No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Eugenius IV, Cardinal Kemp, and Archbishop Chichele: A Reconsideration of The Role of Antonio Caffarelli
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
Extract
In 1961, as a contribution to a Festschrift for Aubrey Gwynn, Walter Ullmann drew learned attention to an argument about precedence which arose, probably in 1440, between Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury, and John Kemp, Archbishop of York, and Cardinal Priest of S. Balbina. The question was whether Kemp as a cardinal took precedence in the councils of the kingdom over Chichele, who, though primate and legatus natus, was not a cardinal. According to Ullmann, Chichele took his case against Kemp to Rome and briefed Antonio Caffarelli, a famous lawyer, only to encounter formidable opposition in a bull Non mediocri dolore, issued by Eugenius IV, which remained until modern times the foundation of the papal view of the role of cardinals and their status.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Studies in Church History Subsidia , Volume 9: The Church and Sovereignty c.590-1918 , 1991 , pp. 329 - 344
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1991
References
1 ‘Eugenius IV, Cardinal Kemp and Archbishop Chichele’, in Wart, J. A, Morrall, J. B., and Martin, F. X. O.S.A., eds, Medieual Studies Presented to Aubrey Gwynn (Dublin, 1961), pp. 359–83Google Scholar.
2 I have used Magnum Bullarium Romanum (Lyons, 1655), 1, pp. 351-3.
3 For Jacobazzi, see Ullmann, ‘Eugenius IV’, pp. 360 and 365, where passages are quoted. The standard work on him is Klotzner, J., Kardinal Dominikus Jacobazzi und sein Konzilswerk = Ana-lecta Gregoriana, 45 (Rome, 1948)Google Scholar. I have used the edition of De concilio in Mansi, Introductio (Paris, 1903), cols 1-560, but have also consulted Tractatus illustrium jurisconsultium (Venice, 1584), 13/i, fols 190r-398v; and Jacobazzi in the Roman edn of 1538.
4 Dizionario Biografico Italiano, 16 (Rome, 1973), pp. 243—5, by G. Bartolini. For corrections see below.
5 Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana Medici, MS Plut 16, 13, fols 212r-15r. I have only seen a photocopy of this MS.
6 Vatican Library, MS Vat. Lat. 4129, fols 177r-84v; Vat. Lat. 2508, fols 55r-ov (incomplete); Florence, Laurenziana Medici, MS Plut 20, 39, fols 271r-86v, 42r-7v, 48V. The reference to the Florence MS is incorrect in the Dizionario which gives Plut. 20,31.1 am most grateful to the librarian who sorted out the correct folios for me. I have seen only a microfilm. The Dizionario also says that Vat. Lat. 2508 is a brief presentation, whereas it is an incomplete copy. For it see Kuttner, S. and Elze, R., A Catalogue of Canon Law and Roman Law MSS in the Vatican Library = Studi e Tati, 328 (Vatican City, 1987), pp. 79–81.Google Scholar
7 Vat Lat 4129, fols 184V-92V.
8 The decree on annates can most readily be consulted in Tanner, N. P., ed.,Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols (London, 1900), I, pp. 488–9Google Scholar. The speech by Bachenstein is printed in Mansi, 29, cols 454-9 and 30, cols 934-45.
9 At intervals Caffarelli mentions an ‘orator’, and the points made all come from Bachenstein’s speech, which is refuted point by point.
10 Laurenziana Plut. 16,13, fol. 212v, ‘Sunt mille jura que dicunt papam nulli hominum subesse iudicio … Ymo etiam papa extra causam fidei in concilium et contra illud jurisdictionem habet. Patet per tex. d. c. cuneta per mundum (Go q.7 c.17) ubi litera quod a sententia concilii appelants ad papam.’
11 Laurenziana Plut. 16,13, fol-212v, ‘Licet apostoli, quorum loco subrogati sunt episcopi, quo ad potestatem ordinandi parem a deo cum Petro potestatem habuerunt ut xxi dy in novo (d.21 C.2), tamen quo ad administracionem et iurisdictionem Petrus factus est princeps et apostoli subditi…’. See below n. 57 for some of the references for this.
