No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Papal Releases from Royal Oaths
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
Extract
Princes and popes had often fought among themselves for power over peoples. So it should not seem odd that to reduce the competition they combined in mutual support, when overmighty magnates rose to wreck the ancient peace between the princes and peoples of the English realm. Thus it was that the kings of England, when confronted by baronial force, called upon the popes to use their influence and to support the royal cause.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971
References
page 19 note 1 The author would like to express here his gratitude to Professor W. Ullmann of Trinity College, Cambridge, Professor P. Stein of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Professor C. E. Lewis of Mississippi State University for their help and encouragement in connexion with this article.
page 19 note 2 In later ages the king has been recognised as a corporation sole; Co. Litt. 15b, n.4; 1 Bl. Com. 427.
page 19 note 3 As to whether the pope only could release in canon law, see Brys, J., De Dispensations in lure Canonico … usque ad Medium Saeculum XIV, Bruges 1925, 85–7Google Scholar, 137–49, 190–3, 238–53” 272.
page 19 note 4 Silving, H., ‘The Oath: I’, Yale Law Journal, Ixviii (1959), 1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 20 note 1 ‘A promissory oath follows the nature and the conditions of the act to which it is. attached’: C. I. C, can. 1318 § 1; J. A. Abbo and J. D. Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2nd ed., St. Louis i960, ü. 555; T. L. Bouscaren, A. C. Ellis, and F. N. Korth, Canon Law, 4th rev. ed., Milwaukee 1966, 742; cf. c. 25, x, de iureiurando, 11, 24.
page 20 note 2 E.g. Etsi carissimus, 24 August 1215: T. Rymer, Foedera …, 3rd ed., 's Gravenhage 1745, 1, i. 6.7, 68 [hereinafter cited as Foedera], Potthast, A., Regesta pontificum romanorum (1198–1304), Berlin 1874Google Scholar, 4990 [hereinafter cited as Pott.], Cheney, C. R. and Semple, W. H., Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, London 1953Google Scholar, no. 82 [hereinafter cited as Cheney and Semple]; Ad audientiam nostram, 13 April 1261: Foedera, 4th ed., London 1816,.i 405; Regalis devotionb integritas, 29 December 1305: Foedera I, iv. 45; Adams, G. B., ‘Innocent III and the Great Charter’ in Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, ed. Maiden, H. E., London 1917, 26Google Scholar; Cheney and Semple, x-xv.
page 20 note 3 See below, n.4, 24 n.2, 28 n.3, 29 n.2.
page 20 note 4 W. Stubbs, Select Charters, 9th ed. by H. W. C. Davis, Oxford 1921, 291–303. For a complete discussion of Magna Carta see Holt, J. C., Magna Carta, Cambridge 1965Google Scholar; Howard, A. E. D., The Road From Runnymede, Charlottesville 1968Google Scholar; McKechnie, W. S., Magna Carta, 2nd ed., Glasgow 1914Google Scholar.
page 20 note 5 Etsi carissimus, 24 August 1215: Foedera I. i. 67,68, Pott. 4990, Cheney and Semple no. 82 (the translation is that of Cheney and Semple); Utinam in persecution, 24 August 1215: Foedera I, i. 68, Pott. 4991, Cheney and Semple no. 83, P. R. O., Close roll 12 (17 John) m. 22d. For further explanation see W. Ullmann, Medieval Papalism, London 1949, 71 ff.
page 20 note 6 Bracton, ed. S. E. Thorne, Cambridge, Mass., 1968, 16b; 2 Inst. 482, 483; 5 Williston on Contracts, 2nd ed., New York 1937, §§ 1601–5, 1624–6.
page 21 note 1 C. 2, C. xv, q. 6; c. 22, C. xxn, q. 4; c. 2, x, de arbitris, 1, 43 ; c. 2, 4, x, de his, quae vi, i, 40; c. 8, 15, x, de iureiurando, n, 24; C. I. C., can. 103 § 2, can. 1317 § 2; Abbo and Hannan, Sacred Canons, i. 150–1, ü. 555; Bouscaren, Ellis, Korth, Canon Law, 741.
page 21 note 2 ‘Metus’ is a matter of restitutio in integrum and recission; Inst., 4. 13. 1; C. 2. 19. 7; D. 4. 2. 8. 1; D. 4. 2. 9. 1; D. 4. 2. 22; D. 4. 2. 23. 2; M. Planiol, Treatise on the Civil Law, trans, by the Louisiana State Law Institute, nt h ed., St. Paul, Minn. 1959, ii. §§ 1070–6 [hereinafter cited as Planiol]; W. W. Buckland, Textbook of Roman Law, ed. P. Stein, Cambridge 1963, 593, 594 [hereinafter cited as Stein's Buckland].
