius hereditas devoluta. Verum ad haec syndicus respondere curavit, quod, licet dictus M. de monasterio ipso de tua licentia, fili abbas, fuisset egressus, eidem postmodum, cum avo suo, qui eius erat procurator, ad praesentiam tuam, quum Verulas ivisses, accedens, se et sua obtulit humiliter et devote, et, quod nec contra oblationem et donationem suam veniret ulterius, iuramento firmavit, sicut publicum continet instrumentum. Quare quum constet ex his, quod idem M. bis monasterio vestro contulit se et sua, nec ex adverso probetur, quod utriusque oblationis tempore M. fuerit minor annis, probationem vestram huiusmodi exceptionis probatio non elidit, quum, etsi primae oblationis tempore fuerit minor annis, secundae tamen potuit maior exstitisse. Praeterea quum verbum illud minor annis duobus potuerit modis intelligi, quum et qui minor est quatuordecim annis, et qui viginti quinque minor fuerit, dici soleat minor annis, intentioni vestrae verbum dubium non nocebat, quum infra viginti quinque annos teneret donatio praesertim iuramento firmata.

Whence, both from this, that Milo, being below the lawful age, offered himself and his goods to the monastery of Casamari, and because he afterwards revoked what he had inconsiderately done, his oblation did not hold. Whence, when he had died without children, by the testament of his father that his inheritance had devolved to them. However, to these things the syndicus took care to respond that, although the said M. had gone out from the monastery itself by your license, son Abbot, afterwards, together with his grandfather, who was his procurator, approaching your presence, when you had gone to Verulas, he humbly and devoutly offered himself and his goods to the same, and he confirmed by oath that he would not henceforth act against his oblation and donation, as the public instrument contains. Wherefore, since it is evident from these things that the same M. twice conferred himself and his goods upon your monastery, nor is it proved on the opposing side that at the time of each oblation M. was a minor in years, the proof of your exception of this kind is not overthrown, since, even if at the time of the first oblation he was a minor in years, at the time of the second he could nevertheless have been of full age. Moreover, since that phrase “minor in years” can be understood in two ways—since both he who is under fourteen years, and he who was under twenty-five, is wont to be called “minor in years”—the doubtful phrase did not harm your intention, since under twenty-five years the donation would hold, especially being confirmed by oath.

Sed etsi teneret quod factum fuerat a dicto A., qui tamen intelligendum non erat sine herede decedere qui monasterium sibi heredem instituit, hoc monasterio non nocebat. Quum que cardinalis praedictus ea, quae coram ipso proposita fuerant, in nostra et fratrum nostrorum audientia retulisset, nos ad consilium dilectum filium H. sancti Eustachii diaconum cardinalem duximus deputandum. Idem igitur Dilectus filius H. sancti Eustachii cardinalis causae meritis plenius intellectis attendens, quod syndicus vester intentionem suam plene fundasset, et quod nihil fuisset ex adverso sufficienter probatum, quum, etsi ostensum esset per testes, quod M. suae oblationis tempore fuerit minor annis, utrum tamen primae vel secundae oblationis tempore minor fuerit, et quot annis minor, non fuisset expressum, de mandato nostro sententiam protulit, et praedictis G. et B. silentium imponens super his, quae a monasterio postulabant, eos ad restitutionem illorum, quae de bonis praedicti M. propria temeritate invaserant, condemnavit.

But even if what had been done by the said A. were to hold, he, who appointed the monastery as his heir, was nevertheless not to be understood to die without an heir; this did not prejudice the monastery. When the aforesaid cardinal had reported, in our and our brothers’ audience, the things that had been proposed before him, we deemed the beloved son H., cardinal deacon of Saint Eustace, to be deputed for counsel. Therefore the same The beloved son H., cardinal of Saint Eustace, the merits of the cause having been more fully understood, considering that your syndic had fully grounded his claim, and that nothing had been sufficiently proven on the opposing side—since, although it had been shown by witnesses that M. was under years at the time of his oblation, yet whether he was a minor at the time of the first or the second oblation, and by how many years a minor, had not been expressed—by our mandate delivered sentence, and, imposing silence upon the aforesaid G. and B. concerning those things which they were demanding from the monastery, condemned them to the restitution of those things which, by their own rashness, they had seized from the goods of the aforesaid M.