12 Laurenziana Plut. 16,13, fols 212v-13r.
13 Bachenstein (Mansi, 29, col. 455) had quoted Pope Gelasius from the Decretum, d.15 c.3. Caffarelli quoted De consecratione, 1 c.6.
14 Laurenziana Plut. 16,13, fol. 213r.
15 Laurenziana Plut. 16,13, fol- 214r, ‘quantum ad dominorum cardinalium personas pertinet, par in hoc privilegium est quia il li pars corporis ipsius pape.’ Several of the authorities are repeated in the later Consilia. See n. 47 below.
16 With Ullmann’s discussion of the matter may now be joined Nigota, J. A., ‘John Kempe, a political prelate of the fifteenth century’ (Emory University Ph.D. thesis, 1973), pp. 312–17.Google Scholar
17 The introduction to the first consilium (occurring in all MSS) quoted from Vat. Lat. 4129, fol. 177r. In Vat. Lat. 2508, the cardinal is given die initial ‘A’, causing Kumer and Elze, Catalogue of Canon Law and Roman Law MSS, pp. 79—81, to consider that the dedication was to Amico Anifilo and dated after 1467. But the other two MSS give the initial ‘G’, and with the connection to the Kemp consilium Landriano makes more sense as a dedicatee. For Landriano’s appointment, Eubel, C., Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, 8 vols (Münster, 1913), 2, p. 74.Google Scholar
18 Details of the visits are given in Schofield, A N. E. D., ‘England and the Council of Basel’, Annuarium historiae conciliorum, 5 (1973), pp. 17–25, 50–1.Google Scholar
19 Vatican Library, MS Chigi E VII 208, fols 304r-6v. This was copied into MS Vat Lat. 4039, fols 271v-3r, for which Miethke, J., ‘Die Handschriftliche Uberlieferung der Schriften des Juan Gonzalez, Bischof von Cadiz (1440). Zur Bedeutung der Bibliothek des Domenico Capranaca für die Verbreitung ecklesiologischer Traktate des 15 Jhs.’ QFIAB, 60 (1980), pp. 275–324Google Scholar, esp. pp. 307-23 for the contents of Vat. Lat. 4039, where this is no. 36.
20 Ullmann,’Eugenius IV’, pp. 361-2.
21 Eubel, 2, p. 7; CPL, 9, p. 46.
22 Williams, G., ed., Official Correspondence of Thomas Bekynton, RS (1872), 1, pp. 50–2Google Scholar. Henry asked (p. 51) that Kemp might retain his see.
23 Eubel,2, p. 7.
24 Bekynton, Correspondence, 1, pp. 41-7.
25 Haller, J., Piero da Monte: ein Gelehrter und papstlicher Beamier des 15 Jahrh Underts (Rome, 1941), Beilagen no. 39, pp. 227–8.Google Scholar
26 Ibid., no. 134, pp. 147-8.
27 Bekynton, Correspondence, 1, pp. 39-41.
28 Ibid., p. 40, ‘in pardcipium sanete solicitudinis vestre se ponat’ is the phrase used.
29 Ibid., pp. 48-50.
30 Nigota, ‘John Kempe’, p. 317.
31 Haller, , Piero da Monte, no. 160, p. 180.Google Scholar
32 Ibid., Beilagen no. 40, pp. 228-9.
33 Stieber, J.W.,Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Empire. The Conflict over Supreme Authority in the Church = Studies in the History of Christian Thought, 13 (Leiden, 1978), p. 213.Google Scholar
34 Haller, , Piero da Monte, Beilagen no. 41, pp. 229–30Google Scholar.
35 Bekyncon, , Correspondence, 2, pp. 96–7.Google Scholar
36 Ibid., 1, pp. 38-9,48.
37 Nigota discusses this, pp. 308-11, but considers the episodes separate and accepts Ullmann’s version of the dispute over precedence. The attack by Duke Humfrey can be found in Stevenson, J., ed., Letters and Papers illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the Reign of Henry the Sixth, 2 vols, RS (1864), 2/ii, pp. 440–51.Google Scholar
