III. THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE EMPIRE AND THE PAPACY, 1073–1250 (continued 2)

97. Treaty of Constance, 1153.

Jaffé, I, Wibaldi Epp., no. 417; Doeberl, IV, no. 27 a.

The situation of the pope was precarious. In the first place, the Romans had rebelled against him and his rule, and had set up a government of their own. Since 1143 he had been compelled to spend most of his time outside of the city. In the second place, Roger of Sicily was in rebellion against him and threatened the papal lands with invasion from the south. And lastly, the Greek emperor was now following a vigorous policy to secure land in Italy. The pope was in sore need of help, especially against the Romans and Normans. Hence he insisted that Frederick should promise to aid him, as well as not to make peace with his enemies without papal consent. Frederick wished the imperial crown, and the papal blessing and support. He was planning the conquest of the Normans, whose territory he regarded as a part of the empire. But in this agreement it will be observed that nothing is said about who owns Sicily and southern Italy, nor is it stipulated that the pope shall not make terms with the Normans without the emperor’s consent. Frederick feared that the pope, who wished to gain control of the Greek church, might make terms with the Greek emperor and help him in his efforts to regain a foothold in Italy.

In the name of the Lord, amen. This is a copy of the agreement and convention made between the pope, Eugene III, and Frederick, king of the Romans, by their representatives; on the part of the pope: cardinals Gregory of Santa Maria in Trastevere, Ubald of San Prassede, Bernard of San Clemente, Octavian of Santa Cecilia, Roland of San Marco, Gregory of Sant Angelo, Guido of Santa Maria in porticu, and Bruno, abbot of Chiaravalle; on the part of the king: Anselm, bishop of Havelberg; Hermann, bishop of Constance; Udalrich, count of Lenzburg; Guido, count of Guerra, and Guido, count of Bianderati.

The king will have one of his ministerials to swear for him that he will not make a peace or a truce either with the Romans or with Roger of Sicily without the consent of the pope. The king will use all the power of his realm to reduce the Romans to subjection to the pope and the Roman church. He will protect the honor of the papacy and the regalia of St. Peter against all men to the best of his ability, and he will aid the church in recovering what she has lost. He will never grant any land in Italy to the king of the Greeks, and will use all his power in keeping him out. All these things the king promises to observe and to do in good faith.

The pope, on his part, promises on his apostolic faith, with the consent of the cardinals, that he will ever honor the king as the most dearly beloved son of St. Peter, and that he will give him the imperial crown whenever he shall come to Italy for it. He will aid the king in maintaining and increasing the honor of his realm, as his office demands. If anyone attacks the honor or the authority of the king, the pope at the request of the king will warn him to make satisfaction, and will excommunicate him if he refuses to heed the warning. The pope will not grant any land in Italy to the king of the Greeks, and will use all the resources of St. Peter to drive him out if he invades that land. All these things shall be observed in good faith by both parties, unless they are changed by mutual consent.

98. The Stirrup Episode, 1155.

Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vitæ, II, pp. 327 ff.

This account of the stirrup episode illustrates the growing pretensions of the papacy, the temper of both Frederick I and the new pope, Adrian IV, and the importance which the Middle Age attached to matters of ceremony.

The king [Frederick] advanced with his army to the neighborhood of Sutri and encamped in Campo Grasso. The pope, however, came to Nepi, and on the day after his arrival was met there by many of the German princes and a great concourse of clergy and laymen, and conducted with his bishops and cardinals to the tent of the king. But when the cardinals who came with the pope saw that the king did not come forward to act as the esquire of the pope [i.e., to hold his stirrup while he dismounted], they were greatly disturbed and terrified, and retreated to Civita Castellana, leaving the pope before the tent of the king. And the pope, distressed and uncertain what he should do, sadly dismounted and sat down on the seat which had been prepared for him. Then the king prostrated himself before the pope, kissing his feet and presenting himself for the kiss of peace. But the pope said: "You have refused to pay me the due and accustomed honor which your predecessors, the orthodox emperors, have always paid to my predecessors, the Roman popes, out of reverence for the apostles, Peter and Paul; therefore I will not give you the kiss of peace until you have made satisfaction." The king, however, replied that he was not under obligations to perform the service. The whole of the following day was spent in the discussion of this point, the army in the meantime remaining there. And after the testimony of the older princes had been taken, especially of those who had been present at the meeting of king Lothar and pope Innocent (II), and the ancient practice had been determined, the princes and the royal court decided that the king ought to act as the esquire of the pope and hold his stirrup, out of reverence for the apostles, Peter and Paul. On the next day the camp of the king was moved to the territory of Nepi, on the shores of lake Janula, and there king Frederick, in accordance with the decision of the princes, advanced to meet the pope, who was approaching by another way. And when the pope came within about a stone’s throw from the emperor, the emperor dismounted and proceeded on foot to meet the pope, and there in the sight of his army he acted as the pope’s esquire, holding his stirrup for him to dismount. Then the pope gave him the kiss of peace.

99. Treaty between Adrian IV and William of Sicily, 1156.

Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vitæ, II, pp. 352 ff; Doeberl, IV, no. 34.

By this document the long struggle between the popes and the kings of Sicily was brought to an end. The terms of the treaty were very favorable to the pope, but William retained as privileges certain things which were in other countries generally regarded as belonging to the pope. For the effects of this treaty on the relations between Adrian IV and Frederick I, see no. 100, introductory note.

In the name of the Lord, the eternal God, and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, amen. To Adrian, by the grace of God, pope of the holy Roman church, his most beloved lord and father, and to his successors, William, by the same grace king of Sicily, duke of Apulia, and prince of Capua.

(Introduction reviewing the differences between the pope and the king of Sicily, and relating the course of the negotiations.)

We agree, therefore, to this treaty of peace as drawn up by the representatives of both of us.

Concerning appeals to the pope. In Apulia and its dependencies and in Calabria, appeals in ecclesiastical matters which cannot be settled by the regular ecclesiastics of those lands may be made freely to Rome. If it seems advantageous or necessary to transfer priests from one church to another, this may be done with the consent of the pope. The Roman church shall have the right to consecrate and to make visitations throughout our whole realm. The Roman church shall have the right to hold councils in any of the cities of Apulia or its dependencies or Calabria, except that a council may not be held in any city in which the king is staying, without his consent. The Roman church shall have the right to send its legates into Apulia and its dependencies and into Calabria, but those legates shall not waste the possessions of the churches to which they are sent. The Roman church shall have the same right of consecration and visitation in the island of Sicily.... The Roman church shall have in Sicily all the rights which it has in other parts of our kingdom, except the right of hearing appeals and sending legates, which shall be exercised only at the request of the king.

Concerning those churches and monasteries which have been in dispute between us. You and your successors shall have in them the rights which you exercise in other churches of our lands, which are accustomed to receive their consecration and benediction from the Roman church, and these churches shall pay the legal taxes to the Roman see.

Concerning elections. The clergy shall elect a suitable person, keeping his name secret until they have notified you. The name shall then be reported to us, and we will give our consent to the election, unless the person is one of our enemies or a traitor, or for some other good reason is displeasing to us.

You shall confer upon us and upon our son Roger, and our heirs, the kingdom of Sicily, the duchy of Apulia, and the principality of Capua, with all the lands which belong to them as follows: Naples, Salerno, and Amalfi, with their dependencies; Marsia and all that we hold beyond Marsia; and all the other possessions which we now hold, or which have been held by our predecessors. You promise, moreover, to aid us in good faith to hold them against all men.

In consideration of these concessions, we have taken the oath of fidelity to you and to your successors and to the Roman church, and the oath of liege homage to you. Two copies of this oath have been made, one of which has been signed and sealed by us and given into your keeping, and the other sealed by you and given to us. We agree also to pay an annual tribute of 600 "schifates" for Apulia and Calabria, and 500 from Marsia.... You agree to grant all these things also to our heirs and successors, on condition that they do homage to you and your successors, and keep the promises which we have made to you....

100–102. The Besançon Episode, 1157.

100. Letter of Adrian IV To Frederick, September 20, 1157.

Ragewin, Gesta Friderici, III, ch. 9; M. G. SS. folio, XX; Doeberl, IV, no. 35a.

Frederick I had been deeply offended by the treaty which Adrian IV made with William of Sicily (no. 99), because it had been made without his consent, and without in any way considering the claims which the emperor laid to Sicily. In making the treaty of Constance (no. 97) Frederick had undoubtedly been outwitted by the papal diplomacy. He had been led to promise not to make peace with the Normans without the consent of the pope. He apparently took it for granted that the pope was bound in the same way not to make peace with the Normans without the imperial consent, although it was not stipulated in the agreement. While Frederick had promised certain definite things, the pope’s promise was couched in general terms. He had promised to "aid the king in maintaining and increasing the honor of his realm as his office demands. If anyone attacks the honor or the authority of the king, the pope will warn him to make satisfaction," etc. The pope denied that William of Sicily was "attacking the honor or authority of the king" because the lands which William held did not belong to Frederick; they were the property of the pope himself, and therefore he might make terms with William without consulting Frederick. Frederick complained that the pope had acted in bad faith in making peace with William, and that he had broken the treaty of Constance. The pope, however, maintained that he had in no way infringed the treaty, and that Frederick had no grounds for complaint. This is the general background for the Besançon episode, the chief features of which will be clear from the following documents.

Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved son Frederick, illustrious emperor of the Romans, greeting and apostolic benediction. We wrote to you a few days ago recalling to your mind that execrable crime which was recently committed in Germany and expressing our grief that you had allowed it to go unpunished. For our venerable brother, Eskil, archbishop of Lund, on his return from the apostolic seat, was seized and made captive in your land by certain impious and wicked persons, who even threatened him and his companions with drawn swords and subjected them to dishonor and indignity.

Not only are these facts well known to you, but the report of them has spread to the most distant regions. It was your duty to avenge this wicked deed and to draw against its perpetrators the sword intrusted to you by God for the punishing of evil-doers and the protection of good men. But it is reported that you have palliated this offence and allowed it to go unpunished, so that those who committed the sacrilege are unrepentant and believe that they have done this with impunity. We are entirely at a loss to understand this negligence of yours, for our conscience does not accuse us of having offended you in any way. Indeed we have always regarded you as our most beloved son and as a Christian prince established by the grace of God upon the rock of the apostolic confession. We have loved you with sincere affection and have always treated you with the greatest kindness. You should remember, most glorious son, how graciously your mother, the holy Roman church, received you last year, how kindly she treated you, and how gladly she conferred upon you the imperial crown, the highest mark of dignity and honor; how she has always fostered you on her kindly bosom, and has always striven to do only what would be pleasing and advantageous to you. We do not regret having granted the desires of your heart; nay, we would be glad to confer even greater benefits (beneficia) upon you, if that were possible, because of the advantage and profit that you would be able to confer upon the church of God and upon us. But the fact that you have allowed this terrible deed, which is an offence against the church and the empire, to go unpunished has made us fear that you have been led by evil counsellors to imagine that you have some grievance against your mother, the holy Roman church, and against us. In regard to this matter and other important affairs, we have sent you these legates, two of the best and dearest of those about us, namely, our beloved sons, Bernard, cardinal priest of Santa Clara, and Roland, chancellor and cardinal priest of San Marco, men conspicuous for their piety, wisdom, and honesty. We beseech you to receive them honorably and kindly, to treat them justly, and to give full credence to the proposals which they make, as if we were speaking in person.

101. Manifesto of the Emperor, October, 1157.

Ragewin, Gesta Friderici, III, ch. 11; M. G. SS. folio, xx; Doeberl, IV, no. 35 b.

God, from whom proceeds all authority in heaven and in earth, has intrusted the kingdom and the empire to us, his anointed, and has ordained that the peace of the church be preserved by the imperial arms. Therefore it is with great sorrow that we are forced to complain to you of the head of the church which Christ intended should reflect his character of charity and love of peace. For the actions of the pope threaten to produce such evils and dissensions as will corrupt the whole church and destroy its unity, and bring about strife between the empire and the papacy, unless God should intervene. These are the circumstances: We held a diet at Besançon for the purpose of considering certain matters which concerned the honor of the empire and the security of the church. At that diet legates of the pope arrived, saying that they came on a mission that would redound greatly to the honor and advantage of the empire. We gave them an honorable reception on the first day of their arrival, and on the second day, as is the custom, we called together all the princes to listen to their message.... Then they delivered their message in the form of a letter from the pope, of which the general tenor was as follows: the pope had conferred the imperial crown upon us and was willing to grant us even greater fiefs (beneficia). This was the message of fraternal love which was to further the union of the church and the empire, and bind them together in the bonds of peace, and to inspire the hearts of its hearers with love and fidelity for both rulers! Not only were we, as emperor, incensed by this false and lying statement, but all the princes who were present were so enraged that they would undoubtedly have condemned the two priests to death off-hand had they not been restrained by our presence. Moreover, we found in their possession many copies of that letter, and blank forms sealed by the pope to be filled out at their discretion, with which they were intending to spread this venom throughout the churches of Germany, as is their custom from of old, and to denude the altars, rob the houses of God, and despoil the crosses. Therefore, in order to prevent their further progress, we compelled them to return to Rome by the way they had come. We hold this kingdom and empire through the election of the princes from God alone, who by the passion of his Son placed this world under the rule of two swords; moreover, the apostle Peter says: "Fear God, honor the king" [1 Pet. 2:17]. Therefore, whoever says that we hold the imperial crown as a benefice from the pope resists the divine institution, contradicts the teaching of Peter, and is a liar....

102. Letter of Adrian IV to the Emperor, February, 1158.

Ragewin, Gesta Friderici, III, chs. 22, 23; M. G. SS. folio, xx; Doeberl, IV, no. 35 e.

Ever since we were called by the will of God to the government of the universal church, we have tried to honor you in every way, in order that your love and reverence for the apostolic seat might daily increase. Therefore we were greatly astonished to learn that you were incensed at us and that you had treated with such scant respect the legates ... whom we had sent to you for the purpose of learning your wishes. We are informed that you were enraged because we used the word beneficium, at which surely the mind of so great a person as yourself should not have been disturbed. For although with some that word has come to have a meaning different from its original sense, yet it ought to be taken in the sense in which we have used it and which it has had from the beginning. For beneficium comes from bonum and factum, and we used it to mean not a feudum (fief), but a "good deed," in which sense it is used throughout the holy Scriptures; as when we are said to be guided and nourished by the beneficium of God, which means not the "fief," but the kindness of God. You surely admit that in placing the imperial crown upon your head we performed an act that would be regarded by all men as a "good deed." Moreover, if you misunderstood the phrase "we conferred the imperial crown upon you," and distorted it from its ordinary meaning, it could only be because you wished to misunderstand it or because you accepted the interpretation of persons who wished to disturb the peace existing between the church and the empire. For we meant by the words "we conferred" no more than "we placed," as we said above. In ordering the recall of the ecclesiastics whom we sent to make a visitation of the churches in Germany according to the right of the Roman church, you must surely recognize that you acted unwisely, for if you had any grievance you should have informed us, and we would have undertaken to satisfy your honor. Now by the advice of our beloved son Henry, duke of Bavaria and Saxony, we have sent you two legates, our brothers Henry, cardinal priest of San Nereo and Sant Achilleo, and Hyacinth, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, both wise and honorable men, and we urge you to receive them honorably and kindly, and to accept the message which they deliver as coming from the sincerity of our heart; so agreeing with them through the mediation of our son the duke, that no discord may remain between you and your holy mother, the Roman church.

103. Definition of Regalia or Crown Rights, Given at the Diet Held on the Roncalian Plain, 1158.

M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 111 f; Doeberl, IV, no. 37 a.

The rights of the crown were called "regalia." When Frederick I went into Italy (1158) he found that the royal rights had been usurped by the cities and nobles. At the diet which he held on the Roncalian plain he consulted lawyers who had been trained in the law of Justinian, and asked them what the imperial rights in Italy were. Their decision, which is here given, was largely influenced by their study of the Roman law. The account which Ragewin (IV, 7) gives of this diet is as follows: "Frederick then examined into the matter of the royal jurisdiction and the regalia, which for a long time had been lost to the empire because they had been usurped and the kings had neglected to recover them. The bishops, the nobles, and the cities, since they could find no excuse for retaining these rights, resigned them to the emperor. Milan was the first to surrender them. When the emperor asked what these rights were, the decision was given that they were the right to appoint dukes, marquises, counts, and consuls [in the cities]; to coin money; to levy tolls; to collect the fodrum [a tax in provisions for the support of the emperor and his army when passing through the territory]; to collect customs and harbor dues; to furnish safe-conducts; to control mills, fish-ponds, bridges, and all the water-ways, and to demand an annual tax not only from the land, but also from each person."

These are the regalian rights or rights of the crown: Arimanniæ,{72} public roads, navigable rivers and those which unite to form navigable rivers, harbors, and the banks of rivers; tolls, coinage, profits from fines and penalties; ownerless and confiscated lands, and the property of those who have contracted incestuous marriages or have been outlawed for crimes mentioned in the Novellæ of Justinian; rights of conveyance on direct routes and cross-roads{73} (angariæ and parangariæ), and the prestation of ships;{74} the special taxes for the royal expedition; the appointment of officials for the administration of justice; mines; royal palaces in the customary cities; the profits of fisheries and salt-works; the property of those who are guilty of offence against the majesty of the emperor; half the treasure discovered in places belonging to the emperor or dedicated to religious purposes, and all of it if the finder was aided by the emperor.

