4
While Aragon and Norman Sicily had close relationships with the twelfth-century papacy, neither correspond to the traditional idea of feudo-vassalic relations. Perhaps that is because ‘feudalism’ is a reified idea with little connection to the practices of landholding and loyalty in medieval Europe. In the thirteenth century, however, a new ‘type’ of formal relationship between popes and kings was created. We can, I think, plausibly call this ‘overlordship’ (from the pope’s point of view) or ‘vassalage’ (from the king’s point of view). These relationships made use of the language of vassals (vassalli) and fiefs (feuda). Over the thirteenth century, the idea that the pope could confiscate a fief-kingdom if the king failed to abide by the terms of the relationship—paying an annual census—developed (chapter seven). Vassal-kings who were not yet adults might be placed under papal guardianship (chapter six). In this chapter we will see where this new type of relationship came from, and how it spread in the early thirteenth century. Thus, this chapter is about the spread of feudal language—fiefs and vassals—from England to the curia, and to Aragon and the Isle of Man.
True papal overlordship began with King John of England. John surrendered his realms to the papacy in 1213 and received them back ‘as a fief-holder’ (tanquam feodatarius). The English chancery probably suggested this formulation, but the papal chancery then ran with it: by 1215 papal letters called the king of England a ‘vassal’ (vassallus) and England a ‘fief’ (feudum). Such language spread from England to the kingdom of the Isle of Man in 1219 and to the kingdom of Aragon in 1222. A group of papal courtiers with links to the English royal court probably contributed to the expansion of the language of vassalage from England to Man and Aragon.
John’s Surrender of the Kingdoms of England and Ireland
The context to King John’s decision to make himself a papal vassal in 1213 takes us back several years. When the archbishop of Canterbury, Hubert Walter, died in 1205, two candidates were chosen; one favoured by the king, one elected by a cabal of the Cathedral canons. The dispute was appealed to Rome and, in 1207, in the presence of Pope Innocent III, Stephen Langton was elected archbishop. Langton, though from England and a cardinal, had spent most of his career teaching in Paris and King John refused to accept him. Over the next five years John continued to reject Langton and so England was placed under interdict—no ecclesiastical services could be held—and John himself was excommunicated. Eventually, facing internal dissatisfaction and the threat of French invasion, John came to a settlement with Langton and the pope in 1212–13. John accepted Langton as archbishop, promised to pay damages to the English Church and, in May 1213, surrendered England and Ireland to the pope and received them back ‘as a fief-holder’.1
In November 1212 John sent his envoys to the curia. Innocent III agreed that John could make peace with the Church under terms which had previously been offered to the king in 1211 (which he had rejected). Pandulf, a papal subdeacon—who had been one half of the negotiating team sent to England in 1211—was sent to treat with John.2 After Pandulf’s emissary, Bohemond, had confirmed that all was ready, Pandulf crossed the channel—perhaps an unexpectedly dangerous crossing since John later paid for the ship to be repaired—and met John at Temple Ewell near Dover, where John formally accepted the pope’s terms.3 Two days later, on 15 May, John issued a charter surrendering his kingdoms to the pope and receiving them back ‘as a fief-holder’.4 James, a clerk of Pandulf, and Brother William of Saint-Ouen, one of John’s diplomatic agents, were then sent to carry the charter to Rome.5 On 4 November 1213, Innocent’s chancery issued a solemn privilege accepting John’s surrender of his kingdoms and reciting John’s charter verbatim.6
Before November 1213, when Innocent’s chancery confirmed John’s surrender in a privilege, Nicholas of Tusculum, cardinal-bishop and papal legate, arrived in England. He and John then went through the whole process again. In October 1213, John issued an almost identical charter of surrender—different only in that now the king had actually done homage to Nicholas of Tusculum on behalf of the pope, and this charter was sealed in gold—and sent this second charter to the pope too.7 On 21 April 1214 Innocent’s chancery issued a second solemn privilege—essentially identical to the one issued on 4 November 1213—confirming John’s second surrender and reciting the text of John’s second charter verbatim.8 The whole process happened twice: John surrendered his kingdoms to Pandulf in May 1213 (confirmed by the papal chancery in November 1213) and to Nicholas of Tusculum in October 1213 (confirmed by the papal chancery in April 1214).
In his first surrender, John ‘freely offer[ed] and concede[d] to God […] and our lord Pope Innocent and his Catholic successors, all the realm of England and all the realm of Ireland […] henceforth receiving and holding them from God and the Roman Church as a fief-holder’ (tanquam feodatarius). John had sworn fidelity (fidelitas) to the pope, in Pandulf’s presence, and committed to perform liege homage (homagium ligium) if he should enter the pope’s presence. John’s heirs were obliged likewise ‘to offer and acknowledge fidelity and homage (fidelitatem prestare et homagium recognoscere) to the supreme pontiff (at the time) and the Roman Church’. As a sign of the concession, the king was to pay an annual census of 1,000 marks—half at Easter, half at Michaelmas—and should he or any of his successors attempt to break these terms they would lose their right to the kingdom.9
The oath of fidelity which John swore was also transmitted to the pope (and included in the solemn privileges of November 1213 and April 1214). It was very similar to the oaths which we examined in chapter one. Similar to the oaths sworn by the Norman rulers of Sicily in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and similar to the oaths sworn by archbishops and bishops subject immediately to the pope from the eleventh century onwards. We will discuss this further below since it bears directly on the question of who suggested the surrender.
The performance of homage and fidelity was not in itself surprising: the Norman rulers had been swearing fidelity and—occasionally—doing homage to the pope for nearly a century. However, the reperformance of homage had not always been stipulated in the twelfth-century Norman–papal treaties. William I seems to have done homage in 1156, but his successors were only committed to making fidelity. John had bound his heirs to perform homage as well. Here, however, we should note a subtle difference between John’s charter of surrender and Innocent’s privilege accepting John’s surrender: John’s surrender committed his heirs to perform both homage and fidelity to the pope. Innocent’s privilege, first, only stipulated that future kings should take an oath of fidelity (iuramentum fidelitatis) not homage. Secondly, Innocent specified that this oath should be sworn ‘when they accept the crown of the kingdom’. At the royal coronation.10 Innocent’s emphasis on the oath alone potentially brings John’s surrender closer to the contemporary Norman practice in Sicily, although this can only be a tentative suggestion.
The promise of an annual census was not unusual either. We should, however, note the commitment to pay it in two instalments. Michaelmas and Easter were the two terms of the English exchequer, when royal sheriffs were supposed to come and account for the king’s farms and income.11 Twelfth-century census to the pope from Aragon or Sicily had normally been annual, with no division. The final sentence—that the king might face confiscation of his kingdom for non-performance of the terms of this grant—was new, and vitally important. So important, in fact, that it gets its own chapter (chapter seven).
The pope also had duties to perform as part of this new relationship. At the same time as writing the first privilege confirming John’s first surrender—in November 1213—the papal chancery sent the king another letter, Sicut in archa. This letter has to be read alongside the privilege; it set out the advantages John could now reap.12 John had offered himself and his possessions to the pope and so, in return, ‘have confidence that we intend to hark effectively to your petitions and prayers—as much as honesty permits’. John did not need to ‘behave contentiously’ with his bishops anymore ‘because you are able to have recourse to us, through whom you can honestly achieve much which you could not effect honestly through yourself’. The relationship between the pope and the king was, on the pope’s side, a justification and a reason to approve John’s petitions and requests. The petitionary aspect of these relationships—a theme running through this book—can be seen clearly here.
Before we look at the language and terminology of this new relationship—and how such language was used in other kingdoms’ relationships with the papacy—we should ask where the impetus for John’s surrender came from. Prima facie it seems unlikely that the idea was Innocent’s because John’s charter has very little in common with existing papal–royal relationships: repeated homage; annual census paid in two instalments and the potential for deposition were all fairly novel—not to mention that the Sicilian kings were not called ‘fief-holders’ (feodatarii). This is the advantage of coming to look at the thirteenth century evidence having just looked at the twelfth-century Aragonese and Sicilian relationships with Rome. If Innocent had stipulated the form of the agreement, surely it would have drawn more on existing models?