Nos igitur sententiam ipsam auctoritate apostolica confirmamus.

We therefore confirm the sentence itself by apostolic authority.

CAP. IX.

CHAPTER 9.

Si actor et reus in interdicto retinendae possessionis probant, obtinet is, qui antiquiorem possessionem probat titulo maxime iustificatam, vel meliores probationes respectu possessionis adduxit. H. d. notabiliter, et probatur satis summarium in versic. ex praemissis, ponderato versic.

If the plaintiff and the defendant, in the interdict for retaining possession, both make proof, he prevails who proves the more ancient possession, most justified by title, or who has adduced better proofs with respect to possession. Here, notably, it is proved quite summarily in the little line ‘from the premises,’ with the little line ‘weighed.’

maxime.

especially.

Idem.

The same.

Licet causam, quae vertitur inter ecclesiam Ravennatensem et commune Faventiae super iurisdictione, honores, ac districtu in villa Luci, sancti P. et castro Arioli, quod de iure ad se spectare dicta ecclesia proponebat (Et infra:) Verum, quia utrique parti erat plurimum onerosum, testes producere coram nobis, Placentino episcopo dedimus in praeceptis, ut infra tres menses testes appellatione remota reciperet, quos utraque pars tam super principali negotio, quam in personas testium duceret producendos, ita videlicet, ut effrenata multitudine refrenata hinc inde quadragenarium numerum nullatenus excedere pateretur. (Et infra:) Sicque postmodum utriusque partis procuratores cum attestationibus consignatis ad nostram praesentiam redierunt. Porro attestationibus solenniter publicatis, syndicus Faventinorum proposuit, se velle in personas testium ex parte altera productorum quaedam obiicere ac probare, oeconomo ecclesiae asserente, id fieri non debere. Super quo quum fuisset hinc inde aliquamdiu altercatum, tandem interloquendo decrevimus, ipsum super hoc nullatenus audiendum, quum infra trium mensium spatium in nostris literis comprehensum testes huiusmodi producere non curaverit, infra quem terminum pars utraque testes inducere potuit tam in personas testium, quam super negotio principali.

Although the cause which is in dispute between the Church of Ravenna and the commune of Faenza concerning jurisdiction, honors, and the district in the villa Luci, of Saint P., and the castle of Ariolus, which the said church was putting forward to pertain to itself by right, (And below:) Truly, because for each party it was very burdensome to produce witnesses before us, we gave in precepts to the bishop of Piacenza that within three months, appeal being removed, he should receive the witnesses whom either party would lead to be produced both on the principal business and against the persons of the witnesses, namely in such a way that the unbridled multitude being restrained, he should by no means allow the number forty on either side to be exceeded. (And below:) And so thereafter the procurators of each party returned to our presence with the attestations consigned. Moreover, the attestations having been solemnly published, the syndic of the Faventines proposed that he wished to object and prove certain things against the persons of the witnesses produced on the other side, the economus of the church asserting that this ought not to be done. Upon which when on both sides there had been for some time an altercation, at length by an interlocutory ruling we decreed that he on this point was by no means to be heard, since within the space of three months contained in our letters he had not taken care to produce witnesses of this kind, within which term either party could have brought in witnesses both against the persons of the witnesses and on the principal business.