104. Grounds for the Quarrel between Adrian IV and Frederick I. Letter of Eberhard, Bishop of Bamberg, to Eberhard, Archbishop of Salzburg, 1159.

Ragewin, Gesta Frid., IV, c. 34; M. G. SS. folio, XX; Doeberl, IV, no. 38.

Although the stirrup episode and the Besançon episode were ended without a rupture between Frederick and Adrian, the fundamental question between them was not yet settled. Frederick continued to act in accordance with his ideas of what his office demanded, thus giving deep offence to the pope. The various matters in which the pope felt that Frederick had offended are set forth in this letter. They involve the deeper question of supremacy. The relations between the pope and emperor were becoming more and more strained. Although Frederick had previously refused to consider the propositions of the commune of Rome, he now received their ambassadors courteously. The people of the city wished to obtain his recognition of their government. Since the pope was obdurate Frederick threatened to make common cause with the rebellious city, hoping, no doubt, that Adrian would thereby be compelled to sue to him for terms.

To his reverend father and lord, Eberhard, archbishop of Salzburg, Eberhard, by the grace of God bishop of Bamberg.

... That perilous time seems near at hand when strife shall arise between the king and the pope. The cardinals Octavianus and William, former archdeacon of Pavia, were sent by pope Adrian to the emperor with a message which began with a conciliatory introduction but which contained most vexatious matter. For instance, they said: the emperor must not send ambassadors to the city of Rome without the consent of the pope, as all the magisterial power in Rome and all the regalian rights there belong to St. Peter; the fodrum must not be collected from the papal estates except at the time of the imperial coronation; Italian bishops should take only the oath of fidelity to the emperor and not the oath of homage [see no. 214]; bishops shall not be required to entertain the ambassadors of the emperor in their palaces; the following possessions, belonging of right to the Roman church, must be restored: Tivoli, Ferrara, Massa, Fiscaglia, all the lands of the countess Matilda, all the land from Aquapendente to Rome, the duchy of Spoleto, and the islands of Sardinia and Corsica. The emperor was willing to do justice in these matters if the pope would give him justice in return [that is, the emperor was willing to submit each matter to trial and abide by the decision, if the pope would do the same], but the cardinals were only empowered to receive justice and not to give it, for they said that they could not bind the pope. The emperor on his part then made the following complaints: that the treaty of Constance had not been kept by the pope in the matter of his promise not to make peace with the Greeks, the Sicilians, or the Roman people without the consent of both parties [see no. 97]; that cardinals were sent through Germany without the emperor’s consent, and that they entered the palaces of bishops who possessed regalian rights from the emperor; that the pope heard unjust appeals; and many similar matters. The emperor agreed that the pope should be notified of these demands by the aforesaid cardinals, but the pope refused to send other cardinals empowered to treat of these things, as the emperor had requested. In the meantime ambassadors came from the Roman people to make a treaty of peace with the emperor, and were favorably received and dismissed with honor. The emperor is about to send ambassadors both to the pope and to the city of Rome; if possible, he will make a treaty of peace with the pope, but if this fails, he will ally himself with the Romans....

105–107. The Disputed Papal Election of 1159.

105. Letter of Alexander III about his Election, 1159.

M. G. SS. folio, XVIII, pp, 28 f; Doeberl, IV, no. 39 a.

When Adrian IV died, 1159, the quarrel between him and the emperor had reached such a pitch of bitterness that he was about to excommunicate Frederick. But there was a party in the college of cardinals which was heartily supporting the emperor against the pope. The members of this German party, as it was called, had opposed the treaty which Adrian had made with William of Sicily (see no. 99) and had sympathized with Frederick in the Besançon episode and in his later contentions with the pope (see nos. 100–102). They believed that the pope was transcending his powers, and usurping authority which belonged to the emperor alone. But this German party, of which Octavian was the head, was hopelessly in the minority. When the cardinals met to elect a successor to Adrian IV, it was not able to secure the unanimous election of its candidate. Two popes were elected, and a schism ensued which lasted for seventeen years. Alexander III was very clever and succeeded in uniting all of Frederick’s enemies against him. Under the pope’s leadership and by his diplomacy, the Lombard league was formed. It completely defeated the emperor at Legnano, 1176 (see nos. 108–109). We give first a letter of Alexander III, which contains an account of his election. Then Victor’s letter follows (no. 106). And finally a brief account of the election by Gerhoh of Reichersberg is given (no. 107).

Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brothers, Syrus, archbishop of Genoa, and his suffragans, greeting and apostolic benediction.

The eternal and unchangeable will of the Creator provided that his holy and immaculate church from its very foundation should be ruled by one pastor and governor, to whom all prelates should be obedient. As members are united to one head, so they should be joined to him in perfect unity and never separate themselves from him. And Christ, who confirmed the faith of his disciples by saying: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" [Matt. 28:20], will without doubt keep his promise to his church which he put under the control of his apostle [Peter]. And although his church, like the little boat of St. Peter, may sometimes be tossed about by the waves, he will preserve it in safety.

Three false brothers have gone out from us, but they were not of us, and, transforming themselves into angels of light, although they are servants of Satan, they are trying to rend and tear the church, the seamless robe of Christ, which he, in the person of the Psalmist, prayed might be delivered from the lion’s mouth, and from the sword and from the power of the dog [Ps. 22:20]. Nevertheless Christ, the founder and head of the church, is carefully guarding her, his only spouse, and he will not permit the little boat of St. Peter to suffer shipwreck, although it may often be tossed about by the waves.

Our predecessor, Adrian IV, of blessed memory, died September 1, while we were at Anagni, and his body was brought to Rome and honorably buried in the customary manner in St. Peter’s Church, on September 4. Nearly all the cardinals were present, and after the burial they began to take steps to elect his successor. After three days of discussion all the cardinals except three elected us, although we are not sufficient for this burden and not worthy of so high an office. The three who opposed our election were Octavian, John of St. Martin’s, and Guido of Crema. God is our witness that we are telling the exact truth when we say that all the others unanimously elected us, and the other clergy and the people of Rome assented to it. But two, John and Guido, voted for Octavian and stubbornly insisted on his election. The prior of the cardinal deacons was putting the papal mantle on us in the customary manner, although we were reluctant to receive it because we saw our insufficiency for the high office. When Octavian saw this he was almost beside himself with rage, and with his own hands snatched the mantle from our neck and took it away. This caused a great tumultuous outbreak. Some of the senators were present and saw it, and one of them, inspired by the spirit of God, snatched the mantle from the hands of Octavian, who was now raging. Then Octavian, with angry face and fierce eye, turned to one of his chaplains who had come prepared for this, upbraided him, and ordered him hastily to fetch him the mantle which he had brought with him. The mantle was brought without delay, and while all the cardinals were trying to get out of the room, Octavian removed his hat, bowed his head, and received the mantle from his chaplain and another clergyman. And because there was no one else there, he had to assist them himself to put it on him. But the condemnation of God was seen in the fact that he put the mantle on with the wrong side in front. Those who were present saw it and laughed. And as he was of a crooked mind and intention, so the mantle was put on crooked as an evidence of his condemnation. When this was done, the doors of the church, which had been closed, were opened and bands of armed men with drawn swords entered and made a great noise. But they had been hired by Octavian to do this. And because that pestilential Octavian had no cardinals and bishops he surrounded himself with a band of armed knights....

106. Letter of Victor IV to the German Princes, 1159.

Ragewin, Gesta Frid., IV, ch. 60; M. G. SS. folio, XX; Doeberl, IV, no. 39 b.

See introductory note to no. 105.

Victor, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his venerable brothers, the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, and his dear sons, the abbots, dukes, marquises, counts, and other princes, and the imperial family who are connected with the most holy court of Frederick, the most serene and unconquered emperor of the Romans, greeting and apostolic benediction.

We believe that you cannot have forgotten how sincerely we have loved the empire and how we have labored in support of its honor and dignity. And now that we have been elevated to a higher dignity we wish to do even more for you and the empire. We therefore confidently beseech you, for the reverence which you have for St. Peter and for your love to us, to ask the emperor to take immediate steps to come to the aid and protection of the empire, which God has committed to him, and of the church of God, the bride of Christ, of which God has made him advocate and defender. If he does not, there is danger that his malicious enemies may prevail in this great struggle, and the little boat of St. Peter be overwhelmed by winds and storms, and the imperial dignity be humiliated.

We wish to inform you that under the Lord’s guidance we have been elected pope. After our predecessor, Adrian IV, of blessed memory, had gone the way of all flesh and been buried in the church of St. Peter, we all came together to elect his successor. After long discussion and mature deliberation, God graciously inspired our brothers, the cardinal bishops, priests, and deacons of the holy Roman church, and the other clergy of Rome, to elect us. The people of Rome asked for our election and the senators and other nobles assented to it. We were canonically elected and then elevated to the throne of St. Peter. And on the first Sunday in October we were consecrated and received the full power of our office.