Christopher Cheney believed that, although John’s charter claimed to be voluntary, ‘it must at least have been anticipated by the pope’ because John’s oath was so similar to other oaths sworn by papal vassals.13 H. W. C. Davis—in his ninth edition of Stubb’s Select Charters—believed the same.14 William Lunt avoided coming down on one side or the other, but Luis Weckmann was certain that the initiative came from Innocent.15 Marc Morris and Powicke both implicitly assumed the surrender was at John’s initiative.16 Christopher Harper-Bill joined Lunt in believing it was unclear, and Dione Clementi suggested that John’s baronial opponents forced the king to become a papal fief-holder.17
The temptation to ascribe the initiative to Innocent stems from the text of John’s oath being similar to other oaths sworn to the pope. Davis went so far as to compare it with Robert Guiscard’s 1059 oath. As we saw in chapter one, however, this oath was very similar to the oath sworn by archbishops and bishops immediately subject to the pope. The oath sworn by John in 1213 was probably closer to the episcopal oath than to the oaths sworn by the eleventh- and twelfth-century Norman rulers, although all of these oaths were quite similar.18 There is no need to assume, as Cheney and others did, that Pandulf must have brought a specially written oath for John with him; the text of the oath could have been sourced in England by John or Pandulf.
The text of the eleventh-century episcopal oath we saw in chapter one had changed very little by 1200. It had, however, become more widely accessible: the oath to the pope was included in the Compilatio prima, a canon law collection of 1189–91.19 Present at John’s surrender in May 1213 was Archbishop Henry of Dublin. As an archbishop directly under the pope, Henry must have had to swear this oath to the pope upon his appointment. The previous Archbishop of Dublin died in October 1212 and Henry had received confirmation of his election from Innocent before 15 May 1213, since he was not called archbishop-elect in John’s charter.20 The timing is tight but it seems likely that John’s emissaries to Innocent in November 1212—or a subsequent mission following them—carried a request for confirmation of Henry’s election. We know that it was common for papal subdeacons—which Pandulf was—to deliver the pallium to new archbishops under Innocent III.21 Either the confirmation of election (presumably with the archbishop’s pallium) arrived in England mere weeks before Pandulf, or Pandulf himself brought Innocent’s confirmation with him. Such confirmation would have included the text of the oath which Henry had to swear to the pope.22 There is an entertaining comic opera to be written wherein Pandulf mixes up the two letters he is to deliver, accidently telling King John that he needs to swear an oath to the pope (thus leading to John’s feudal surrender). More seriously, however, it is clear that John and Pandulf would have been able to source the text of the episcopal oath in England.
There was one sentence of John’s oath which had no parallel in either the episcopal or the Norman oaths to the pope:
If I am aware, I will impede their [the popes’] injury and I will remove [it] if I can; otherwise I will communicate to them as quickly as I can, or I will tell to a suitable person whom I believe for certain will tell them (Eorum damnum si scivero, impediam et remanere faciam, si potero; alioquin eis quam citius potero, intimabo, vel tali persone dicam, quam eis credam pro certo dicturam).23
This sentence did have a parallel in the oaths sworn to the pope by Roman senators (recorded in the 1192 Liber censuum), by Salinguerra, the ruler of Ferrara, in 1214 and by the archbishop of Trnovo, primate of Bulgaria, in 1204.24 All these oaths were subtly different, however: while John simply said that ‘otherwise’ (alioquin) he would communicate danger to the pope, Salinguerra, the senators and the archbishop specified ‘if I am not able to impede [the danger]’ (Quod si non potero impedire), they would send word to the pope.25 The senators, Salinguerra and the archbishop also swore to impede the pope’s ‘certain’ (certum) damage. It is possible therefore that this sentence—while having the same intent as similar sentences in similar oaths—was not directly copied from them, but instead composed during the negotiations (perhaps based on Pandulf’s memory of other oaths). Alternatively, this clause might have been included in the oath sworn by Henry of Dublin, since it was in the oath sworn by the archbishop of Trnovo. The belief that Pandulf must have carried an oath specifically for John—and hence Innocent pre-empted John’s surrender—is not the only option. Indeed, if Pandulf had carried the text from Rome, then the oath should have been absolutely identical to one of the oaths found either in Innocent’s registers or in the Liber censuum. These were the two obvious sources for models.
John’s oath and the oaths of bishops directly subject to the pope were very close. The version of the oath of fidelity sworn by Henry III—John’s son—to the papal legate at his coronation in 1216 indicates that contemporaries put the two oaths in the same category. Although the texts of both the coronation oath and the oath of fidelity sworn by Henry are not extant, there is a common consensus (based on later evidence) that Henry swore not to alienate royal rights. This clause—it is further suggested—was based on the non-alienation promise made by archbishops and exempt prelates when they swore obedience to the pope. The non-alienation clause was added to the existing episcopal oath around 1200.26 It would seem, therefore, that John’s 1213 oath was updated by the papal legate in England when Henry III repeated it in 1216, to bring it into line with the latest version of the oath sworn by prelates who were directly subject to the pope. Hence the episcopal oath continued to be the model for the oath of fidelity sworn by the English kings.
Notwithstanding the use of episcopal models, there is no doubt that the papacy interpreted John’s surrender as giving them temporal lordship of the kingdom. Innocent’s privilege was explicit: ‘those provinces [England and Ireland] which from of old have had the Holy Roman Church as their proper mistress in spiritual matters should now even in temporal things (in temporalibus) have her as their special lady (dominam […] specialem).’27 John had offered himself ‘as a fief-holder’ (tanquam feodatarius). The papal chancery glossed this, in the privilege accepting John’s surrender, as giving the pope temporal lordship over England and Ireland, which were now held ‘in fief’ (in feodum). John also had to pay a census; his heirs had to swear fidelity (and do homage) on their coronation and, if they failed to keep to the agreement, the king lost his rights to the kingdom.
The Spread of Feudal and Vassalic Language
1213 was not—quite—the first time the papal curia used this sort of language to describe its relationships with kings. In what seems to be a one-off usage (for the time), Innocent III had written to Emperor Otto IV of Brunswick in 1209 that ‘as he [King Frederick II of Sicily] is to us, thus a vassal should be bound to a lord, by reason of fidelity’ (sicut idem nobis, tanquam vassallus domino, ratione fidelitatis debet astringi). Likewise, ‘as we are to him, so a lord should attend to a vassal, because of legality’ (sic nos eidem, tanquam dominus vassallo, ratione legalitatis debemus adesse).28 First of all, Innocent’s chancery was using analogy here: the relationship between Frederick and the pope was akin to the relationship between a lord and vassal. Innocent was not baldly stating that Frederick actually was his vassal. Secondly, the letter went on to diminish the importance of this quasi-vassalic bond. ‘Above [super] these [reasons] which are known to pertain to his kingdom, we do not wish nor ought we to take away our aid and favour from him because, according to the apostle, we should be debtors in justice to all.’ This was a reference to Romans 1.14 and the ideology of papal service. It does appear that, prior to 1213, words such as vassallus—‘vassal’—were lurking in the wings, but it was only with John’s surrender that they took the stage.
Interestingly, this ambiguous language—Frederick and Innocent were akin to a vassal and lord—might offer a reason why John’s charter of surrender described the king holding his kingdoms ‘as a fief-holder’ (tanquam feodatarius). Although Innocent’s privilege said that John held the kingdoms ‘in fief’ (in feodum), John’s charter was slightly equivocal: did tanquam mean ‘as’ or ‘as if’? If ‘as if’, the implication was that John was not actually a ‘fief-holder’. We cannot say for certain whether John intended to diminish any potential humiliation in being a ‘fief-holder’ through the ambiguity of tanquam. However, the chronicle of Geoffrey of Coldingham (a history of Durham Cathedral) was written at precisely the same time as John’s surrender, ending abruptly in 1215. Geoffrey tells us that John ‘gave all the kingdom of England and Ireland to St Peter and his successors in perpetuity, under which he was to rule as if a fief-holder’ (quasi feodarius).29 In Geoffrey’s chronicle, tanquam became quasi, and quasi certainly suggests that John was only akin to a fief-holder rather than actually a fief-holder. On the other hand, Geoffrey went on, John was said to have diminished the royal power which he had previously held. If tanquam was meant to lessen John’s submission in the eyes of his subjects, it did not work. Perhaps that was because any ambiguity in tanquam quickly disappeared. Innocent’s privileges had said that John held his realms in fief. In 1215 England and Ireland were again called fiefs (feuda) of the papacy and John was twice described as a ‘vassal’ (vassallus).