Post hoc idem syndicus obiecit in testes praedictos, quod corrupti falsa dixissent, et ad querelam falsi probandam concedi sibi petiit facultatem. Unde quia talis exceptio non solum ante, sed etiam post sententiam potest opponi secundum legitimas sanctiones, licet nonnulli crederent, Faventinorum partem exceptionem huiusmodi per excogitatam malitiam ad impediendum processum negotii obiecisse, quia tamen nolumus a iuris tramite declinare, dilectis filiis magistris G. et T. Bononiae commorantibus per scripta nostra praecipimus, ut partibus convocatis testes, quos super hac exceptione procurator Faventinorum duceret producendos infra mensem, recipere et examinare curarent, de singulis circumstantiis subtiliter inquirentes, et depositiones eorum fideliter redigentes in scriptis, indulto extunc altero mense procuratori ecclesiae supradictae, infra quem, si vellet, ad reprobationem testium illorum produceret testes coram eis, et eorum dicta fideliter conscribentes XX. dierum terminum utrique parti praefigerent, infra quem cum attestationibus ipsis nostro se conspectui praesentarent sententiam recepturae. Partibus itaque comparentibus iterum coram nobis, et huiusmodi attestationibus publicatis, audivimus quaecunque proponere voluerunt. Quanquam autem pars Faventinorum testes multos produxerit super negotio principali, ad probandum, quod homines praedictorum locorum a longis retro temporibus exhibuerunt eis servitia in bannis, et placitis, fossatis et collectis et cavalcatis, et quibusdam aliis pertinentibus ad districtum, vix tamen ex illis sex tantummodo remanserunt concordes, quum alii multi sibimet in serie sui testimonii contradicant, et quidam alii sint in dicto sui testimonii singulares. Ad reprobandum vero quosdam testium ecclesiae Ravennatensis etsi ex parte Faventinorum quidam sint testes inducti, plures tamen illorum reprobantur, quia sibi invicem evidentissime contradicunt.

After this the same syndic objected against the aforesaid witnesses, that, being corrupted, they had spoken falsehoods, and he asked that the faculty be granted to him to prove the complaint of falsity. Wherefore, because such an exception can be opposed not only before but even after sentence according to legitimate sanctions, although some believed that the party of the Faentines had objected such an exception through devised malice to impede the progress of the business, yet since we do not wish to decline from the path of right, to the beloved sons masters G. and T., residing at Bologna by our writings we direct, that, the parties having been convoked they should take and examine within a month the witnesses whom on this exception the procurator of the Faentines would bring forward to be produced, inquiring minutely into each of the circumstances, and faithfully reducing their depositions into writings, a second month then being granted to the procurator of the aforesaid church, within which, if he wished, he might produce witnesses before them for the disproof of those witnesses, and, faithfully writing down their statements, they should set for each party a term of 20. days, within which they should present themselves to our sight with the attestations themselves to receive sentence. Therefore the parties appearing again before us, and the attestations of this kind having been published, we heard whatever they wished to propose. Although, however, the party of the Faentines produced many witnesses on the principal business, to prove that the men of the aforesaid places from long times past have exhibited to them services in bans, and pleas, ditches and levies and cavalcades, and certain other things pertaining to the district, scarcely, however, out of them did six only remain in agreement, since many many contradict themselves in the course of their testimony, and certain others are singular in the statement of their testimony. But for disapproving certain witnesses of the Church of Ravenna, although on the part of the Faentines certain witnesses have been introduced, yet more of them are disapproved, because they very plainly contradict one another.