38 Letters and Papers, pp. 441-2.
39 Haller, , Piero da Monte, no. 150, pp. 168–9Google Scholar, for letter of da Monte to the Pope. His letter to the cardinals is printed in Ullmann, , ‘Eugenius IV’, p. 363, n. 22.Google Scholar
40 Ullmann, ibid., p. 360 printed this, but it is worth reprinting here: Mansi, Introductio, p. 35, ‘Expleta examinarione huius articuli … reperi postmodum in quibusdam meis reportatis literas papae Eugenii IV directas super ista materia ad archiepiscopum Canruarien’ de quo est facta menno supra pro quo consuluit Dominus Antonius de Capharellis …’. Note that Ullmann has ‘pro qua consuluit’, but Mansi has ‘pro quo’, and so has Tractatus illustrium, fol. 203V and the Roman edition of 1538, at p. 50.
41 Unless otherwise noted I have used BAV, MS Vat. Lat. 4129.
42 The passages in question occur Vat. Lat. 4129 fol. 177r (this is the argument against) and fols 181v-2r.
43 Ullmann, ‘Eugenius IV’, has many interesting points in the second part of his article, pp. 369-79. Many of the canonical citations given by Caffarelli can now be found in the following: Watt, J. A., ‘The Constitutional Law of the College of Cardinals: Hostiensis to Joannes Andreae’, MS, 33 (1971), pp. 127–57Google Scholar; Watt, , ‘Hostiensis on Per Venerabilem: the role of the College of Cardinals’, inTierney, B. and Lineham, P., eds, Authority and Power. Studies on Medieval Law and Government Presented to Walter Ullmann on his Seventieth Birthday (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 99–113Google Scholar; Watt, , ‘The use of the term plenitudopotestalis by Hostiensis’, Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law = Monumenta Iuris Canonici Series C Subsidia 1 (1965), pp. 161–87.Google Scholar
44 Oldradus de Ponte, Consilia (?Lyons, 1490), no. 63, which refers to Guido de Baysio’s comment on Sext., 1.6.3—Rosarium (Venice, 1577)—where Guido says that there were cardinals in the time of Ponrianus and Marcellus (i.e., Pontianus, 230—5, and? Marcellus I, 306—8), whose date is given here as 303.
45 Vat. Lat. 4129, fols 181v-2r, ‘Sciendum est … consideran posse apostolos primo prout assisteront Christo viventi qui solus habuit inter homines primariam potestatem fuitque sacerdos prior et ovium pastor et pontifex… et secundum hunc statum Petrus cum apostolis non prefuit sed omnes fuerunt pares sacerdotes viventi domino ministrantes. … Secundo modo considerali possum apostoli prout post domini passionem et ante divisionem eorum … et secundum hunc statum Petrus ceteris coapostolis prefuit in principem pastorem et caput…. Tercio modo considerarmi apostolos prout lili post passionem domini (ex precepto eius se)… dividentes per mundum ad predicandum transtuleunt et secundum hunc statum omnes apostoli fuerunt pares statum episcopalem representando. … Hii apostoli [in the second situation] eram effecrualiter cardinales eo quod pastori ecclesie assistebant prout ad cardinalium officium pertinet…’. The words in brackets () are from Laurenziana. Vatican has excepto eius.
46 He points out, Vat. Lat 4129, fol. 182r, that at baptism water poured on the head infuses the whole body, and Hosriensis, quotes, Summa de baptismo (Lyons, 1548)Google Scholar, fol. 187r, to show that the head represents the whole body, D.4, De consecratione, ci, s.v. loto torpore. On the plenitude he quoted Hosriensis, and Johannes Andreae after him, on Per venerabilem, X. 4.17.13; see Watt, ‘Constitutional Law’, pp. 153-4, nos 8,9, and Hosriensis on Cumexeo, X. 5.38.14; see ibid., p. 155, no. 13.
47 Vat. Lat, 4129, fol. 179r, he compared the cardinals as members of the body of which the pope was head (Sext., 5.9.5) with the senators, supporting this notably from civil law (Codex, 9.8.5 especially). Cardinals are hinges of the door—Guido de Baysio, Rosarium (Venice, 1495) on D.22 C.2. The argument was well known.