From 1213 onwards, King John’s situation entered a steep decline, leading to Magna Carta in 1215 and civil war. During this period John and his opponents made frequent use of the papal court, sending diplomatic missions to Rome throughout.30 As everyone who examines the political events of 1215 has noted, there was a significant time lag between Rome and England, probably between six and three weeks for a one-way journey.31 This time lag meant that many of the pope’s letters were dead on arrival. Their language, however, is still worthy of attention.
Nicholas of Tusculum, the cardinal-legate sent to England in 1213–14, sent a report of his legation back to Innocent. Nicholas, describing John’s homage to him, did not call the king a vassal or his kingdom a fief.32 On 18 June 1215 (in a now damaged letter) Innocent first described John as vassallus noster—‘our vassal’.33 This letter—which probably had some sort of general address to the people of England or to the faithful of England—announced that Innocent had told the English bishops to excommunicate rebels who failed to return to the king’s obedience after eight days. The recipients of the letter were to offer ‘aid and favour’ to the king. Innocent had already warned that rebels were to be excommunicated in letters of 19 March 1215, but this was the first appearance of a time limit.34 On 29 May 1215 John had complained that Langton, the archbishop of Canterbury, was refusing to excommunicate the rebels in a letter to the pope.35 It is unlikely that the pope’s letter of 18 June was in direct response to John’s letter of 29 May (although perhaps not impossible) since Innocent sent a further letter on 7 July which seems to be a response to John’s letter of 29 May.36
It is, however, interesting to compare the language of John’s 29 May letter to Innocent’s 18 June missive. Innocent called John his vassal. John emphasized that he was a Crusader and hence possessed the ‘benefit of the privileges of crusaders’: protection of his lands from attack.37 John also stated that his land was the patrimony of St Peter and he held it from the pope, St Peter and the Roman Church. John did not call himself a vassal, nor England a fief. Nor did John do so in the letter he sent to Innocent accompanying his surrender in 1213 (‘we recognize our kingdoms to be held from you and your successors and the Holy Roman Church’). Nor did he do so in letters to the pope accompanying his embassy to the Fourth Lateran Council in late 1215 (‘we, holding you as our special lord and patron, after God, believe our defence and that of our kingdom—which is yours—to be committed to your paternity’). Nor did he do so in his final letter to Pope Honorius III in 1216, asking the pope to protect his children (‘our kingdom is the Patrimony of St Peter and the Holy Roman Church’).38 After his initial charter in 1213—where he was a ‘fief-holder’—John seems to have preferred to associate his kingdom with the lands of St Peter, to claim the pope as his lord, rather than to associate himself with vassalage.
The papal chancery, however, called John a vassal of the pope in June 1215. In December 1215 this was repeated. A papal mandate was sent to Hugh, abbot of Abingdon, William, archdeacon of Poitiers and Ranulf of Warham, the steward of Pandulf, papal nuncio and now bishop of Norwich.39 This letter confirmed the sentence which Pandulf had passed against the rebellious barons on 5 September, before he had left England to be present at the Fourth Lateran Council in Rome in November.40 The pope’s mandate listed by name all those excommunicated by Pandulf, plus a number of other rebels. This mandate was surely requested by Pandulf himself while present in Rome, to ensure that his actions enjoyed papal sanction. This letter explicitly called John ‘a crusader and vassal (vassallus) of the Roman Church’, whose kingdom ‘is known to pertain to the Roman Church’. Pandulf might have suggested this language if he requested the letter.
When Innocent issued his famous condemnation of Magna Carta on 24 August 1215 (Etsi karissimus) the letter noted that John received his kingdoms ‘in fief’ from the Roman Church and that, when John had previously offered papal arbitration to the barons, it had been ‘by reason of lordship’ (ratione dominii): ‘the lordship of the kingdom (regni dominium) pertains to the Roman Church’.41 All these terms—‘lordship’; ‘fief’—were in the letter’s narratio, however, which would have been taken more-or-less verbatim from the king’s petition. The language found in Innocent’s 1213 privilege accepting John’s surrender was now being repeated in 1215, potentially via John’s petition to the pope.
It is worth noting that all of these references to fiefdom and vassalage appeared as justifications for papal aid to John. To put it bluntly, the pope was not boasting about his authority, but claiming that his relationship with John obliged him to aid the king. John’s surrender and the two years of correspondence between the king and the pope had established that the terms of John’s surrender had made the king a ‘vassal’ (vassallus) and the kingdom a ‘fief’ (feudum). Both the English and papal chanceries contributed to this process. John began it, by calling himself a ‘fief-holder’; the papal chancery made the next logical step: that England and Ireland must be ‘fiefs’, and that ‘fief-holder’ was a synonym for ‘vassal’. It is possible that some of this language found in papal letters in 1215 (fiefs, vassals) came from English petitions to the pope. Since, as we have seen, John does not seem to have used such language much in his surviving letters to Rome (except for calling himself a ‘fief-holder’ in 1213), that is uncertain, however. It is clear that both sides accepted that feudal terminology—fief; vassal—was applicable here, and that John introduced such language in 1213. Under Innocent’s successor, Honorius III, and John’s son, Henry III, this feudal language would continue to appear in Anglo–papal correspondence. But it did not remain limited to relations between England and the papacy.
In 1218, Pandulf returned to England as papal legate. John was dead and his son, Henry III, was eleven. Pandulf became closely involved in the administration of the royal government, especially after the death of William Marshal, ‘rector of the king and kingdom’, in 1219.42 In September 1219 Pandulf persuaded a second British king to surrender his kingdom to the pope and receive it back as a fief. On either 21 or 22 September 1219, Rǫgnvaldr, king of the Isles (comprising the Isle of Man and the Outer Hebrides) issued a document in the form of letters patent.43 Strictly speaking, this letter was a littera supplicatoria: a petition to the pope in the form of a letter. The letter began with an account of Rǫgnvaldr’s surrender:
[…] we, in order that we may participate in the good which is in the Roman Church, at the admonition and exhortation of the lord Pandulf […] gave and offered to him in the name of the Roman Church and you and your Catholic successors, our island of Man—which pertains to us by hereditary right and from which we are held to make service to no man. Henceforth forever we and our heirs will hold that isle in fief (in feodum) from the Roman Church, and we will make homage and fidelity (homagium et fidelitatem) for it [Man] to it [the Roman Church], and in recognition of lordship (in recognitionem dominii), by the name of census, we and our heirs will forever pay annually twelve marks sterling to the Roman Church […].
Pandulf had then ‘invested’ (investivit) Rǫgnvaldr with the Isle of Man, as a fief, by means of a gold ring. Then—the actual point of the letter—‘we supplicate your Holiness that your sanctity send to us that privilege and petition which you concede to other tributary- and vassal-kings of the Roman Church’ (aliis regibus censualibus et vassallis).
The influence of King John’s feudal surrender is visible: Rǫgnvaldr received the island ‘in fief’; he performed homage and fidelity; he committed to pay an annual census as a sign of lordship. Surely Pandulf—who had received King John’s surrender and apparently exhorted Rǫgnvaldr to this act—suggested some of this language. On the other hand, Rǫgnvaldr made no mention of losing his kingdom if he broke the agreement—although he did tell the pope that he had sworn that he and his heirs would observe all the terms. King John had also not been ‘invested’ with his kingdom by the legate. Particularly interesting is the request in Rǫgnvaldr’s petition for the same privilege which the pope sent to ‘other tributary- and vassal-kings’ (i.e., taking Rǫgnvaldr under the ‘protection of St Peter’). Did Rǫgnvaldr and Pandulf think this was one category or two? Were tributary-kings and vassal-kings different, or was this to be understood as ‘kings who are tributary-vassals’? If the latter—if Pandulf and Rǫgnvaldr thought that, after John’s surrender, any king who paid census to the pope could be described as a ‘vassal’—then that might explain why the king of Aragon was called a vassal in 1222, as we shall see below.