Quidam vero alii pauci numero quamvis non reprobentur expresse, usque adeo tamen malae famae sunt et levis opinionis, sicut per attestationes exhibitas est probatum, quod eorum dictis nulla vel modica est fides adhibenda. Iidem quoque testes Faventinorum generaliter repelluntur, quia non probant illud, ad quod probandum eorum syndicus se adstrinxit, videlicet, quod corrupti falsa dixissent, quoniam, etsi de corruptione videantur aliquid diceres, de falsitate tamen penitus nihil dicunt, per multos autem ecclesiae Ravennatensis testes omni exceptione maiores probatum est manifeste, ecclesiam Ravennatensem villam Luci, S. Potiti et castrum Aureoli a longissimo tempore possedisse cum omni honore, districtu et iurisdictione, nominatim expressis universis articulis exprimentibus iurisdictionem, honorem atque districtum. Ex praemissis igitur satis evidenter apparet, quod ecclesia Ravennatensis per testes numero plures, quibus potius lux veritatis assistit, qui etiam aptiora negotio et vero proximiora in suis testimoniis expresserunt, sufficienter ostendit, quod a LX. annis et citra cum omni iurisdictione, honore atque districtu loca supra dicta possedit. Per quod patet, quod, si commune Faventiae a L. annis et citra, sicut videntur testes eorum deponere, aliqua servitia in locis perceperunt supra dictis, illa proculdubio sine iusto titulo percipere inceperunt, quum duo insimul eandem rem et eodem modo in solidum possidere non possint, maxime quum iidem Faventini iustum possessionis titulum non ostendant, et ex privilegiis imperatorum et Romanorum Pontificum ecclesiae Ravennatensi concessis evidentissime colligatur, possessionem ipsius ecclesiae in praedictis locis iustam fuisse.

Certain others indeed, few in number, although they are not expressly rejected, are nevertheless of such ill repute and light estimation, as has been proved by the attestations exhibited, that to their statements no or only slight credence is to be given. These same witnesses of the Faentines are likewise generally repelled, because they do not prove that which their syndic bound himself to prove, namely, that, being corrupted, they had spoken falsehoods; for, although they seem to say something about corruption, about falsity however they say absolutely nothing; but by many witnesses of the Church of Ravenna, above every exception, it has been manifestly proved that the Church of Ravenna has possessed the villa of Luci, of S. Potiti, and the castle of Aureoli for a very long time with all honor, district, and jurisdiction, with all the articles expressly named that express jurisdiction, honor, and district. From the premises, therefore, it appears quite evidently that the Church of Ravenna, through witnesses more numerous, to whom rather the light of truth adheres, who also expressed in their testimonies things more apt to the business and nearer to the truth, has sufficiently shown that for 60 years and within it has possessed the aforesaid places with all jurisdiction, honor, and district. Whereby it is clear that, if the commune of Faenza for 50 years and within, as their witnesses seem to depose, have received some services in the aforesaid places, they without doubt began to receive those without a just title, since two cannot at once possess the same thing wholly and in the same manner, especially since those same Faentines do not show a just title of possession, and from the privileges granted to the Church of Ravenna by emperors and Roman pontiffs it is most evidently gathered that the possession of that same Church in the aforesaid places has been just.

Quum ergo constet Faventinos ab eo tempore, quo se possedisse probare contendunt, minus iuste ac sine titulo aliqua in praedictis locis temeritate propria occupasse, ac processu temporis per violentiam extorsisse, sicut per multos testes ecclesiae Ravennatensis manifeste probatur, et oeconomus eiusdem ecclesiae petierit coram nobis, a vi turbativa seu inquietativa super praemissis commune Faventiae prohiberi, nos recognoscentes in hoc casu, non sic locum esse interdicto Uti possidetis, ut dicere debeamus; Uti possidetis, ita possideatis, quum probationes ecclesiae longe sint potiores, et ideo sit in interdicto superior, de fratrum nostrorum consilio commune Faventinum sibi condemnamus, super iurisdictione, et honore, atque districtu et aliis ad hoc generaliter pertinentibus in locis praedictis, quoad possessorium iudicium, quo tantummodo actum est, perpetuum silentium imponentes, et prohibentes eidem, ut neque per se, neque per alios super his praesumat Ravennatensem ecclesiam aut habitatores praedictorum locorum aliquatenus molestare.