page 21 note 3 Cheney and Semple, x ff.; Ullmann, W., Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., London 1966, 80Google Scholar–3 [hereinafter cited as Ullmann, Principles of Government].
page 22 note 1 See above, 20 n.2.
page 22 note 2 See above, 20 n.5.
page 22 note 3 Annales de Theokesberia, ed. Luard, Rolls Series 1864, 61; Annales Monasterii de Osneia, ed. Luard, Rolls Series 1869, 58; Memoriale Fratris Waited de Coventria, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 1873, ii. 219; Annales Monasterii de Wintonia, ed. Luard, Rolls Series 1865, 82. On 29 June 1215, king John wrote to the pope requesting the special protection and privileges of a crusader: Foedera, 1, i. 66, 67.
page 22 note 4 K. Norgate, John Lackland, London 1902, 226, 227; S. Painter, Reign of King John, Baltimore 1949, 300, 301. The entry in the chronicle of Walter of Coventry (cited in note 3) indicates that some of the king's contemporaries doubted his motives also.
page 22 note 5 E.g., Experimento didicimus, 25 February 1208: Migne PL, ccxv. 1339, Pott. 3302; Utinam Dominus, 10 December 1208: Migne PL, ccxv. 1500, Pott. 3559; Cum in cruce, 15 February 1214: Migne PL, ccxvi. 962, Pott. 4896; Vineam Domini, 19 April 1213: Migne PL, ccxvi. 823, Pott. 4707; Norgate, John Lackland, 204.
page 23 note 1 If this arrangement became faulty through, for example, incompetency on the part of the king or rebellion or heresy on the part of the people, then the matter should have been presented to the pope, who would then make such regulatory decrees as the situation required.
page 23 note 2 It should be noted that feudalism was not a part of the papal position; Cheney and Semple, xi; see also above, 20 n.2, 21 n.3.
page 23 note 3 Ullmann, Principles of Government, Part I.
page 24 note 1 Ullmann, Principles of Government, Part II.
page 24 note 2 Powicke, F. M., ‘The Oath of Bromholm’, English Historical Review, lvi (1941), 529CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward, Oxford 1947, 80Google Scholar, 81, 35211.
page 24 note 3 Royal … Letters Illustrative of the Reign of Henry III, ed. W. W. Shirley, Rolls Series xxvii (1862), i. 551, no. 30; Pott. 90693–26226; Powicke, art. cit., designates this letter by the first words of the second paragraph: Nostris siquidem nuper.
page 24 note 4 Foedera, I, i. 128; Pott. 9952; Powicke, art. cit., designates this letter by the first words of the second paragraph: Cum igitur.
page 24 note 5 Foedera, I, i. 132; Pott. 10520.
page 25 note 1 See also Bracton, ed. cit., at 55b.
page 25 note 2 Cf. Holt, Magna Carta, 79, 100–1.
page 25 note 3 Richardson, H. G., “The English Coronation Oath’, Speculum, xxiv (1949), 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kantorowicz, E. H., ‘Inalienability’, Speculum, xxix (1954), 488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 25 note 4 Regalis devotionis integritas (29 December 1305), see below, 29 n.3.
page 25 note 5 Richardson, H. G., ‘The Coronation in Medieval England’, Traditio, xvi (1960), in, 153–74Google Scholar.
page 25 note 6 See above, 20 n.5.
page 26 note 1 For a detailed discussion of the disputes see D. Maffei, La Donazione di Costantino nei Giuristi Medievali, Milan 1964.
page 26 note 2 Thus I agree with Mr. Richardson's views expressed in Speculum, loc. cit., but not with those he has held in Traditio, loc. cit.
page 26 note 3 Kantorowicz, E. H., ‘Inalienability’, Speculum, xxix (1954), 488CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 489.