Rǫgnvaldr’s motivation for this act have been the subject of some debate—fear of the king of Norway or fear of enemies within his kingdom.44 Personally I suspect fear of the territorial ambitions of the king of Scots should be thrown in there too; in 1221–2 King Alexander II of Scotland launched a campaign against Argyll, which had recently allied with Rǫgnvaldr and recognized him as suzerain.45 Fear of papal sanctions would have been a greater deterrent to a major European kingdom such as Scotland than to a rebellious Hebridean magnate. Rǫgnvaldr’s petition was sent to Rome where, by the end of 1219 or beginning of 1220, it was copied into the papal registers.46 There is no evidence at this stage that the papal chancery sent Rǫgnvaldr a document of papal protection, although it is possible that such a document simply does not survive. On 23 May 1223, Honorius III did issue a papal letter taking Rǫgnvaldr under the protection of St Peter. At more or less the same time, Rǫgnvaldr’s 1219 petition was copied into the papal registers again.47 There might be an English witness to Rǫgnvaldr’s document too. A shortened version of Rǫgnvaldr’s letter—missing the witness lists and the supplication to the pope—was included in the original 1704 edition of Thomas Rymer’s Foedera, a collection of treaties, letters, and so on relating to English history.48 It is not clear where Rymer found the text. The existence of the papal and Foedera versions is the cause of the uncertainty in the date of this letter. The papal versions say 22 September; the Foedera version 21 September.
The letter which Honorius’ chancery issued on 23 May 1223 was heavily dependent on Rǫgnvaldr’s original petition. In fact, it was little more than a rewriting of it. If one wishes to see the extent to which papal letters were dependent on petitions, one can do no better than compare Rǫgnvaldr’s petition (quoted above) and Honorius’ letter:
[…] desiring to participate in the good which is in the Roman Church, at the exhortation of Pandulf […] you freely and irrevocably gave and handed over to him in the name of us and the Roman Church the island of Man—which pertains to you by hereditary right and from which you are held to make no service—receiving that island in fief (in feodum) from the Roman Church, and taking an oath of fidelity and homage (fidelitatis et homagii […] iuramentum) to us for it. As a recognition of the lordship (ad recognitionem dominii) of the Roman Church, you and your heirs will pay annually twelve marks sterling […].
Honorius’ letter then went on—as Rǫgnvaldr had asked in 1219—to take the king’s person and land ‘under ours and St Peter’s protection’ (sub beati Petri et nostra protectione), in exactly the same formula as that found for countless religious houses, Crusaders, and kings.
The papal chancery had accepted completely the definition of the relationship put forward by Rǫgnvaldr in 1219. There was no significant input on the part of the curia into the letter issued by Honorius III in 1223; it simply borrowed from Rǫgnvaldr’s 1219 petition and from the normal formulae for protected religious houses. In general, therefore, we should take seriously the possibility that when we find an account of how the pope and king were bound together in papal letters—Crusader, vassal, protégé, ward—the wording might just as well come from a petition, or from oral statements presented by the king’s proctors and allies, as from the pope or his cardinals. In the case of Rǫgnvaldr, the terminology in his petition surely arose in consultation with Pandulf, the papal legate, but the pope and papal chancery were willing to accept this definition verbatim. The feudal and vassalic language of King John’s surrender had spread to the kingdom of the Isles thanks to Rǫgnvaldr and Pandulf.
Moving on now to Aragon, on 15 June 1222 Honorius III’s chancery dispatched a letter to all Christians in Spain (Suscepte servitutis officium):
The office of enjoined service, which makes us debtors to […] James, illustrious king of Aragon (as to other Christian princes) obliges us to him by a special bond. For, because he is a vassal of the Roman Church (ecclesie Romane vassallus), we are held to offer aid to him not only against enemies of the Christian name, but even to show aid and favour to him against Christians, if necessity urges.49
King James of Aragon’s supposed vassalage to Rome bound the pope more closely to James than the debt which the pope owed to all (because of the duty of service). The letter then went on to offer remission of sins to anyone who aided James should Aragon be attacked by the Islamic princes of Spain. This letter did not explicitly say that the pope was responding to a petition from James but at almost exactly the same time—27 June 1222—the papal chancery issued a separate letter which was requested by James’ proctors.50 It therefore seems likely that this letter was a response to a petition from James’ proctors too.
As we will see in more detail in chapter six, James had acceded to the throne of Aragon in 1213 as a child. He had a series of regents and advisors helping him rule. James’ mother, Marie de Montpellier, had committed the guardianship of James to Pope Innocent III on her death in 1213 and, when James’ father Peter II of Aragon had been killed later that year, the Aragonese regents had used papal guardianship to secure James’ position. This is the focus of chapter six. This letter to James, Suscepte servitutis officium, seems to have been intended to secure military aid for Aragon in the event of attack by the Islamic rulers. Presumably, the Aragonese regents were going to keep it in reserve until and unless they were attacked, and then promulgate it throughout Spain.
But why was James called a vassal in this letter? The kings of Aragon had never been vassals of the pope before. It seems unlikely that the term would have been used in a petition offered by the Aragonese proctors, although a supplicatory letter might well have dwelt on the close bond between the Aragonese king and the pope. I suggest that it was the king of Aragon’s contacts at the curia who were responsible for using this term in the letter.
The Means of the Spread of Feudal and Vassalic Language
In order for kings and petitioners generally to get favourable judgements at the papal curia, they had to cultivate a network of contacts. Most importantly, they needed proctors to present their petitions and argue their side. Rulers also tried to establish networks of courtiers and cardinals to aid them.51 King John had put together an impressive collection of cardinals and papal officials who would support him in Rome. After John’s death in 1216, this network was conserved by the regents for Henry III. These men—who were familiar with, and had even played a part in, developing the feudal and vassalic language found in Anglo–papal and Manx–papal relations—were perhaps working with the Aragonese proctors in 1222, and hence inserted the word vassallus into papal–Aragonese relations.