We humbly beseech you to aid us with your prayers to Him from whom come all power and dignities. Now the former chancellor, Roland, who was bound by oath in a conspiracy against the church of God and the empire in support of William of Sicily, had himself thrust into the papal office twelve days after we were elected. Such a thing had never been heard of before. If he should send you letters, you should refuse to receive them, because they are full of lies and he is a schismatic and a heretic. Pay no attention whatever to his letters.

107. The Account of the Election as Given by Gerhoh of Reichersberg, ca. 1160.

Doeberl, IV, no. 39 d.

See introductory note to no. 105.

When Adrian IV died, all the cardinal clergy of the holy Roman church met to elect his successor. A secret ballot was taken and the result announced. It was found that a majority of the cardinals had voted for Roland, the chancellor of Adrian IV. A few had voted for Octavian, and some also for Magister Bernard. Since there could not be three popes, the majority tried to persuade the minority to give up their candidates and make the election of Roland unanimous. Those who had voted for Bernard then deserted him and some of them joined the party of Roland. The others said that they had no preference but would support either Octavian or Roland, provided the election of either were unanimous, and the church should not be divided on account of it. The number of cardinals who supported Octavian, or were willing to support him if elected, was seven. But a much larger number supported Roland. The majority then tried hard to persuade these seven to unite in electing Roland, and won over all but three of them. Two of these, John of Pisa, and Guido of Crema, were very contentious and declared that they would never desert Octavian. So they with the bishop of Tusculum made Octavian pope.

108. The Preliminary Treaty of Anagni between Alexander III and Frederick I, 1176.

Kehr, Vertrag von Anagni. in Neues Archiv, XIII, pp. 109 ff; Doeberl, IV no. 46 a.

The quarrel between the pope and emperor increased in bitterness. At the same time the Italian cities rebelled against Frederick and joined the pope. The Lombard league was formed and at Legnano, 1176, the emperor was utterly defeated. He then sent ambassadors to the pope at Anagni to discuss the terms of a treaty of peace. They agreed on the following articles which were afterward incorporated in the peace of Venice, 1177. The final treaty was made in 1183 and is called the treaty of Constance (see no. 109).

1. The emperor and the empress, and their son, king Henry, and all the princes promise to accept pope Alexander III as the catholic and universal pope, and to show him such reverence as their predecessors were wont to show to his predecessors.

2. The emperor promises to keep peace faithfully with pope Alexander and his successors and with the whole Roman church.

3. All the regalia and other possessions of St. Peter as held by the Roman church in the time of pope Innocent II, which have been seized by the emperor or his allies, shall be restored to pope Alexander and to the Roman church, and the emperor engages to aid the church in retaining possession of them.

4. The emperor restores to the pope and to the Roman church the control of the office of prefect of the city of Rome; the pope shall see to it that justice shall be done the emperor when he has occasion to seek his rights in the city.

5. All vassals of the church won over by the emperor to his side during the late quarrel, shall be released from their allegiance to him and restored to the pope and to the Roman church.

6. The emperor will restore to the pope and to the church the lands of the countess Matilda as they were held by the church in the time of the emperor Lothar and king Conrad and the present emperor Frederick.

7. The pope and the emperor will mutually aid one another in maintaining the honor and the rights of the empire and the church.

8. Everything unjustly taken from the churches by the emperor or his followers during the schism shall be restored to them.

9. The emperor will make peace with the Lombards on the terms to be agreed upon by representatives appointed for this purpose by the emperor and the pope and the Lombards. In case any difficulty arises in the course of these negotiations which the representatives cannot settle, it shall be decided by the majority of the special commissioners to be appointed for this purpose by the emperor and the pope in equal numbers.

10. The emperor will make peace with the king of Sicily and with the emperor of Constantinople and with all the allies of the pope, and he will not take revenge for any wrongs which they may have committed in assisting the Roman church.

11–22. Articles referring to individuals and lesser details.

23. Pope Alexander and the cardinals on their part make peace with the emperor and the empress and their son, king Henry, and all their party. This, however, shall not prejudice those rights of controlling and judging ecclesiastical persons which are herein surrendered to the pope and to the Roman church, nor the rights of the Roman church over the lands of St. Peter now withheld by other persons, nor the special exceptions made in this document in favor of the pope and the Roman church, on one side, and the emperor and the empire, on the other.

24. The pope and the cardinals will take their oath to keep this peace, the oath to be drawn up in writing and signed by the cardinals.

25. The pope shall immediately call together as large a council as possible, and with the cardinal bishops and other clergy who may be present, shall excommunicate all who break this peace. Afterward he shall do the same in a general council.

26. Many of the nobles of Rome and the great vassals of Campania shall also take oath to keep this peace.

27. The emperor and the princes of the empire will also take their oaths to keep this peace, the oath to be drawn up in writing and signed by the emperor and the princes.

28. If the pope should die first, the emperor and his son, king Henry, and the princes shall observe these terms of peace with his successors and all the cardinals and the whole Roman church, and with the Lombards and the king of Sicily and all the allies of the church. If the emperor should die first, the pope and the cardinals and the Roman church shall observe these terms with the empress Beatrice, and her son, king Henry, and with all the German people and their allies, as written above.

29. In the meantime the emperor shall not attack the land of St. Peter, whether held by the pope in person or by the king of Sicily or other vassals of the pope.

30. If the negotiations for peace are broken off by either side before they are completed, which God forbid, truce shall be kept for three months after the notification of withdrawal.

109. The Peace of Constance, January 25, 1183.

Muratori, IV, pp. 307 ff; M. G. LL. folio, II, pp. 175 ff; Doeberl, IV, no. 51 c.

See introductory note to no. 108.

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick, by divine mercy emperor of the Romans, Augustus, and Henry VI, his son, king of the Romans, Augustus....

We, Frederick, emperor of the Romans, and our son Henry, king of the Romans, hereby grant to you, the cities, territories, and persons of the league, the regalia and other rights within and without the cities, as you have been accustomed to hold them; that is each member of the league shall have the same rights as the city of Verona has had in the past or has now.

The members of the league shall exercise freely and without interference from us all the rights which they have exercised of old.

These are the rights which are guaranteed to you: the fodrum, forests, pastures, bridges, streams, mills, fortifications of the cities, criminal and civil jurisdiction, and all other rights which concern the welfare of the city.

The regalia which are not to be granted to the members of the league shall be determined in the following manner: in the case of each city, certain men shall be chosen for this purpose from both the bishopric and the city; these men shall be of good repute, capable of deciding these questions, and such as are not prejudiced against either party. Acting with the bishop of the diocese, they shall swear to inquire into the questions of the regalia and to set aside those that by right belong to us. If, however, the cities do not wish to submit to this inquisition, they shall pay to us an annual tribute of 2000 marks in silver as compensation for our regalia. If this sum seems excessive, it may be reduced.

If anyone appeals to us in regard to matters which are by this treaty admitted to be under your jurisdiction, we agree not to hear such an appeal.

The bishops, churches, cities, and other persons, clerical and lay, shall retain possession of the property or rights which have been granted to them before this war by us or by our predecessors, the above concessions excepted. The accustomed dues for such holdings shall be paid to us, but not the tax.

Such possessions as we have granted to members of the league, inside or outside of cities, shall not be included among those regalia for which taxes are to be paid to us.

All privileges, gifts, and concessions made in the time of the war by us or our representatives to the prejudice or injury of the cities, territories, or members of the league are to be null and void.

Consuls of cities where the bishop holds the position of count from the king or emperor shall receive their office from the bishop, if this has been the custom before. In all other cities the consuls shall receive their office from us, in the following manner: after they have been elected by the city they shall be invested with office by our representative in the city or bishopric, unless we are ourselves in Lombardy, in which case they shall be invested by us. At the end of every five years each city shall send its representative to us to receive the investiture.

This arrangement shall be observed by our successor, and all such investitures shall be free.

After our death, the cities shall receive investiture in the same way from our son and from his successors.

The emperor shall have the right of hearing appeals in cases involving more than 25 pounds, saving the right of the church of Brescia to hear appeals. The appellant shall not, however, be compelled to come to Germany, but he shall appeal to the representative of the emperor in the city or bishopric. This representative shall examine the case fairly and shall give judgment according to the laws and customs of that city. The decision shall be given within two months from the time of appeal, unless the case has been deferred by reason of some legal hindrance or by the consent of both parties.

The consuls of cities shall take the oath of allegiance to the emperor before they are invested with office.

Our vassals shall receive investiture from us and shall take the vassal’s oath of fidelity. All other persons between the ages of 15 and 70 shall take the ordinary oath of fidelity to the emperor unless there be some good reason why this oath should be remitted.

Vassals who have failed to receive investiture from us or to render the services due for their fiefs, during the war or the truce, shall not on this account lose their fiefs.