Since therefore it is established that the Faventines, from the time from which they strive to prove that they possessed, less justly and without title seized certain things in the aforesaid places by their own rashness, and in the course of time by violence extorted them, as is plainly proved by many witnesses of the church of Ravenna, and the oikonomos of the same church has petitioned before us that the commune of Faenza be prohibited from a disturbing or harassing force concerning the premises aforesaid, we, recognizing that in this case there is not thus place for the interdict Uti possidetis, so that we ought to say, “As you possess, so may you possess,” since the proofs of the church are far weightier, and therefore it is superior in the interdict, by the counsel of our brothers we condemn the Faentine commune, in regard to jurisdiction, and honor, and district and other things generally pertaining to this in the aforesaid places, as to the possessory judgment, in which alone the action was conducted, imposing perpetual silence, and forbidding the same, that neither by itself nor by others it presume in any way to molest the Ravennate church or the inhabitants of the aforesaid places.

CAP. X.

CHAPTER 10.

Si qui nominent aliquem filium, et ita communiter reputatur, non creditur postea alteri eorum iuranti contrarium.

If any nominate someone as a son, and thus it is commonly reputed, afterward another of them swearing the contrary is not believed.

Idem.

The same.

Per tuas nobis literas intimasti, quod, quum T. Tiburtinus civis quandam per septennium habuerit concubinam, nec prolem susceperit interim ex eadem, ac ipsa postmodum divertens ab eo, ad ipsum non post multum tempus rediisset, filium, quem reversa in domum ipsius peperit, ex eo se asseruit suscepisse. Qui, licet a principio dixerit, illum nequaquam filium suum esse, quum mulier illa per septennium eidem cohabitans ex eo minime concepisset, mulieris tandem et aliorum devictus instantia eum suum filium recognovit, Rainuldum eum nomine appellando. Quum autem idem R. ad virilem pervenisset aetatem, ac domum Saturnellae sororis ipsius T. frequentaret, quae ipsum nepotem suum publice nominabat, et Sophiam ipsius Saturnellae filiam, cum qua quotidianam conversationem habuerat, arravit et carnaliter cognovit eandem.

Through your letters to us you intimated that, when T., a Tiburtine citizen, had had a certain concubine for seven years, and had not in the meantime received offspring from the same, and she afterwards, turning aside from him, had, not long after, returned to him, the son whom, having returned into his house, she bore, she asserted she had conceived by him. Who, although at the beginning he said that he by no means was his son, since that woman, cohabiting with him for seven years, had by no means conceived by him, at length, overcome by the insistence of the woman and of others, recognized him as his son, calling him by the name Rainald. But when the same R. had come to manly age, and frequented the house of Saturnella, sister of that T., who publicly called him her nephew, and Sophia, the daughter of that Saturnella, with whom he had had daily conversation, he affianced and carnally knew the same.

Quod quum pervenisset ad notitiam Saturnellae, acriter increpavit utrumque, et apud se filiam retinens, supradictum R. removit a domo. Quum autem mater ipsius Rainaldi accepisset, quod pater eiusdem Sophiae eidem R. graviter minabatur, in civitatis platea iuravit publice coram multis, quod Rainaldus supradictam Sophiam propinquitatis linea minime contingebat, affirmans sub virtute praestiti iuramenti, se de alio quam de supradicto T. ante fatum suscepisse Rainaldum. Quia vero mulier illa de dicto T. suscepisse R., de quo agitur, primitus constanter asseruit, et idem T. praefatae mulieris praecipue devictus instantia ipsum suum filium publice recognovit, et filius eius nominatus communiter fuit et habitus ab ambobus, eiusdem mulieris postmodum iuramento in contrarium praestito non est standum, quum nimis indignum sit iuxta legitimas sanctiones, ut, quod sua quisque voce dilucide protestatus est, id in eundem casum proprio valeat testimonio infirmare. Unde apparet per consequens, quod praedictus R. memoratam Sophiam neptem memorati T., cuius prima facie praesumitur consobrinus, non potest habere aliquatenus in uxorem.