In the first few years of Honorius III’s pontificate (1216–27) both the English and French royal courts thought it necessary to keep lists of those cardinals at the curia on whom (they thought) they could rely. The French and English kings were at war at this point—John and his nephew Otto IV of Brunswick had been defeated by Frederick II and Philip II Augustus of France at the battle of Bouvines in 1214. In 1215–17, Prince Louis, Philip’s son, sent troops to England and eventually came himself to be proclaimed king by the barons opposed to King John. The Anglo–French dispute was reflected in the College of Cardinals. Some cardinals had long-standing links to the English royal house; some cardinals looked to Philip Augustus and Louis.52
Between April and June 1218, a scribe in the chancery of King Henry of England wrote down a list of cardinals on the dorse of the roll of royal letters close.53 The face of these rolls recorded the text of letters close sent out in the king’s name; the dorse was a handy space where scribes could write down useful titbits. The face of this membrane records letters issued in the king’s name in April–May 1218, and the dorse has this list of cardinals and a list of Welsh magnates, probably the same Welsh magnates who were supposed to come to the king and do homage under the terms of the March 1218 Treaty of Worcester.54 Although this list was clearly intended to be a list of all cardinals, several of the cardinals on it have markings next to their names: Nicholas of Tusculum and Peter de Sasso were both noted to have died, which probably happened around July 1218.55 Cardinal-bishop Ugo of Ostia (later Pope Gregory IX) had a cross and a dot next to his name. Leo Brancaleone, cardinal-priest of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, had a cross and a dot next to him too. Stephen of Fossanova, cardinal-priest of Santi Apostoli, had a dot and a dash. Guala Bicchieri, cardinal-priest of San Martino ai Monti, had a dot. Rainier, cardinal-deacon of S. Maria in Cosmedin, had a cross, a dot, and a dash, as did Stephen, cardinal-deacon of San Adriano. Finally, one of the two joint papal chamberlains, Sinibaldus, who was not a cardinal, was listed and had a cross next to his name.56 This was a list of cardinals and courtiers to whom the English court looked for aid.57
What precisely these dots, dashes, and crosses meant is impossible to say, but they appeared next to those cardinals who Henry III’s councillors thought would help their cases at the curia. Ugo of Ostia, Stephen of Fossanova, Guala Bicchieri, Rainier, and Stephen of San Adriano all received pensions from the English exchequer or held benefices in England at the king’s presentation.58 Leo Brancaleone’s brother, Otto, held the benefice of All Saints, Fulham and received a pension from the archbishop of Canterbury.59 Of course, this might have meant that Leo was only a useful contact for the royal court when Henry III’s and the archbishop’s interests coincided. Leo also claimed to favour Philip Augustus and Frederick II over Otto IV and John, however, and, in 1219, he received dispatches from the siege of Damietta written by Herman von Salza, counsellor of Frederick II.60 Sinibaldus is not known to have received income from either the king or archbishop, however we know very little about him in general.61
Again with the exception of Sinibaldus, all these cardinals received letters from the English court in the 1200s, 1210s, and 1220s asking for their help. In 1224, the English chancery drafted an appeal to friendly cardinals to oppose several proposals of the French king. The appeal was to be directed to ‘Lord Guala, Lord Leo, Lord John Colonna, Master Stephen of the Basilica [lacuna], Ostia and others whom you believe to be friends’.62 Guala Bicchieri, Leo Brancaleone, John Colonna, Stephen of Fossanova, and Ugo of Ostia. In 1215, King John petitioned the pope to preserve or delay a decision on the union of the churches of Bath and Glastonbury. Again, some cardinals were asked to intervene on John’s behalf: Nicholas of Tusculum (d.1218), Stephen of Fossanova, Guala, John Colonna.63 In 1226 the bishop of Coventry, Alexander of Stainsby, was sent to the curia on the king’s business and a number of cardinals were asked to offer him their support: Guala Bicchieri, Stephen of Fossanova, Rainier of S. Maria in Cosmedin, John Colonna, Stephen of San Adriano, Ugo of Ostia, and Thomas of Capua.64
Of course, receiving money and appeals does not mean that any of these men actually did anything. Within this group there were several cardinals whose practical support for the English kings is clear, however: Guala, Stephen of Fossanova, and Rainier. To those three should be added Pandulf and John Colonna. Although John Colonna was not marked with a cross, dot, or dash on the 1218 list of cardinals kept by the English chancery (probably because between 1217 and 1222 he was not in Rome but papal legate to the Latin empire of Constantinople), he received money from the English exchequer and appeals from the English court.65 These five papal courtiers had close links to each other and to the kings of England.
The central figure was probably Stephen of Fossanova. Fossanova first appears in the documentary record in 1203 as the proctor of King John at the papal court, defending the king against the envoys of Philip Augustus. Innocent III especially commended Fossanova ‘your nuncio and canon of York’ to John ‘because he has shown diligent attention in your business’.66 Fossanova was made papal chamberlain by Innocent in 1206. The chamberlain was head of the papal household and finances. Fossanova held the office until Innocent’s death, combining it with being a cardinal from 1213 onwards.67 In March 1215—when envoys from King John and envoys from the rebellious barons were arguing their cases at the curia—Walter Mauclerc, John’s envoy, told the king that Fossanova and John Colonna, the king’s ‘most faithful friends’ (fidelissimi amici), were passing on the barons’ arguments to him.68
Pandulf, the nuncio to England in 1211 and 1213 and legate 1218–21, might have been a protégé of Fossanova; the two were certainly close. When Fossanova asked King John to ensure that a debt owed to him by the late bishop of Norwich was repaid in November 1214, the money was to be given to Pandulf, then in England. Pandulf already knew all about the debt because he was Fossanova’s ‘most beloved colleague’ (carissimus socius).69 In 1217, after the death of Innocent and the election of Honorius, Pandulf and Sinibaldus replaced Fossanova as papal chamberlains. This did not affect their relationship, however; in 1219 Fossanova’s nephew (also called Stephen) was part of Pandulf’s legatine household when he received the surrender of Rǫgnvaldr.70 In 1226, shortly before Pandulf’s death, he and Fossanova interceded jointly with Pope Honorius on behalf of a Master Roland of Siena.71
Most importantly, Fossanova and Pandulf probably played a role in the negotiations between 1211 and 1213 which ended the interdict on England. In 1211 Innocent had sent Pandulf and another member of the papal household, Brother Durand of the Knights Hospitaller, to negotiate with John.72 On 14 April 1211, the two nuncios were instructed by Innocent to meet Peter des Roches, the bishop of Winchester, in England and then travel to meet John. In the pipe rolls for the diocese of Winchester, we see that shortly before spring 1211, des Roches gave one hundred sheep to Stephen of Fossanova.73 For des Roches—a loyal supporter of King John—to be giving a gift to a Roman courtier at the height of the papal interdict was remarkable. A plausible reconstruction of events is that des Roches and Fossanova were operating a backchannel for communications between Rome and London. Pandulf and Durand’s mission had presumably been arranged this way. Both Pandulf and Durand were familiares of the pope—that is to say, members of the papal household, whose head was the chamberlain, Stephen of Fossanova.74 The hundred sheep were perhaps meant to recall Luke 15.4–7 and Matthew 18.12–14. Here, Christ told the disciples that, if a shepherd has a herd of one hundred sheep, and loses one, he will leave the others and find the lost sheep. Likewise, there would be ‘joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance’. This parable was well known in papal circles—Innocent III referenced it in his sermon on the consecration of prelates; the shepherd represented the prelate who should seek the conversion of sinners.75 Maybe King John—who would (des Roches and Fossanova hoped) be returned to the Church through their diplomacy—was the lost sheep, the sinner who would repent, and Fossanova the shepherd who had recalled him to the fold? Unfortunately for des Roches and Fossanova, the 1211 mission to King John failed. But in 1212–13, John sought reconciliation with the papacy, and Pandulf was sent to arrange it. Fossanova’s elevation to the rank of cardinal also happened at this time, and the first papal solemn privilege which Fossanova signed as a cardinal was the privilege confirming John’s surrender.76
Guala Bicchieri—papal legate to England 1216–18—was another close associate of Fossanova and a major ally of the English monarchy at the papal curia.77 When Guala composed his final testament Fossanova was his executor, and Fossanova and John Colonna both confirmed the testament under their own seals.78 Fossanova had also been one of the two cardinals who confirmed Guala’s grant to his beloved foundation of St Andrew of Vercelli.79 Guala’s importance to the royal proctors at the papal court is best illustrated by a confidential diplomatic dispatch sent to the royal chancellor, Ralph Neville, by his emissary to Rome, Philip of Arden, in April 1227. Philip reported to Ralph that the other English representatives at the curia told him ‘it is not prudent for us to offend the Lord Guala in anything, because the greatest part of our business depends on him.’ Philip foolishly did not listen to this advice.80
Finally, Rainier of Viterbo, cardinal-deacon of S. Maria in Cosmedin. Rainier’s links with King John preceded his elevation to cardinal (as Fossanova’s did). Rainier was granted a pension by John when still a papal notary in 1215. He was made cardinal the next year.81 At the same time as Rainier of Viterbo was granted a pension by John, a second Rainier (whom I will call Raynaldus to avoid confusion) was given a pension from the English exchequer.82 This was Raynaldus the acolyte, who was dating the papal privileges while the papal chancellor’s office was vacant.83 Raynaldus dated both of the solemn privileges confirming John’s surrender to the papacy. What we see here is surely John trying to build or reward allies within the papal chancery. A few years later, probably between 1224 and 1226, Rainier recalled that he had laboured day and night on John’s business when he was a papal notary, and now laboured for Henry III. He was therefore astonished that the king had neglected to pay his pension for six years, and directed the back income to be given to Pandulf, whom Rainier made his procurator.84 Presumably the non-payment of Rainier’s pension was not fatal to royal interests, since in 1224 an English envoy at the curia noted that Rainier and Guala ‘favour much our lord king’.85
Rainier had certainly earned his pay. In October 1217 Rainier had told Henry III and his councillors that ‘whenever you send nuncios to the curia […] you should commit your business most securely to us, because we are prepared to act as though it were our own.’86 In January 1220, Honorius III issued a dispensation from illegitimate birth for Ralph Neville, then English vice-chancellor. The papal dispensation mentioned that Guala had spoken on Ralph’s behalf, but a diplomatic dispatch from Ralph’s agent at the curia—the abbot of San Martino in Viterbo—tells us that Fossanova and Rainier also intervened for Ralph.87 The next year, in April 1221, Ralph received a further dispensation allowing him to hold multiple benefices. This time all three—Guala, Fossanova, Rainier—were mentioned as testifying on Ralph’s behalf in the papal document.88 Pandulf, still papal legate to England at this time, was relying heavily on Ralph Neville, Pandulf’s amicus.89 Even the identity of Ralph’s proctor at the curia suggests a links between these cardinals and the English court: the abbot of San Martino in Viterbo had accompanied Nicholas of Tusculum, the papal legate, to England in 1214. King John had granted the abbey a half share of the income and rights of the church of Holkham in Norfolk.90 In 1219, Pandulf granted the abbey the other half.91 Rainier was also a patron of San Martino.92 Rainier’s labours on behalf of Ralph Neville were rewarded; Ralph helped two of Rainier’s clerks, Master Benedict and Reynald, when they came to England on the cardinal’s business between 1216 and 1222.93
So, Fossanova, Pandulf, Rainier, Guala, and John Colonna formed a close-knit group with strong ties to the English royal court. They would therefore have been familiar with the terms and language of John’s 1213 feudal surrender—when John called himself a ‘fief-holder’. The papal chancery, in the privilege confirming John’s surrender, had clarified that this meant that England and Ireland were ‘fiefs’. In 1215, the papal chancery twice called John a ‘vassal’. Rainier might well have drafted some of these letters, or even the privileges issued to John. Pandulf had certainly negotiated John’s surrender. Pandulf, as we have seen, also played a role in extending this feudal language to King Rǫgnvaldr of Man. Is there cause to think that these courtiers also placed the word vassallus in the 1222 letter to King James of Aragon?