Lands held by libelli and precariæ shall be held according to the customs of each city, the feudal law of Frederick I to the contrary notwithstanding.

All injuries, losses, and damages which we or our followers have sustained from the league or any of its members or allies are hereby pardoned, and all such transgressors are hereby received back into our favor.

We will not remain longer than is necessary in any city or bishopric.

It shall be permitted to the cities to erect fortifications within or without their boundaries.

It shall be permitted to the league to maintain its organization as it now is or to renew it as often as it desires.

110. The Formation of the Duchy of Austria, 1156.

Wattenbach, Die ost. Freiheitsbriefe; Doeberl, IV, no. 31 a.

The nobles of Germany early showed the desire to free themselves from the control of the emperor and to acquire independence at the expense of the crown. The document by which Frederick I created the duchy of Austria out of the Bavarian east mark and gave it to his uncle, Henry, contains some concessions which tended to weaken the crown. Instead of binding the new duke closely to the crown and compelling him to render services commensurate with his high position, the emperor excused him from attending diets which were not held near his lands, and from military service except in the lands which adjoined his. He also gave the duke the complete administration of justice in his territory. Other princes were not slow to demand similar privileges, and the crown was gradually stripped of its powers and prerogatives. See nos. 136, 139, 153, 160. The duchy of Austria, created by this grant, came into the possession of the Hapsburg family, and formed the centre of the Hapsburg lands, the present Austro-Hungarian empire. See no. 150.

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick, by divine mercy emperor of the Romans, Augustus. ... Know all our faithful subjects, present and future, that with the aid of him who sent peace on earth, we have been able to settle the long quarrel between our beloved uncle Henry, duke of Austria, and our beloved nephew, Henry, duke of Saxony, over the possession of the duchy of Bavaria. This was accomplished at the diet of Regensburg on the day of the Nativity of the blessed Virgin Mary in the presence of many pious catholic princes. This is the way in which the settlement was reached: The duke of Austria resigned the duchy of Bavaria into our hands, and we immediately granted it in fief to the duke of Saxony. Then the duke of Bavaria [Henry of Saxony] surrendered to us the mark of Austria with all its rights and all the fiefs which the former margrave Luitpold held of the duchy of Bavaria, and we have made the mark of Austria a duchy with the consent of the princes, Wadislaus, duke of Bohemia, putting the motion and the other princes agreeing to it. This was done in order that our beloved uncle should not lose in rank by the transfer. We have now granted the duchy of Austria in fief to our uncle Henry and to his wife Theodora, decreeing by this perpetual edict that (1) they and their children after them, whether sons or daughters, shall hold and possess it by hereditary right. If our uncle and his wife should die without children, they may leave the duchy by will to whomsoever they desire. (2) We decree also that no person, great or small, shall presume to exercise any of the rights of justice within the duchy, without the consent and permission of the duke. (3) The duke of Austria does not owe any services to the empire, except to attend, when summoned, such diets as may be held in Bavaria. (4) He is not bound to join the emperor on any campaign except such as may be directed against parts of the kingdom neighboring to Austria.

111. The Bishop of Würzburg is made a Duke, 1168.

Bresslau, Diplomata Centum, no. 72; Doeberl, IV, no. 44.

The old duchy of Franconia disappeared with Conrad II (1024–39). The Staufer, who inherited the family lands of Conrad II, called themselves dukes of Rothenburg, and not of Franconia. A large part of the original duchy went to make up the bishoprics of Mainz, Bamberg, and Würzburg. In time the bishops of Würzburg put forth the claim that they had received the ducal office in Franconia. In a diet at Würzburg, 1168, Herold, the ambitious bishop of Würzburg, presented some forged documents to Frederick I to prove that the bishops of Würzburg were also dukes and had ducal authority in the duchy of Würzburg, which was identical with the bishopric. Frederick was deceived by these forgeries and confirmed the bishop in his usurped title and authority. The bishops of Würzburg now received the highest jurisdiction over their territory.

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick, by the mercy of God emperor of the Romans, Augustus.... Be it known to all the faithful subjects of God and of our empire, both present and future, that we held a diet at Würzburg recently, where with the aid of God we were able to reconcile the differences which had arisen among the princes of Saxony. At that diet also Herold, venerable bishop of Würzburg, attended by his whole chapter and by a large following of freemen and ministerials, besought us to confirm by our imperial authority the jurisdiction over the church and duchy of Würzburg, which has belonged to his predecessors since the time of Karl the Great. We always delight to grant the reasonable requests of suppliants, and we have no wish to disturb the arrangements made by former emperors, unless there is some need of correction. In this case it is apparent that the settlement made by the former emperors is just, and that the lands have been held unquestioned for a long time by the church and the duchy of Würzburg. Therefore, influenced by the fidelity and devotion of the bishop and by the intercessions of the chapter of his church, whose devotion to him has touched our heart, we give and grant to the venerable bishop Herold and to his successors forever the jurisdiction and right of administering justice in the whole bishopric and duchy and all its counties; that is, the right to punish cases of rapine and incendiarism, to exercise authority over freeholds, fiefs, and vassals, and to inflict capital punishment. By our imperial authority expressed in this perpetual decree, we forbid any person, ecclesiastical or secular, to exercise any jurisdiction in these matters within the bishopric and duchy of Würzburg and its counties; except that the counts should have jurisdiction within their counties over those freemen who are known as bargaldi. If anyone acts contrary to this he is guilty of violating the decrees of former emperors, the rights of the church of Würzburg, and this our decree. We also forbid anyone to create hundred-courts or appoint centgrafs (hundred-courts) within this bishopric and duchy and its counties, except by the grant of the bishop-duke of Würzburg. Further, we have destroyed the castle of Bamberg, which has been the cause of so much trouble to the church and the whole province, and have given the hill upon which it stood to the church of Würzburg, forbidding the erection of a castle or fortification again upon it. We have destroyed also the castle of Frankenberg, which menaced the neighboring monastery of Amerbach and imperilled the peace of the church of Würzburg, and have given it under similar conditions to that church.

112. Decree of Gelnhausen, 1180.

Heinemann, Cod. Anhalt., no. 1 c; Doeberl, IV. no. 5O.

As early as 953 Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, received the ducal authority over Lothringen. This gave him the power to hold local diets and to summon both the bishops and secular nobles to attend them. The Gelnhausen decree, so named because it was published in a diet held at Gelnhausen, is important because it contains an official account (1) of the trial of Henry the Lion, and (2) of the partition of the duchy of Saxony. The archbishop of Cologne now receives the ducal authority over a part of the duchy of Saxony. There is here a good illustration of the policy which Frederick I followed of weakening the great duchies by dividing them.

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Frederick, by divine mercy emperor of the Romans, Augustus....

Know all faithful subjects of the empire, both present and future, that Henry, former duke of Bavaria and Westphalia, has oppressed the churches of God and the nobles of the empire by seizing their lands and violating their rights, has refused to obey our summons to present himself before us and has therefore incurred the ban, and even after that has continued to injure the churches and nobles. Now therefore on account of the injuries which he has inflicted upon these persons, and on account of the contempt which he has so often shown to us, and especially on account of his violation of feudal law, in that he refused to obey the three summonses to present himself before us, he has been judged contumacious and by the unanimous sentence of the princes in the diet held at Würzburg has been deprived of the duchies of Bavaria, Westphalia, and Engria [that is, Bavaria and Saxony] and of all the fiefs which he held of the empire, and these territories have been restored to our control.

Now by the advice of the princes we have divided the duchy of Westphalia and Engria [Saxony] into two parts and have conferred that part which is included in the dioceses of Cologne and Paderborn upon our beloved prince, Philip, archbishop of Cologne, because of his conspicuous merits, and of his labors and expenditures for the crown. We have given and granted this territory to the church of Cologne with the counties, advocates, rights of safe-conduct, domains, farms, fiefs, ministerials, serfs, and all other things which belong to that duchy; and we have solemnly invested the aforesaid Philip by the banner [flag] of the empire with that portion of the duchy which is given to his church. This was done by the decision of all the princes of the diet, and with the public consent of our relative, duke Bernard, to whom we have given the other part of the duchy of Westphalia and Engria....

113. Papal Election Decree of Alexander III, 1179.

Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vitæ, II, pp. 644 f; Doeberl, IV, no. 49.

Disputed elections might easily take place, because there was no clear law governing them. It was not the majority of the cardinals who could elect, but those of the "better and wiser counsel." No matter how small the number of cardinals who might vote for a particular candidate, he could easily claim to be elected because he could say that his supporters were of the "better and wiser counsel." To prevent such occurrences, Alexander III decreed that the votes of two-thirds of the cardinals were necessary to elect.