48 Ibid., fol. 184V, where Joannes Calderinus, in suis consiliis is quoted to show that it is an office [J. Calderinus et Gaspar eius filius et Dominici de Sancto Geminiani, Consilia (Milan, 1511), fol. 8.] He then shows that it can also be a dignilas. The first section, which I here summarize, is ibid., fols 184V-7V.
49 Ibid., fol. 185v.
50 Ibid., fol. 189r.
51 Ibid., fol. 189r. One of the authorities quoted here was the judges of the Rota. The judge ment was said in the earlier section (fol. 188v) to be entitled Item fuit dubhatum utrum pre positura, and concerned the signs of precedence, to discover whether a provost was to take precedence over a dean. See Decisiones sitie Conclusiones Nove dominorum Je Roto (Venice, 1491), fol. 7v, no. 449.
52 The Donation was paraphrased from D.96 014. The endorsement by the Church is affirmed by Baysio, Guido de, Rosarium (Venice, 1495)Google Scholar on C.16 q.1 c.7, quoting Innocent IV on X. 2.27.23, and followed by all other doctors. This passage is almost identical to that in the first consilium, Vat Lat. 4129, fol. 180r.
53 Ibid., fol. 190r, which repeats the arguments of the first consilium fol. 183r—v. The main authority is Baysio, Guido de, Rosarium (ed. 1493)Google Scholar on D.79 c.7, where Guido points out that only the pope can make cardinals, but where Caffarelli argues that this does not mean that he can act without the cardinals.
54 Ibid., fol. 190r-v, he quoted Baldus on Digest, 1.16, Rubrica, cf. Ullmann, ‘Eugenius IV’, p. 365, n. 29, but only to show that those nearer to the prince were more worthy.
55 Ibid., fol. 191r.
56 Ullmann, ‘Eugenius IV’, p. 373. Caffarelli quotes X. 1.24.1. Ullmann thought this was behind Eugenius IV’s statement in Non mediocri dolore, Caffarelli also quotes a Rota judgement about precedence, see n. 51 above.
57 Vat. Lat., 4129, fol. 102r: ‘Id enim videmus insimili in papa qui cum ceteris episcopis est in ordine par sed in officio, administracione et dignitate major ut in c. ii q. vii (C.2 q.7 c.35) ut habetur et nota, in d.c. in nove (D.21 c.2) et dic c. legimus (D.93 c.24).’
58 Ibid., fol. 192V. The argument ends before it is complete, but it is clear how it will tend. The points being refuted are given at fol. 188v.
59 Ibid., fols 187v-8r. One view was that ‘Episcopatus… fuit in ecclesia instituais immediate post Christi passionem cum ex precepto eius dividentes se ample per mundum predicantes transtulerunt statum episcopalem representantes, propter quod apostolorum vices dicimus teneri episcopos. Sed credimus concludens omnes apostolos fuisse simul omnibus ordinibus et sic episcopali ordinatos a Christo.’ Guido, Rosarium, on Sext., 1.6.3 (cf. n. 44 above) was the main authority for the establishment of the papacy and episcopate before the cardinals, apart from Oldradus.
60 Ullmann, ‘Bugenius IV’, p. 365, n. 29; Mansi, lntroiuctio, p. 34.
61 Vat. Lat. 4129, fol. 189r, see n. 50 above.
62 Quoted Ullmann, ‘Eugenius IV’, p. 365, n. 29, from Mansi, Introductio, p. 34. See also Tractalus, fol. 203r.
63 Ullmann, ‘Eugenius IV’, p. 365, n. 29.
64 Ibid., p. 366, but see passage quoted at n. 55 above.
65 Ibid., but see the passage at n. 55 above.
66 Bullarium, p. 351, sect. 4.
67 Bullarium, p. 352, sect. 13.
68 See nn. 56 and 57 above.
69 Seen. 55 above.
70 Bullarium, p. 352, sect. 8 for Senate and Donation; p. 351, sect. 6, part of the pope’s body; p. 352, sect 9, the honour coming from nearness to the pope; sect. 10, custom.