The Aragonese magnates ruling on King James’ behalf would have sought aid from friendly cardinals and courtiers at the curia, as John and Henry III did. There were, however, only limited options in mid-1222. Peter of Benevento, cardinal-bishop of Sabina, had probably been the main contact of the Aragonese kings at the curia in the later 1210s. Peter had been legate to Aragon in 1214–15, had freed James from the custody of Simon de Montfort and had secured the early years of James’ reign.94 In 1219, Peter had testified at the curia to the orthodoxy of the inhabitants of James’ lordship of Montpellier, enabling that city to acquire papal letters protecting it from Crusader attacks.95 Unfortunately, Peter died in either 1219 or 1220;96 this potentially left the king of Aragon without a reliable ally at the curia.
Fossanova and Rainier’s circle might have tried to replace them, or James’ councillors might have already been making use of Fossanova and Rainier. As I mentioned above, James had been committed to papal guardianship in his mother’s final testament of April 1213, which she had made while in Rome (where she died). This did not really matter for the first few months after her death because James’ father, Peter II, was still alive. When Peter was killed by Simon de Montfort’s forces at the battle of Muret in September 1213, that changed. Now the magnates of Aragon, seeking to protect the kingdom from the problems which came from being ruled by a boy-king, frequently appealed to the papal court. Many of the letters issued in response referenced Marie’s testament as justification for papal solicitude.97 The testament had been witnessed by Marie’s own household—her chaplain, her doctor—and by several papal courtiers. John Castellomate—the papal doctor—Rainier of Viterbo, Stephen of Fossanova, and Master Benedict.98 Marie also appointed Fossanova to arrange her funeral. Rainier and Fossanova we have examined at length. Master Benedict might have been Master Benedict Cortesa, a cleric of Rainier sent to England in c.1216–22 and to Corsica in 1224.99 Practically nothing is known about John Castellomate except that he witnessed this testament and, in 1214, Leonard Castellomate, a papal subdeacon and John’s son, was given an English benefice by Nicholas of Tusculum, the legate to England. The next year that collation was confirmed in Rome by Fossanova and Guala.100 This is pretty slim evidence, but it is interesting that Fossanova appears in both of the surviving documents in which John Castellomate appears.
Rainier and Fossanova, and possibly two more papal courtiers in their circle, had witnessed Marie’s testament. If the Aragonese magnates were petitioning at the curia, then surely Rainier and Fossanova were potential contacts, since they had witnessed Marie’s appointment of the pope as guardian to her children. Pandulf, who had persuaded Rǫgnvaldr to receive Man as a papal fief, had just returned to the curia at the time the 1222 letter to Aragon, describing James as a ‘vassal’, was issued.101 He was, as we have seen, close to Fossanova. It might well be that Fossanova, Rainier, and Pandulf—asked to intercede with the pope by the Aragonese proctors—made James into a papal vassal (temporarily).
On the other hand, one could argue, if Rainier and Fossanova were useful contacts to the Aragonese court because they had witnessed Marie’s testament, why was the testament not mentioned at all in the 1222 letter? In fact, as chapter six shows, Marie’s testament tended only to be used as a justification for business concerning Montpellier (which James inherited from her). Other justifications—pertaining specifically to Aragon and Catalonia—were used for papal letters to those realms (which James inherited from his father). Hence the 1222 description of James as a ‘vassal’ in a letter dealing only with his possessions in Iberia. Perhaps the 1222 letter was drafted by papal courtiers and notaries who had limited knowledge of the history and existing language of papal–Aragonese relations. If so, then it was still the influence of the Anglo–papal relationship which caused this mistake: papal aid for John and Henry III had frequently been justified by their vassalage in the years preceding 1222. In January 1217, for example, Honorius ordered the archbishop of Dublin to compel rebels to return to royal obedience because ‘many reasons induce us to challenge King [Henry III]’s tribulations, namely because he is a Crusader, orphan and vassal (vassallus) of the Roman Church, and his father in extremis committed both him and his kingdom to the custody of the Apostolic See.’102 Aragon paid a census to the papacy, and we have seen that Rǫgnvaldr’s petition associated the protection given to ‘tributary-kings’ (reges censuales) with the protection given to ‘vassal-kings’ (reges vassalli). Perhaps some papal courtiers were having trouble noticing any difference too. The language of vassalage was associated with England. In 1222, it was applied to the king of Aragon.
Conclusion
The opening decades of the thirteenth century witnessed the creation of a new formal relationship between popes and kings. Two kings—of England and of Man—were vassals of the pope and held land ‘in fief’. Sicily and Aragon—briefly (for now)—also had such labels placed on them. Feudal language spread from England to Man in 1219 and to Aragon in 1222—probably through papal courtiers, cardinals, and notaries. However, as we shall see in the next chapter, other people in other places also saw the value of claiming their land was a papal fief.
It is important to emphasize that the spread of feudal terminology was a two-way street. What we see in 1213–19—and we will see again in Melgueil in the next chapter—was the willingness of the curia to allow rulers to define the nature of their relationship with the pope. The papacy tended to accept the definition as put forward by the king: King John was a ‘fief-holder’, Rǫgnvaldr received Man ‘in fief’, and so on. Of course, the definitions put forward by kings were shaped by consultation. In the case of Man, some of that consultation was with Pandulf, the papal legate. Likewise, cardinals and papal courtiers could advance and spread the language used by King John to other kingdoms, as with Aragon in 1222. The spread of feudal and vassalic terminology between 1213 and 1222 was a mutual process. It was not, however, a central process; enforced by two popes seeking to reduce kings to subjection. In the world of medieval papal–royal relations—a historiography dominated by the extreme claims of the Dictatus pape and Unam sanctam—that is not something to ignore.