Concerning the election of the pope. Although our predecessors have issued decrees intended to prevent disputed elections in the papacy, nevertheless, the unity of the church has frequently been imperilled by the wicked ambition of men. We have decided with the advice of our brothers and the approval of the council that something further must be done to prevent this evil. Therefore we have decreed that when the cardinals cannot come to a unanimous vote on any candidate, that person shall be regarded as pope who receives two-thirds of the votes, even if the other one-third refuse to accept him and elect a pope of their own. If anyone who has been elected by only a third of the cardinals shall presume to act as pope he and his followers shall be excommunicated and deprived of all ecclesiastical rank; they shall not be allowed to take communion, unless it be extreme unction, and unless they repent they shall have their part with Dathan and Abiram [Num. 16], whom the earth swallowed alive. No one who has been elected by less than two-thirds, shall presume to act as pope, and if he does he shall suffer the same penalty. This decree shall not be to the prejudice of the canon law or of the practice in other churches where the voice of the majority is declared to be decisive in elections, because any dispute arising in these churches can be settled by appeal to higher authority. The Roman church requires a special law, because there is in her case no higher authority to appeal to.

114–115. Supremacy of the Papal Power.

114. Innocent III to Acerbius, 1198.

Migne, 214, col. 377.

Innocent III here gives an interesting statement of the theory of papal supremacy and of the relations existing between papacy and empire.

Innocent III to Acerbius, prior, and to the other clergy in Tuscany. As God, the creator of the universe, set two great lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night [Gen. 1:15,16], so He set two great dignities in the firmament of the universal church, ... the greater to rule the day, that is, souls, and the lesser to rule the night, that is, bodies. These dignities are the papal authority and the royal power. And just as the moon gets her light from the sun, and is inferior to the sun in quality, quantity, position, and effect, so the royal power gets the splendor of its dignity from the papal authority....

115. The Use of the Pallium. Innocent III to the Archbishop of Trnova (in Bulgaria), 1201.

Migne, 215, col. 294.

To the honor of omnipotent God, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and of pope Innocent and of the Roman church, as well as of the church committed to you, we give you the pallium. It was first placed on the tomb of St. Peter, from which place we have taken it to send it to you. It is the symbol of the full power of the bishop’s office. You shall wear the pallium only when you celebrate mass in the churches of your own diocese on the following days: Christmas, St. Stephen’s, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification of the Virgin Mary, Palm Sunday, Thursday and Saturday of Passion week, Easter Sunday, Monday after Easter, Ascension of our Lord, Pentecost, the three feasts of St. Mary, the birthday of John the Baptist, the feast days of all the apostles, All Saints’ day, and when a church is to be dedicated, or bishop consecrated, or clergy ordained, on the principal feast days of your own church, and on the anniversary of your consecration.

The bishop of Rome alone always wears the pallium when celebrating mass because he has the plentitude (fullness) of ecclesiastical power, which is symbolized by the pallium. Others wear it only on certain days, and in that diocese over which they have received ecclesiastical authority, because they are called to have authority over only a part of the church, and not over all of it [as the pope is].

116–118. The Punishment of Heretics.

116. Innocent III to the Archbishop of Auch in Gascony, 1198.

Migne, 214, col. 71.

Many heresies were appearing in various parts of Europe, and Innocent III made special efforts to suppress them. The three following documents illustrate the means by which he hoped to destroy them. These letters are directed to Spain and to Gascony, where the Albigensian heresy was flourishing.

The little boat of St. Peter is beaten by many storms and tossed about upon the sea, but it grieves us most of all that, against the orthodox faith, there are now arising more unrestrainedly and with more injurious results than ever before, ministers of diabolical error who are ensnaring the souls of the simple and ruining them. With their superstitions and false inventions they are perverting the meaning of the Holy Scriptures and trying to destroy the unity of the catholic church. Since we have learned from you and others that this pestilential error is growing in Gascony and in the neighboring territories, we wish you and your fellow bishops to resist it with all your might, because it is to be feared that it will spread and that by its contagion the minds of the faithful will be corrupted. And therefore by this present apostolical writing we give you a strict command that, by whatever means you can, you destroy all these heresies and expel from your diocese all who are polluted with them. You shall exercise the rigor of the ecclesiastical power against them and all those who have made themselves suspected by associating with them. They may not appeal from your judgments, and if necessary, you may cause the princes and people to suppress them with the sword.

117. Innocent III Commands all in Authority to aid his Legates in Destroying Heresy, 1198.

Migne, 214, col. 142.

See introductory note to no. 116.

In order to catch the little foxes which are destroying the vineyard of the Lord [Song of Sol. 2:15], and to separate heretics from the society of the faithful, we have sent to you our beloved son and brother, Rainerius, who, by the divine aid, is powerful in both word and deed, and with him our beloved son and brother, Guido, who fears God and is devoted to works of love. We ask, warn, exhort, and for the forgiveness of your sins command you to receive them kindly and render them assistance against the heretics by giving them advice and aid. We have ordered Rainerius to go on into Spain on certain important ecclesiastical matters, and so we order all archbishops and bishops to use, at the command of Guido, the spiritual sword against all heretics whom he shall name to you. And we order the laymen to confiscate their goods and drive them out of your territories, and thus separate the chaff from the wheat. Moreover to all who faithfully and devoutly aid the church in preserving the faith in this time of great danger which is threatening her, we grant the same indulgence of sins as to those who make a pilgrimage to the churches of St. Peter or of St. James.

118. Confiscation of the Property of Heretics. Innocent III to the King of Aragon, 1206.

Migne, 215, col. 915 f.

See introductory note to no. 116.

Since according to the gospel, the "laborer is worthy of his hire" [Luke 10:7], and in another place it is said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn" [1 Cor. 9:1], it is certainly even more fitting that a proper reward should be given those who, zealous for the divine law, labor to destroy the little foxes which are ruining the vineyard of the Lord [Song of Sol. 2:15]; we mean those who are endeavoring to pervert the Christian faith. Their reward should be all the greater, because if these foxes are killed the vineyard will be able to bear much greater fruit in works of piety. Led by such considerations, we concede to you, by this present writing, the right to reserve for your own use all the movable as well as immovable goods of heretics and of their supporters, of which you are able to get possession.

119. Innocent III Commands the French Bishops to Punish Usury, 1198.

Migne, 214, col. 376.

The code of Justinian permitted the taking of interest, but the Biblical view of the matter prevailed and in the Middle Age to accept interest in any form on loans was usury. The church often renewed her prohibitions of the custom, but was unable to abolish it. Finally in the sixteenth century the distinction was made between a reasonable and just rate of interest, which was permissible, and an excessive rate, which was declared to be usury, and therefore prohibited.

We believe that you know how pernicious the vice of usury is, since, in addition to the ecclesiastical laws which have been issued against it, the prophet says that those who put their money out at interest are to be excluded from the tabernacle of the Lord [Ps. 15:5]. And the New Testament, as well as the Old, forbids the taking of interest, since the Truth [Christ] himself says: "Lend, hoping for nothing again" [Luke 6:35]. And the prophet says: "Thou shalt not receive usury or increase" [Ezek. 18:17]. We command you all by this apostolical writing not to permit those who are known as usurers to clear themselves by any subterfuge or trick when they are charged with the crime.

120. Innocent III Forbids Violence to the Jews, 1199.

Migne, 214, col. 864.

During the Middle Age the Jew received no protection from the law. It took no account of him. He was compelled to pay for the permission to live in a Christian state or in a Christian town. Such a permission was often revoked at the will of the government (emperor, duke, bishop, city council, etc.), and the Jews were then plundered by the government or the mob, and made to pay well to have the permission renewed. Although the government often robbed them, they had more to fear from the fanaticism and covetousness of the mob, against which the government was generally helpless to protect them. The more enlightened of the clergy tried to shield them, but generally without success. This document gives an idea of the ways in which they were commonly molested, as well as of the enlightened humanity of Innocent III. See also nos. 299, 300.

... We decree that no Christian shall use violence to compel the Jews to accept baptism. But if a Jew, of his own accord, because of a change in his faith, shall have taken refuge with Christians, after his wish has been made known, he may be made a Christian without any opposition. For anyone who has not of his own will sought Christian baptism cannot have the true Christian faith. No Christian shall do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing stones at them. No one shall compel them to render any services except those which they have been accustomed to render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the bodies of their dead....

121. Innocent III to the Archbishop of Rouen, 1198.

Migne, 214, col. 93.

It was not uncommon for clergymen to hold livings or benefices (receive an income) from different churches at the same time. In such cases, they of course found it impossible to live in all the parishes from which they received money or support. And some clergymen, although supported by some church, cared little for their clerical duties and evaded them by living in some other parish. This letter to the archbishop of Rouen represents a part of the reforming work of Innocent III. He endeavored to correct these abuses, as is apparent from this letter.