When this had come to the knowledge of Saturnella, she sharply rebuked both, and, keeping the daughter with her at her own place keeping her daughter, she removed the aforesaid R. from the house. But when Rainald’s mother had learned, that the father of the same Sophia was gravely threatening that same R., she swore publicly in the city’s square before many that Rainald was in no way touching the aforesaid Sophia by a line of propinquity, affirming under the force of the oath given that she had conceived Rainald by someone other than the aforesaid T. before the fact. But since that woman had at first constantly asserted that she had conceived the R. in question by the said T., and the same T., overcome chiefly by the insistence of the aforesaid woman, publicly recognized him as his son, and he was commonly named and held as his son by both, the later oath of that same woman given to the contrary is not to be stood by, since it is far too unworthy according to legitimate sanctions that what each has clearly protested by his own voice, that in the same case should avail to be infirmed by his own testimony. Whence it appears consequently that the aforesaid R. cannot in any way have the aforementioned Sophia, niece of the aforesaid T., of whom he is presumed prima facie to be a first cousin, as wife.

[Dat. Lat. V. Kal.

[Given at the Lateran, on the 5th day before the Kalends.

Dec. Pont. nostr.

December. Of our pontificate.

Ao. XIII. 1210.]

Year 13. 1210.]

CAP. XI.

CHAPTER 11.

Iudex debet habere notarium vel duos viros idoneos, qui scribant acta iudicii; alias, si quid difficultatis emerserit, per superiorem punietur, nec creditur ei super processu, nisi in quantum per acta vel alias per legitima documenta constabit.

The judge ought to have a notary or two suitable men, who may write the acts of the trial; otherwise, if any difficulty shall have emerged, he will be punished by his superior, nor is credit given to him concerning the process, except in so far as it will be established through the acts or otherwise through legitimate documents.

Idem in concilio generali.

The same in the general council.

Quoniam contra falsam assertionem iniqui iudicis innocens litigator quandoque non potest veram negationem probare, quum negantis factum per rerum naturam nulla sit directa probatio, ne falsitas veritati praeiudicet, aut iniquitas praevaleat aequitati, statuimus, ut tam in ordinario iudicio quam extraordinario iudex semper adhibeat aut publicam, si potest habere, personam, aut duos viros idoneos, qui fideliter universa iudicii acta conscribant, videlicet citationes et dilationes, recusationes et exceptiones, petitiones et responsiones, interrogationes et confessiones, testium depositiones et instrumentorum productiones, interlocutiones et appellationes, renunciationes, conclusiones, et cetera, quae occurrerint, competenti ordine conscribenda, loca designando, tempora et personas. Et omnia sic conscripta partibus tribuantur ita, quod originalia penes scriptores remaneant, ut, si super processu iudicis fuerit suborta contentio, per hoc possit veritas declarari, quatenus hoc adhibito moderamine sic honestis et discretis deferatur iudicibus, quod per improvidos et iniquos innocentium iustitia non laedatur. Iudex autem, qui constitutionem ipsam neglexerit observare, si propter eius negligentiam quid difficultatis emerserit, per superiorem iudicem animadversione debita castigetur, nec pro ipsius praesumatur processu, nisi quatenus in causa legitimis constiterit documentis.

Since, against the false assertion of an iniquitous judge, an innocent litigant is sometimes unable to prove a true negation—since, by the nature of things, there is no direct proof of a negated fact—lest falsity prejudice truth or iniquity prevail over equity, we establish that both in ordinary and in extraordinary judgment the judge shall always employ either a public person, if he can have one, or two suitable men, who shall faithfully conscribe all the acts of the judgment, namely summonses et adjournments, recusations et exceptions, petitions et responses, interrogations et confessions, depositions of witnesses et productions of instruments, interlocutions et appeals, renunciations, conclusions, and the rest that shall occur, to be conscribed in fitting order, designating places, times, and persons. And let all things thus conscribed be delivered to the parties in such wise that the originals remain with the scribes, so that, if a contention should arise about the judge’s process, by this the truth may be declared—provided that, with this moderation applied, it be so entrusted to honest and discreet judges that by improvident and iniquitous men the justice of the innocent be not injured. But the judge who shall have neglected to observe this constitution, if by his negligence any difficulty shall have arisen, is to be chastised by the superior judge with due censure; nor is credit to be presumed for his process, except insofar as in the case it shall have been established by legitimate documents.