Papal Overlordship and European Princes, 1000–1270. Benedict Wiedemann, Oxford University Press. © Benedict Wiedemann 2022. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855039.003.0005
1 Christopher Cheney, Pope Innocent III and England (Hiersemann: Stuttgart, 1976), pp. 298–324, 329–331; idem, ‘King John and the Papal Interdict’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 31 (1948), pp. 295–317; idem, ‘King John’s Reaction to the Interdict on England’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 31 (1949), pp. 129–150; idem, ‘The Alleged Deposition of King John’, Studies in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, ed. Richard Hunt, William Pantin, Richard Southern (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1948), pp. 100–116; David Carpenter, Magna Carta (Penguin: London, 2015), pp. 197–199, 279–281; Stephen Church, ‘King John’s Books, Master Richard Marsh, and the Interdict Proclaimed in 1208 on England and Wales’, Writing History in the Anglo–Norman World: Manuscripts, Makers and Readers, c.1066–c.1250, ed. Laura Cleaver, Andrea Worm (Boydell and Brewer: Woodbridge, 2018), pp. 149–165.
2 Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England (1198–1216), ed. trans. Christopher Cheney, W. H. Semple (Nelson: London, 1953), no. 45, pp. 130–136.
3 Documents Illustrative of English History in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, ed. Henry Cole (Eyre and Spottiswoode: London, 1844), pp. 263–264; Cheney, Innocent III and England, pp. 331–335.
4 Thomas Rymer, Foedera, conventiones, literae et cuiuscunque generis acta publica, ed. Adam Clarke, Frederic Holbrooke, John Caley, 4 vols. in 7 (Record Commission: London, 1816–69), i, 1, pp. 111–112.
5 Documents Illustrative of English History, ed. Cole, p. 264.
6 Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, pp. 117, 111–112.
7 Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, p. 115.
8 BL, Cotton, Charter VIII, 24; Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, pp. 119, 115; Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 67. pp. 177–183 (Cheney/Semple silently corrected several mistakes in the Foedera edition).
9 Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, pp. 111–112.
10 Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, pp. 117, 119; Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 67. pp. 177–183.
11 Wiedemann, ‘Character of Papal Finance’, p. 512 33n.
12 Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 68, pp. 168–170.
13 Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, p. 178; Cheney, ‘Alleged Deposition’, pp. 114–115.
14 Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, ed. William Stubbs, Henry W. C. Davis, 9th edn. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1913), pp. 279–281. A judgement not present in Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History, ed. William Stubbs, 8th edn. (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1895), pp. 284–286.
15 William Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 (The Mediaeval Academy of America: Cambridge MA, 1939), pp. 135–138; Weckmann, Constantino el Grande, p. 76.
16 Marc Morris, King John: Treachery, Tyranny and the Road to Magna Carta (Windmill: London, 2015), pp. 215–216; Frederick M. Powicke, Stephen Langton (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1928), p. 106.
17 Christopher Harper-Bill, ‘John and the Church of Rome’, King John: New Interpretations, ed. Stephen Church (Boydell and Brewer: Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 289–315, at 307; Dione Clementi, ‘Constitutional Development through Pressure of Circumstance, 1170–1258’, Tradition and Change: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Chibnall, ed. Diana Greenway, Christopher Holdsworth, Jane Sayers (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1985), pp. 215–237, at 217–218.
18 Pennington, ‘Feudal Oath of Fidelity and Homage’, p. 106; Sabapathy, ‘Thinking Politically with Innocent III’, p. 120 37n.
19 Wiedemann, ‘The Joy of Lists’.
20 Aubrey Gwynn, ‘Henry of London, Archbishop of Dublin: A Study in Anglo-Norman Statecraft’, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 38 (1949), pp. 295–306, at 296; Patrick J. Dunning, ‘The Letters of Innocent III to Ireland’, Traditio 18 (1962), pp. 229–253, at no. 79*, pp. 248–249; Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, p. 112.
21 Jochen Johrendt, ‘Der vierte Kreuzzug, das lateinische Kaiserreich und die päpstliche Kapelle unter Innocenz III.’, Legati, delegati e l’impresa d’Oltremare (secoli XII–XIII), ed. Maria-Pia Alberzoni, Pascal Montaubin (Brepols: Turnhout, 2014), pp. 51–114, at 58–60.
22 See, for example, Les registres d’Honorius IV, ed. Maurice Prou (Thorin: Paris, 1888), no. 29, cols. 29–30; Epistolae saeculi XIII e regestis pontificum Romanorum selectae, ed. Karl Rodenburg, 3 vols. (Weidmann: Berlin, 1883–94), MGH Epp. saec. XIII, iii, nos. 248, 250, pp. 211–212, 213–214.
23 There are minor differences in wording between the edition in Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, p. 112 and the version in the (fourteenth-century copy of) the papal registers: Innocentii III regestorum sive epistolarum liber, 1213, nos. 77, 131, PL 216, cols. 878–80, 923–4. I have favoured the papal version since it is closer to the October 1213 version of the oath: Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 67, pp. 177–183.
24 See also the oath of Count Hildebrand, Innocentii III regestorum siue epistolarum liber, 1198, no. 578, PL 214, cols. 529–30: Si eorum certum damnum sciero [sic], si possum, remanere faciam; sin autem [non?], aut per me aut per meum nuntium vel per talem personam, quam pro certo credam eis dicturam, significabo.
25 Codex diplomaticus dominii temporalis S. Sedis, ed. Augustin Theiner, 3 vols. (Imprimerie du Vatican: Rome, 1861–2), i, p. 45; Liber censuum, i, no. 59/86, p. 313; The Gesta Innocentii III: Text, Introduction and Commentary, ed. David Gress-Wright (unpublished PhD thesis, Bryn Mawr, 1981), pp. 144–145.
26 Ernst Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies, pp. 348–354; idem, ‘Inalienability: A Note on Canonical Practice and the English Coronation Oath in the Thirteenth Century’, Speculum 29 (1954), pp. 488–502; Henry Richardson, ‘The English Coronation Oath’, Speculum 24 (1949), pp. 44–75, at 44–56, 74–75.
27 Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, pp. 117, 119; Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 67. pp. 177–183.
28 Regestum Innocentii III papae super negotio Romani imperii, ed. Friedrich Kempf (Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Rome, 1947), no. 188, pp. 398–399.
29 Liber Gaufridi sacristae de Coldingham de statu ecclesiae Dunhelmensis, Historiae Dunelmensis scriptores tres, ed. James Raine (Nichols: London, 1839), p. 28.
30 Carpenter, Magna Carta, pp. 274–406; James Holt, Magna Carta, 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2015), pp. 174–231, 291–313, 341–344, 407–411.
31 A minimum of four weeks was suggested by Reginald Poole on the basis of a papal letter dated 17 March 1188 arriving in England twenty-nine days later: ‘The Early Correspondence of John of Salisbury’, Proceedings of the British Academy 11 (1924–5), pp. 27–53, at 31. However, the date on a papal letter was not normally the date the letter was engrossed but the date the petition was approved. The actual engrossment could easily take several more days. Peter Herde, Beiträge zum päpstlichen Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen im dreizehnten Jahrhundert, 2nd edn. (Lassleben: Kallmünz, 1967), p. 190; Patrick Zutshi, Original Papal Letters in England, 1305–1415 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: Vatican City, 1990), pp. lxiii–lxiv; Rabikauskas, Diplomatica pontificia, p. 122.
32 Angelo Mercati, ‘La prima relazione del cardinal Nicolò de Romanis sulla sua legazione in Inghilterra (1213)’, Essays Presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. Henry W. C. Davis (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1927), pp. 274–289, esp. 279.
33 London, T[he] N[ational] A[rchives], SC 7/52/2; George Adams, ‘Innocent III and the Great Charter’, Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, ed. Henry Malden (Royal Historical Society: London, 1917), pp. 26–45, at 43–45; The Letters of Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) concerning England and Wales, ed. Christopher Cheney, Mary Cheney (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1967), no. 1013, pp. 272–273.
34 Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, nos. 74–75, pp. 194–197; Nicholas Vincent, ‘Feature of the Month: May 2015—The Papal Letters of 19 March and their Reception in England (May 1215)’, The Magna Carta Project http://magnacartaresearch.org/read/feature_of_the_month/May_2015_2 (accessed 17/05/2020), nos. 1–3.