Since it is written that whoever does not work shall not eat [2 Thess. 3:10], we believe it wrong that clergymen do not serve those churches from which they have their livings. You have informed us that certain canons of the church of Rouen receive incomes and livings from the church, but do not live there, as they should, and that the church of Rouen is thereby unjustly deprived of the services of the clergy whom she supports. Therefore we grant your petition, venerable brother in Christ, and by our apostolic authority give you full power to use ecclesiastical discipline to compel them to live in their churches, as the law and custom of the church require.....

122. Innocent III to a Bishop, Forbidding Laymen to Demand Tithes of the Clergy, 1198.

Migne, 214, col. 433 f.

This letter does not differ materially from the bull "Clericis laicos," no. 162. See the introductory note to it.

Since it is improper and contrary to reason that laymen, who are bound to pay tithes to the clergy, should presume to extort tithes from them, to the utter confusion of the established order of things, we grant your petition, and give all the monasteries, churches, and clergy of your diocese the permission to refuse to pay any tithes which may be demanded of them by laymen, no matter under what pretext such a demand may be made. And if laymen, contrary to this writing, shall attempt to collect such tithes by violence, you shall put them under ecclesiastical interdict and deprive them of the right to appeal.

123–125. The Secular Power of Innocent III.

123. The Prefect of Rome Takes the Oath of Fidelity to the Pope, 1198.

Migne, 214, cols. 18 and 529.

Innocent III attempted to build up a system of papal government in all the lands which he claimed. This document shows how his authority in Rome was recognized. No. 124 is an illustration of the oath which he required of the local princes in Italy who held lands from him. No. 125 is offered as an evidence of his government in Sicily.

The next day after the coronation of Innocent III, Peter, prefect of the city of Rome, in the consistory of the Lateran palace, publicly took the oath of fidelity to Innocent and his successors, against all men, and received from the pope a robe as the symbol of his investiture, with the prefecture. And then he did Innocent liege homage and the pope gave him a silver cup as the sign of his favor.

The oath. In the name of Christ. I, Peter, prefect of the city, swear that the land which the pope has given me to govern, I will govern to the honor and profit of the church. I will neither sell, nor hire out, nor enfeoff, nor pawn, nor alienate in any other way, any part of it. I will carefully find out and maintain all the rights of the Roman church, and I will endeavor to recover those rights which she has lost; and when I have recovered them, I will preserve and defend them as long as I shall hold this office. I will guard the roads and administer justice. I will give diligent zeal and attention to the guarding of the defences in order that they may be guarded well and to the honor of the church and in accordance with her wishes. I will neither change nor cause to be changed those who have charge of the fortresses, nor will I introduce, or cause to be introduced, others into the fortresses, contrary to the command of the pope. The faithful subjects and vassals of the pope, who live on the patrimony of the church, I will not permit to take the oath of fidelity and homage to me without the special command of the pope. Nor shall any of them be required to be faithful to me except during my governorship. In the territory committed to me I will not cause any strongholds to be built without the command of the pope. I will give a faithful account of my governorship whenever the pope may demand it. And I will freely resign my office whenever the pope or the holy Roman church may command me to do so. All these things I swear that I will faithfully observe without fraud, to the best of my ability, the command of the pope being supreme in all things. So help me God and these holy gospels of God.

124. John of Ceccano’s Oath of Fidelity to Innocent III, 1201.

Migne, 217, col. 286.

See introductory note to no. 123.

In the fourth year of the pontificate of Innocent III, in the papal palace at Anagni, a nobleman, John of Ceccano, took an oath of fidelity to pope Innocent for Ceccano and for all the land which he holds. The oath was taken in the presence of cardinal bishops, priests, and deacons; there were present also many other clergy and nobles of Anagni and of other places, as well as the knights of John of Ceccano. And he admitted that he held Ceccano and all the rest of his land from the Roman church. And this was his oath:

I, John of Ceccano, swear that from this hour on I will be faithful to St. Peter, the Roman church, and my lord pope Innocent and his successors. I will have no share in any counsel or deed, either by word or act, to deprive them of life or limb or to capture them by fraud. Any plan which they may reveal to me either in person or by messenger or by letter I will not wittingly make known to their hurt. If I learn of an impending injury to them I will prevent it if possible; if I cannot prevent it I will inform them of it either in person or by letter or by messenger, or I will tell it to some person who, I believe, will tell them of it. I will aid them in defending Ceccano and all the land which I hold, and the other regalia of St. Peter which they hold. If they have lost any regalia, I will aid them in recovering, keeping, and defending it against all men. These things I will keep in good faith, without fraud or deceit. So help me God and these holy gospels.

After these things he put his hands into the hands of the pope and did him liege homage. And the pope graciously gave him a silver cup overlaid with gold. And afterward, in the same year, the same pope, because of his faithfulness and services of John of Ceccano and his ancestors, gave him the castle of Sitense as a fief.

125. Innocent III Commands the Archbishop of Messina to Receive the Oaths of Bailiffs in Sicily, 1203.

Migne, 215, col. 55.

See introductory note to no. 123. This document is an evidence that the government of Sicily was administered by the pope. According to the Constitutions of Sicily, 1231, the bailiffs had jurisdiction over thefts, the use of false weights and measures, and the less important civil cases.

Knowing your orthodoxy and your faithfulness we do not hesitate to commit to your charge those things which will advance the honor of the apostolic see. Accordingly, by this apostolic writing, we command you to demand and receive, in our name, the bailiff’s oath from all counts, barons, citizens, and others who have not yet taken it.

126. Innocent III Commands the English Barons to pay their Accustomed Scutage to King John, 1206.

Migne, 217, col. 248.

Innocent III presumed to dictate to the whole Christian world in all matters, temporal as well as spiritual. The following documents, nos. 126–129, are offered merely to illustrate by a few specific cases the authority which he assumed. They explain themselves.

Innocent .... to his beloved sons, the great nobles, barons, and knights in England, greeting and apostolic benediction. Our most dear son, John, the illustrious king of England, has informed us that, although your ancestors were accustomed from ancient times to pay the king scutage for the baronies which they held from him, and although you yourselves have paid this scutage up to very recent times, you have now arbitrarily refused to pay scutage for the army which he led last year into Poitou. In order that your king’s plans may not be interfered with by such action, we earnestly admonish and exhort you, and by this letter we command you to pay promptly and without further resistance or objection the said scutage in accordance with your obligation. For without judicial procedure he cannot be despoiled of this scutage because his ancestors and he have been accustomed to receive it, and besides, provided his right to it is admitted, he is ready to hear any just complaints that may be made to him about it.

127. Innocent III to Peter of Aragon, 1211.

Migne, 216, col. 404 f.

See introductory note to no. 126.

Since you say that while you were still a minor you did yourself great damage by making grants which now involve a large part of your income, and that, although you are very poor, you incur heavy expenses in fighting the enemies of Christianity [that is, the Mohammedans in Spain], I hereby give you the authority to revoke all the grants you made during your minority; but with this proviso, that if you wish to revoke any grants which you made to churches or to other places which are put to a religious use, such revocations shall be passed on by an ecclesiastical judge.

128. Innocent III Grants the Title of King to the Duke of Bohemia, 1204.

Migne, 215, col. 333 f.

See introductory note to no. 126 and to no. 56.

Although there have been many in Bohemia who have worn a royal crown, yet they never received the papal permission to call themselves king in their documents. Nor have we hitherto been willing to call you king, because you were crowned king by Philip, duke of Suabia, who himself had not been legally crowned, and therefore could not legally crown either you or anyone else. But since you have obeyed us, and, deserting the duke of Suabia, have gone over to the illustrious king, Otto, emperor elect, and he regards you as king, we, at his request and out of consideration of your obedience, are willing hereafter to call you king. Now that you know why this favor has been granted you, strive to shun the vice of ingratitude. And show that you have deserved our favor which we have so graciously shown you, and try also to retain it. See to it that you are solemnly crowned by Otto as soon as possible.

129. Innocent III Rebukes the English Barons for Resisting King John of England, 1216.

Migne, 217, col. 245 f.

See introductory note to no. 126.

Innocent, etc., to his beloved sons, the magnates and barons of England, greeting and apostolic benediction.

We are gravely troubled to learn that a quarrel has arisen between our most beloved son, John, king of England, and some of you, about certain questions that have recently been raised. Unless wise counsel prevails and diligent measures are taken to end this quarrel, it will cause injury. It is currently reported that you have rashly made conspiracies and confederacies against him, and that you have insolently, rebelliously, presumptuously, and with arms in your hands, said things to him, which, if they had to be said, should have been said humbly and submissively. We utterly condemn your conduct in these matters. You must no longer try, by such means, to hinder the king in his good plans. By our apostolic authority we hereby dissolve all conspiracies and confederacies that have been made since the quarrel between the crown and the church began, and forbid them under threat of excommunication. We order you to endeavor by clear proofs of humility and devotion to placate your king and to win his favor by rendering him those customary services which you and your ancestors have paid him and his predecessors. And in the future, if you wish to make a request of him, you shall do it, not insolently, but humbly and reverently, without offending his royal honor; and thus you will more readily obtain what you wish. We ask and beseech the king in the Lord and command him, in order to obtain forgiveness of his sins, to treat you leniently, and graciously to grant your just petitions. And thus you yourselves may rejoice to know that he has changed for the better, and on this account you and your heirs may serve him and his successors more promptly and devotedly. We ask, and, by this apostolic writing, command you to bear yourselves in such a way that England may obtain the peace she so earnestly longs for, and that you may deserve our aid and support in your times of trouble.