CAP. XII.

CHAPTER 12.

Si probari potest, reum deliquisse, eius probatio, quod non deliquerit, non est admittenda.

If it can be proved that the defendant has committed the delict, his proof that he has not committed it is not to be admitted.

Honorius III. Archiepiscopo Londonensi et eius Suffraganeis.

Honorius 3. To the Archbishop of London and his Suffragans.

Ad nostram noveritis audientiam pervenisse, quod sacerdotes et clerici Daciae legi regni, per quam negativa probatur, contra canones et legitimas sanctiones temere innitentes, a criminibus, quae probari testibus fide dignis possunt legitime contra eos, reputantur insontes, si se super his purgare valeant quoquo modo. Unde contingit, quod quandoque ad purgationem sui similes criminosos adducunt, ut eis debeant in similibus opportuno tempore respondere, multaque crimina committuntur audacius ab eisdem. Volentes igitur, ut haec pestis contraria omni iuri penitus exstirpetur a clero, fraternitati vestrae mandamus [per apostolica scripta praecipiendo], quatenus in huiusmodi probatione negativae, dum tamen possit affirmativa ex adverso probari, contra canonicas sanctiones in foro ecclesiastico neminem audiatis, sed in pergationibus bonae famae viros duntaxat canonice admittentes eum minus esse idoneum ad purgandum quodlibet crimen sciatis, qui nota infamiae super culpa consimili est respersus. [Dat. Romae V. Kal.

Know that it has come to our hearing, that priests and clerics of Dacia, recklessly leaning on the law of the kingdom, by which a negative is proved, against the canons and legitimate sanctions, are accounted innocent of crimes which can be lawfully proved against them by witnesses worthy of faith, if they are able to purge themselves about these matters in any sort of way whatsoever. Whence it happens that sometimes for the purgation of themselves they bring forward criminals like themselves, so that they must in similar matters at an opportune time answer them, and many crimes are committed more boldly by those same men. Wishing, therefore, that this pest contrary to all right be utterly extirpated from the clergy, we command your fraternity [by apostolic writings by way of precept], that in proof of this kind of a negative, provided, however, that an affirmative can be proved on the opposing side, against canonical sanctions in the ecclesiastical forum you hear no one, but in purgations canonically admitting only men of good repute, know that he is less fit to purge any crime who is besmirched with a note of infamy on account of a like fault. [Given at Rome 5 Kalends.

Ian. Ao. II. 1218.]

Jan. Year 2. 1218.]

CAP. XIII.

CHAPTER 13.

Fines dioecesium probantur per libros antiquos, adminicula, testes et famam.

The boundaries of dioceses are proven by ancient books, adminicles, witnesses, and public fame.

Idem Aurelianensi et Lametensi Episcopis.

The same to the Bishops of Aurelianum and Lametum.

Quum causam, quae inter venerabiles fratres nostros Colubriensem et Egitanensem episcopos super suarum limitatione dioecesum vertitur, vobis duximus committendam, discretioni vestrae mandamus, quatenus, quum ad principale in causa veneritis supra dicta, vos secundum divisiones, quae per libros antiquos vel alio modo melius probabuntur, nec non et testes, famam et quaecunque alia adminicula, Deum habentes prae oculis, in commisso vobis negotio procedatis.

Since the case, which is being contested between our venerable brothers the Colubrian and Egitanensian bishops concerning the delimitation of their dioceses, we have deemed should be committed to you, we command to your discretion that, when you shall have come to the principal point in the aforesaid cause, you proceed, according to the divisions which shall be better proved by ancient books or otherwise, and likewise the witnesses, report, and whatever other aids, having God before your eyes, in the business committed to you.

CAP. XIV.

CHAPTER 14.

Possunt reprobari matronae, per quas virginitas probatur.

Matrons, through whom virginity is proved, can be reprobated.