page 26 note 4 The correct date of Intellecto, c. 33, x, De iureiurando, II, 24, is 1225 not 1220 as held by H. G. Richardson, ‘The English Coronation Oath’, Speculum, xxiv (1949), 44, 52; P. N. Riesenberg, Inalienability of Sovereignty in Medieval Political Thought, New York 1956, 113; and Hoffmann, H., ‘Die Unveräusserlichkeit der Kronrechte in Mittelalter’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, xx (1964), 287Google Scholar. In fact, there are three almost identical letters with the same initia and subject matter. The first is dated 15 July 1225, and was sent to the son of the king of Hungary; Regesta Honorii Papae III, ed. P. Pressuti, Rome 1888, ii. 350, no. 5560; Pott. 7443. The second bears the same date and was a copy of the first letter sent to the archbishop of Kolocsz: Regesta, ed. Pressuti, ii. 350, no. 5560; Pott. 7444 (this is the same letter as Pott. 6318). The third is a second copy, which was sent to the archbishop on 23 August 1225; Regesta, ed. Pressuti, ii. 361, no. 5611; Pott. 7466 (this is the same as Pott. 7835). The error in Regesta, ed. Pressuti, i. no. 2593, is noted in the Appendix of Agenda et Corrigenda, ii. 494, sub no. 2593, and 499, sub no. 5560. Intellecto (23 August 1225) is printed in full in Pontificia Commissio ad Redigendum, ‘Acta Romanorum Pontificum’, Fontes, Ser. in, vol. iii, Ada Honorii III et Gregorii IX, ed. A. L. Tàutu, Vatica n 1950, 188, doc. 143. I am indebted to Professor Ullmann for bringing this to my attention.
page 26 note 5 Kantorowicz, E. H., ‘Inalienability’, Speculum, xxix (1954), 488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 27 note 1 Ullmann, W., The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship, London 1969, 122–4Google Scholar, 177–85. However, none of the decretals under consideration in this essay found it necessary to invoke the concept of tutorship directly.
page 27 note 2 Glanvill, ed. G. D. G. Hall, London 1965, vn. 1; Thorne, S. E., ‘English Feudalism and Estates in Land’, Cambridge Law Journal, xvii (1959), 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 27 note 3 See below, 29 nn.2–3. In 1366 it was used against the pope as one of the reasons for declaring the papal suzerainty over England to be void: Rot. Parl., ii. 290.
page 27 note 4 C. 16, x, de iureiurando, 11. 24.
page 27 note 5 Discussed above.
page 27 note 6 The Roman law allowed minors under the age of twenty-five to disaffirm or rescind disadvantageous contracts: D. 4. 4. 7. 1; D. 4. 4. 11. 4; D. 4. 4. 44; D. 4. 4. 49; Stein's Buckland, 721, 722. The age is twenty-one in the common law and the modern civil and canon laws: 2 Inst. 482, 483; 2 Williston on Contracts, 3rd ed. 1959, §§ 222–7; Planiol, i. §§ 1615–17, 1634, ii. §§ 1081 ff.; C. I. C, can. 88, § 1; Bouscaren, Ellis, Korth, Canon Law, 79. The king was twenty-four when he took the oath; thus, the pope is seen not to have applied the common law as he should have done but the civil law with which he was undoubtedly more familiar.
page 28 note 1 Dawson, J. P., ‘Economic Duress and the Fair Exchange in French and German Law’, Tulane Law Rev., xi (1937) 345Google Scholar; von Mehren, A. T., The Civil Law System, Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J. 1957, 529–53Google Scholar; cf. C. 4. 44. 2; Planiol, ii. §§ 1076(2)–(5). This concept was at first applied only to sales and was later generalised by the canonists; c. 5, x, De in Integr. restit., I, 41.
page 28 note 2 Williston on Contracts, 3rd ed., 1959, §§ 99 ff.
page 28 note 3 18 October 1258; Stubbs, Select Charters, ed. cit., 378–89; for a discussion of the Provisions of Oxford and the subsequent events see E. F. Jacob, Studies in the Period of Baronial Reform and Rebellion, 1258–1267 in Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, ed. P. Vinogradoff, Oxford 1925, viii; Treharne, R. F., The Baronial Plan of Reform, 1258–1262, Manchester 1932Google Scholar; Powicke, F. M., The Thirteenth Century, 2nd ed., Oxford 1962, 129–219Google Scholar.
page 28 note 4 Pope Alexander rv: Ad audientiam nostram, 13 April 1261, Foedera, 4th ed., 1816, i. 405; cf. Ad audientiam nostram, 29 April 1261, Foedera, 1, ii. 62, Pott. 18096; cf. Rationalibus sensibus materium, 7 May 1261, Foedera, 1, ii. 62, 63, Pott. 18098. Pope Urban rv: Cum Olim, 25 February 1262, Foedera, 1, ii. 70, Pott. 18234; cf. Cum olim, 21 March 1264, Foedera, 1, ii. 86, Pott. 18836; Carissimum in Christo, 23 March 1264, Foedera, 1, ii. 86, 87, Pott. 18838; Carissimum in Christo, 24 March 1264, D. Wilkins, Concilia, London 1737, i. 760, Pott. 18839. Pope Clement iv: Olim in minori, 13 September 1265, Foedera, 1, ii. 98, Pott. 19340.