130. Decision of Innocent III in Regard to the Disputed Election of Frederick II, Philip of Suabia, and Otto of Brunswick, 1201.

Reg. d. Innoc. III. p. super neg. Rom. imp., no. 29; Huillard-Bréholles, I, 70–76; Böhmer-Ficker-Winkelmann, no. 5724 a; Doeberl, V, no. 8.

At the death of Henry VI, 1197, his brother, Philip of Suabia, tried to persuade the princes to elect the infant son of Henry, Frederick, as king. While some were in favor of this, others refused on the ground that it would be ruinous to elect a child king. They offered the crown to Philip, but he refused it because he was unwilling to appear to be false to his little nephew. In spite of Philip’s persistent refusal a party of the princes elected him. The Guelf party elected Otto, son of Henry the Lion. Under these circumstances Innocent III declared that it was his right as pope to decide the disputed election. His reasons for deciding in favor of Otto are given in the following document.

In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It is the business of the pope to look after the interests of the Roman empire, since the empire derives its origin and its final authority from the papacy; its origin, because it was originally transferred from Greece by and for the sake of the papacy, the popes making the transfer in order that the church might be better protected; its final authority, because the emperor is raised to his position by the pope who blesses him, crowns him, and invests him with the empire. Henry [VI] recognized this truth in respect to our predecessor, pope Celestine of blessed memory, for although for a little while after he had received the crown from the pope, he refused to admit this, later he came to his senses and besought the pope to invest him with the golden mantle of the empire. Therefore, since three persons have lately been elected king by different parties, namely, the youth [Frederick II], Philip, and Otto, so also three things must be taken into account in regard to each one, namely: the legality, the suitability, and the expediency of his election.

In respect to the youth, the son of emperor Henry, at first glance it does not seem lawful to oppose his election, because it was supported by the oaths which his father received from the princes before his death. For although that oath may have been extorted from them by force, nevertheless it is not thereby rendered void; in the case of the oath which the children of Israel swore to Gibeon, they decided that, although it had been secured by fraud, it ought still to be kept. Moreover, if the oath of the princes was originally extorted from them, the emperor later recognized his sin, and released them from their oath, sending back the letters in which they promised to elect his son; then the princes, in the emperor’s absence, of their own accord elected his son, and almost all of them promised him fidelity and some did him homage. Therefore it does not appear that they may lawfully break that oath. It does not seem proper for us to deprive him of his kingdom, because he has been intrusted to our guardianship and protection, and moreover it is written: "Defend the fatherless" [Ps. 82:3]. It does not seem expedient to oppose him, because, when the youth shall arrive at years of discretion and shall learn that he was deprived of his kingdom by the pope, not only will he not show us reverence, but even as far as he is able he will attack the church, and withhold from her the allegiance and dues which she should receive from the kingdom of Sicily. On the other hand, there are good reasons why it should be lawful, fitting, and expedient to oppose his election. It is lawful because the oaths of the princes were illegal, and the election was unwise. For they elected as emperor a person unsuited not only to that, but to any other office, for he was then scarcely two years old and was not yet baptized. It appears then that such illegal and unwise oaths should not be kept. The case of the oath sworn to Gibeon does not apply, for that oath could be kept without working injury to the people of Israel, while the observance of these oaths will not only injure one race, but will cause great loss and damage to the church and the whole Christian people. Nor can it be said that these oaths are legal if interpreted according to the intention of the princes who swore them. They meant that if they elected him emperor, he was not to rule immediately, but later when he came of age. But how then could they judge of his fitness to rule? Might he not turn out to be so foolish and simple as to be utterly unworthy even less honor? Suppose that they meant he should rule only when he was fitted to, and that in the meantime his father should govern the state. But later an event occurred which the princes had not thought of, and which made it neither right nor possible for the princes to keep their oaths; that is, the sudden death of the father. Now since the empire cannot be governed by a deputy, and an emperor cannot be elected for a temporary term, and since the church neither wishes nor is able to do without an emperor, it is lawful to elect some one else. It is not fitting that he should rule. For how can he rule who is himself under the rule of others? How can he protect the Christian people who is himself under the tutelage of others? It is no sufficient answer to this to say that it was to our guardianship that he was intrusted, because this was done not that we might give him the empire, but that we might hold the kingdom of Sicily for him. The Scripture says: "Woe to thee, oh land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning" [Eccles. 10:16]. It is not expedient that he should become emperor, because thereby the kingdom of Sicily would be united with the empire to the danger of the church; for, to say nothing of other dangers, he would, like his father before him, be unwilling to prejudice the dignity of the empire by taking the oaths of fidelity and homage to the pope for the kingdom of Sicily. And it is no answer to this to say that he would later oppose the church if we deprived him of the empire, for it is not we who are depriving him of his empire, but his uncle [Philip] who has attempted to seize not only the empire, but his maternal possessions as well, while we have been defending them for him at great expense and with great labor.

As to Philip, it does not seem lawful to oppose his election. In deciding the legality of elections, account has to be taken of the zeal, the rank, and the number of the electors. It is not easy to determine the zeal, but, in respect to the other considerations, it is clear that Philip was elected by many princes of high rank, and that many others have since given him their support. Therefore his election seems to be legal, and not to be opposed. It would seem also that it is not proper for us to oppose his election, for we would appear thereby to be taking revenge for our injuries, if, because his father [Frederick I] and his brother [Henry VI] persecuted the church, we should persecute him and visit upon him the punishment incurred by the sins of others; whereas our Lord has said: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you" [Matt. 5:44]. It would seem also not to be expedient to oppose his election. To oppose a man so strong in wealth and supporters is like battling with the torrent with the bare arms. We would only make an enemy of him and create even greater strife in the church. We ought rather to seek peace and pursue it, which we could do by supporting him. But on the other hand it seems lawful to oppose his election, for he was excommunicated lawfully and in solemn form by our predecessor. Lawfully, because he had seized the lands of St. Peter [Tuscany], and ravaged and burned them, refusing to make satisfaction after being warned to do so once and again by our brothers; in solemn form, for it was done at mass in the church of St. Peter on a great feast-day, and he himself recognized the validity of the excommunication by sending a messenger to us to beseech absolution, and by having himself absolved later after his election, by our legate, although contrary to our commands. So it is evident that he was elected while under sentence of excommunication, and some believe that he is not yet released from it. For in giving him absolution, the former bishop of Sutri did not observe the conditions laid down by us; namely, that Philip should first release the archbishop of Salerno from captivity, and should then be freed from the necessity of coming to Rome for absolution if he would take oath publicly to obey us in respect to the deeds for which he had been excommunicated, and then only should be given absolution. But the bishop of Sutri attempted to absolve him secretly while the said archbishop was still a prisoner, and without requiring any oath at all; for which disobedience he was deprived of his bishopric by us and ended his days in a monastery. Moreover, since we have frequently excommunicated Markwald and all other German and Italian supporters of Philip, Philip himself, the author of their sins, is surely subject to the same sentence. Moreover, it is notorious that he swore fidelity to the youth [Frederick], and yet has seized his kingdom and tried to seize the empire; therefore he is guilty of perjury. It is objected that we have already declared such oath to be illegal, and that he is not guilty of perjury in not keeping it, because we have said it ought not to be kept. But even if the oath was unlawful, he should not have broken it on his own authority, but should first have consulted us, after the example of the children of Israel, in the case of the oath which they swore to Gibeon; for although the oath had been won from them by fraud they did not break it of their own accord, but decided to consult the Lord. Moreover since whatever is done against the conscience leads to hell (according to the words of the apostle: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" [Rom. 14:23]), and since Philip excuses himself in this matter by saying that he would not have taken the kingdom if he had not known that otherwise some other persons would have seized it, it is clear that he believed he ought to have kept the oath, and that in violating it he went against his own conscience. So it seems that we ought to oppose him and resist his attempt to hold the empire, since he is legally under excommunication and is guilty of perjury. It appears also that we may properly oppose his election, for by his succession, brother will be succeeding brother, just as formerly son succeeded father when Frederick handed on the crown to his son [Henry VI] and Henry tried to do the same for his son [Frederick II]; and thus the empire tends to become hereditary, the abuse becoming law by long custom. Also it appears expedient to oppose him, for he is a persecutor, and of a race of persecutors, and if we do not oppose him now we shall be arming our enemy against ourselves.