Idem Episcopo et Archidiacono Senonensibus.

The same to the Bishop and Archdeacon of Sens.

Causam matrimonii, quae inter V. iuvenem et G. puellam Senonensem, quae se virginem et monacham profitetur, noscitur agitari, quia non ita instructam misisti, frater episcope, ut in ea usque ad calculum sententiae diffini tivae procedere libere valeremus, vobis remittimus plenius instruendam; discretioni vestrae Mandamus, quatenus eandem puellam ponatis interim in illo monasterio auctoritate apostolica, quod intravit, ut ibi secure valeat commorari, donec iudiciali sententia quid agi debeat decernatur, recepturi postmodum, prout iustitia dictaverit, non solum probationes viri, sicut protestatus fuerat, quas inducere voluerit contra mulieres illas, quae ad investigandum signa virginitatis ex parte puellae fuerunt introductae, verum etiam probationes alias hoc negotium contingentes, quas pars utralibet duxerit producendas. Et quia, ut dicit canon, saepe manus fallitur et oculus obstetricum, volumus et mandamus, ut adhuc honestas matronas providas et prudentes deputare curetis ad inquirendum, utrum dicta puella virginitatis privilegio sit munita, causamque nobis sub vestris sigillis instructam plenius remittatis.

The matrimonial cause, which is known to be in litigation between the youth V. and the girl G. of Sens, who professes herself a virgin and a nun, because you did not send it so instructed, brother bishop, that in it we might be able to proceed freely up to the tally for a definitive sentence, we remit it back to you to be more fully instructed; to your discretion We command, that you place that same girl in the meantime in that monastery, by apostolic authority, which she entered, so that she may be able to dwell there securely, until by judicial sentence it is decreed what ought to be done, we thereafter to receive, as justice shall have dictated, not only the proofs of the man, as he had protested, which he may have wished to bring in against those women who were introduced to investigate signs of virginity on the girl’s side, but also other proofs touching this business, which either party shall have judged should be produced. And because, as the canon says, often the hand and the eye of midwives are deceived, we will and we command that you furthermore take care to depute respectable matrons, provident and prudent, to inquire whether the said girl is furnished with the privilege of virginity, and that you remit the cause to us, more fully instructed, under your seals.

CAP. XV.

CHAPTER 15.

Acta etiam litis ordinatoria facta coram primis iudicibus, fidem faciunt coram secundis.

The ordinatory acts of the suit, made before the first judges, also carry probative force before the second.

Gregorius IX. Praeposito sanctae Mariae Magdeburgensis et Decano Misinensi.

Gregory 9. To the Provost of Saint Mary of Magdeburg and to the Dean of Meissen.

Quum bonae memoriae (Et infra:) Quum acta originalia dicantur apud priores iudices remansisse, mandamus, quatenus ea cum omni diligentia requirentes, ipsa, si potuerint inveniri, et si qua partes duxerint legitime proponenda, in scriptis redacta ad nostram praesentiam remittatis. Alioquin quum non revocetur in dubium de contestatione litis super statu Pigamensis monasterii, et quibusdam spoliationibus contra abbatem eius factis a Mesburgensi episcopo, recipiatis partium probationes de novo, et audientes, si partes audire voluerint, de compositione tractatum, tam quod super hoc inveneritis, quam causam sufficienter instructam ad nos remittere procuretis.

Since of good memory (And below:) Since the original acts are said to have remained with the prior judges, we command that, seeking them with all diligence, those very documents, if they can be found, and whatever the parties shall have deemed legitimately to be proposed, you reduce into writings and remit to our presence. Otherwise, since it is not called into doubt that there has been a contestation of the suit concerning the status of the Pigamensian monastery, and certain spoliations committed against its abbot by the bishop of Merseburg, you are to receive the parties’ proofs anew, and, hearing—if the parties shall wish to be heard—a discussion about a composition, take care to remit to us both what you shall have discovered on this matter and the cause sufficiently instructed.