page 28 note 5 Ad audientiam nostram, 29 April 1261; Rationalibus sensibus materiam, 7 May 1261; Cum olim, 25 February 1262; Olim in minori, 13 September 1265.
page 28 note 6 Ad audientiam nostram, 13 April 1261.
page 28 note 7 Cum olim, 21 March 1264; Carissimum in Christo, 23 March 1264; Carissimum in Christo, 24 March 1264.
page 29 note 1 Inst., 3. 19. 24; Inst., 3. 26. 7; C. 2. 3. 6; c. 13, 14, 23, C. XXH, q. 4; c. 1, 12, 18, x de iureiwrando, 11. 24; Planiol, ii. § 1009; C. I. C, can. 1318 § 2; Abbo and Hannan, Sacred Canons, ii. 555; Bouscaren, Ellis, Korth, Canon Law, 742; 5 * 6 Williston on Contracts, 2nd ed. 1938, §§ 1628–1792, esp. § 1750.
page 29 note 2 Stubbs, Select Charters, ed. cit., 482–93; for a discussion of the Confirmatio Cartarum and the subsequent events see Edwards, J. G., ‘Confirmatio Cartarum and Baronial Grievances in 1297’, English Historical Review, lviii (1943), 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 273; Rothwell, H., ‘Confirmation of the Charters, 1297’, English Historical Review, lx (1945), 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 177, 300.
page 29 note 3 Foedera, 1, iv. 45 ; C. Bémont, Chartes des Libertés Anglaises, Paris 1892, 110, no. 17; also Regalis devotionis integritas, 1 January 1306, Foedera, 1, iv. 46.
page 29 note 4 C. 21, C. 22, q. 2; cf. c. 31, x, de iureiwrando, 11, 24.
page 29 note 5 4 Williston on Contracts, 3rd ed., 1961, §§ 603–8; C. I. C, can. 1321.
page 29 note 6 Bouscaren, Ellis, Korth, Canon Law, 743, 744.
page 30 note 1 See above, 20 nn.2, 5, 21 n.3, 23 nn.1–3, 24 n.1.
page 30 note 2 P. Stein, ‘Roman Law in Scotland’, in Lus Romanian Medii Aevi, Milan 1968, pt. 5, sec. 13b, 28–31; G. Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought, Public Law and the State, 1100–13SS, Princeton 1964, chap. 9; see also Gilmore, M., Argumentfrom Roman Law in Political Thought 1200–1600, Cambridge, Mass. 1941Google Scholar.
page 30 note 3 E.g. Fletcher v. Peck 6 Cranch 87, 3 L. ed. 162 (1810) (W. Cranch, Reports of Cases … in the Supreme Court of the U.S., Washington 1810, vi. 87.).
page 30 note 4 I Williston on Contracts, 3rd ed. 1957, § 14, see also § i, n.3.
page 30 note 5 E.g. U.S. v. 85.11 Acres 243 F. Supp. 423 (N. D. Okla., 1965) (U.S. Federal Supplement, St Paul, Minn. 1965, ccxliii, 423); and corporate charters were held to be contracts in Dartmouth College v. Woodward 4 Wheat. 518, 4 L. ed. 629 (1819) (Wheaton, H., Reports of Cases … in the Supreme Court of the U.S., New York 1819, iv. 518Google Scholar.).
page 30 note 6 Williston himself uses interchangably precedents involving deeds and contracts to prove his points about consent; e.g. 6 Williston on Contracts, 2nd ed. 1938, § 1880.
page 31 note 1 See above, 30 n.2.
page 31 note 2 12 November 1216; Stubbs, Select Charters, ed. cit., 335–9.
page 31 note 3 Edward 11 and Richard II were also confronted by this issue.
page 31 note 4 18 November 1267; I Statutes at Large (1763), 30.
page 31 note 5 13 October 1259; Stubbs, Select Charters, ed. cit., 389–94.
page 32 note 1 F. M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century, 2nd ed., Oxford 1962, 215–18.
page 32 note 2 W. Ullmann, Principles of Government, 186–9.