35 Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, p. 129; Vincent, ‘The Papal Letters of 19 March’, no. 7.
36 Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 80, pp. 207–209.
37 See Danielle Park, Papal Protection and the Crusader: Flanders, Champagne, and the Kingdom of France, 1095–1222 (Boydell and Brewer: Woodbridge, 2018).
38 Innocentii III regestorum sive epistolarum liber, 1213, no. 78, PL 216, col. 881; Rotuli litterarum patentium in Turri londinensi asservati, i, 1: 1201–1216, ed. Thomas Hardy, 1 vol. in 1 (Record Commission: London, 1835), p. 182; The Letters and Charters of Cardinal Guala Bicchieri, ed. Nicholas Vincent (Boydell and Brewer: Woodbridge, 1996), no. 140b, pp. 105–106.
39 Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 85, pp. 221–223.
40 Nicholas Vincent, ‘The Election of Pandulph Verracclo as Bishop of Norwich (1215)’, Historical Research 68 (1995), pp. 143–163, at 157.
41 Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 82, pp. 212–216.
42 David Carpenter, The Minority of Henry III (Methuen: London, 1990), pp. 128–134.
43 For the various versions and editions of this document, see below.
44 Arne Odd Johnsen, ‘The Payments from the Hebrides and Isle of Man to the Crown of Norway, 1153–1263: Annual Ferme or Feudal Casualty?’, Scottish Historical Review 48 (1969), pp. 18–34, at 25–26; R. Andrew McDonald, Manx Kingship in its Irish Sea Setting, 1187–1229: King Rǫgnvaldr and the Crovan Dynasty (Four Courts Press: Dublin, 2007), pp. 143–150.
45 Alex Woolf, ‘A Dead Man at Ballyshannon’, The World of the Galloglass: Kings, Warlords and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200–1600, ed. Seán Duffy, (Four Courts Press: Dublin, 2007), pp. 77–85.
46 AAV, Reg. Vat. 10, fols. 50v–51r; Vetera monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum, ed. Augustin Theiner (Ex Typis Vaticanis: Rome, 1864), no. 26, p. 11; Regesta Honorii, ed. Pressutti, i, Appendix I, no. 20, p. lii; Calendar of Papal Registers Relating To Great Britain and Ireland, 1198–1304, ed. William Bliss (Eyre and Spottiswoode: London, 1893), pp. 69–70.
47 Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum, ed. Theiner, no. 51, pp. 21–22; Calendar of Papal Registers, ed. Bliss, pp. 91, 92; Regesta Honorii, ed. Pressutti, i, Appendix I, no. 56, p. lv, vol. ii, no. 4373.
48 Thomas Rymer, Foedera, conventiones, literae et cuiuscunque generis acta publica, 20 vols. (Churchill: London, 1704–35), i (published 1704), p. 234.
49 AAV, Reg. Vat. 11, f. 257v; Documentación de Honorio, ed. Mansilla, no. 404, pp. 298–299; Honorii opera omnia, ed. Horoy, iv, no. 218, cols. 191–2; Regesta Honorii, ed. Pressutti, no. 4043.
50 AAV, Reg. Vat. 11, ff. 255v–256r; Documentación de Honorio, ed. Mansilla, no. 409, p. 303.
51 Melanie Brunner, ‘The Power of the Cardinals: Decision-making at the Papal Curia in Avignon’, Authority and Power, ed. Smith, pp. 355–370.
52 For the French lists of cardinals, see Les registres de Philippe Auguste, ed. John Baldwin, Françoise Gasparri, Michel Nortier, Elisabeth Lalou, Robert-Henri Bautier (Imprimerie Nationale: Paris, 1992), pp. 347–349; Robert Davidsohn, Philipp II. August von Frankreich und Ingeborg (Kröner: Stuttgart, 1888), pp. 316–320. In the list of Speciales regis, Davidsohn misread Camerarius Senesbaldus (Chamberlain Sinibaldus) as Camerarius Senescallus. Since Sinibaldus was chamberlain, this list must date from the early part of Honorius III’s pontificate. On these lists (including doubts as to their accuracy), see Maleczek, Kardinalskolleg, pp. 265–266.
53 TNA, C 54/19 (membrane 6d); Rotuli litterarum clausarum in Turri Londinensi asservati, i: 1204–1224, ed. Thomas Hardy, 2 vols. (Record Commission: London, 1833–44), pp. 379–379b.
54 The Acts of Welsh Rulers, 1120–1283, ed. Huw Pryce, Charles Insley (University of Wales Press: Cardiff, 2005), nos. 240–242, pp. 396–401; Rotuli litterarum clausarum, i, pp. 378b–379.
55 Werner Maleczek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Vienna, 1984), pp. 147–150; idem, ‘Zwischen lokaler Verankerung und universalem Horizont. Das Kardinalskollegium unter Innocenz III’, Innocenzo III, ed. Sommerlechner, pp. 102–199, at 153 which supersedes the dates in Maleczek, Kardinalskolleg, pp. 163–164.
56 The edition in the Rotuli litterarum clausarum does not include the dashes, but only the dots and crosses. One of the dashes (Fossanova) is formed by extending the tail of the ‘D’ of Dominus (which precedes all the cardinals’ names) but the other two appear to have been added separately.
57 Cf. (later in the thirteenth century) Jos Maubach, Die Kardinäle und ihre Politik um die Mitte des XIII. Jahrhunderts unter den Päpsten Innocenz IV, Alexander IV, Urban IV, Clemens IV (1243–1268) (Georgi: Bonn, 1902); Penny Cole, David d’Avray, Jonathan Riley-Smith, ‘Application of Theology to Current Affairs: Memorial Sermons on the Dead of Mansurah and on Innocent IV’, Historical Research 63 (1990), pp. 227–247.
58 Rotuli litterarum clausarum, i, pp. 156b, 157, 168b, 180; Rotuli litterarum patentium, i, 1, pp. 107–7b, 123b, 158b, 182; Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, p. 167; TNA, SC 7/50/8–9.
59 AAV, Reg. Vat. 15, fol. 53r; Les registres de Grégoire IX: recueil des bulles de ce pape, ed. Lucien Auvray, Vitte-Clémencet, L. Carolus-Barré, 4 vols. (Fontemoing: Paris, 1896–1955), no. 552, i, p. 358.
60 BL, Faustina B IX, fol. 38r; Chronica de Mailros e codice unico in Bibliotheca Cottoniana servato, ed. James Stevenson (Typis Societatis Edinburgensis: Edinburgh, 1835), pp. 135–137.
61 See, however, Acta Guala, ed. Vincent, p. lxix 240n, no. 181, p. 146; AAV, Reg. Vat. 11, fol. 76r.
62 Diplomatic Documents preserved in the Public Record Office, 1101–1272, ed. Pierre Chaplais (London, 1964), no. 139, pp. 94–95.
63 Rotuli litterarum clausarum, i, pp. 203b–4.
64 Rotuli litteraum clausarum, ii, p. 207.
65 Rotuli litterarum clausarum, i, p. 168b; Smith, Curia and Crusade, p. 266.
66 Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 20, pp. 60–62.
67 Maleczek, Kardinalskolleg, pp. 179–183.
68 Diplomatic Documents, ed. Chaplais, no. 19, pp. 28–30; Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, p. 120; Nicholas Vincent, ‘Feature of the Month: The Conference at the New Temple, January 1215’, The Magna Carta Project http://magnacartaresearch.org/read/feature_of_the_month/Jan_2015_2 (accessed 20/04/2020), no. 3.
69 Diplomatic Documents, ed. Chaplais, no. 17, pp. 27–28.
70 Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum, ed. Theiner, no. 26, p. 11.
71 AAV, Reg. Vat. 13, f. 129r.
72 Selected Letters of Innocent III, ed. trans. Cheney, Semple, no. 43, pp. 125–127; The Flowers of History by Roger of Wendover, ed. Henry G. Hewlett, 3 vols. (Longman: London, 1886–9), ii, pp. 197–198.
73 The Pipe Roll of the Bishopric of Winchester, 1210–1211, ed. Neville Holt (Manchester University Press: Manchester, 1964), p. 36. See also Nicholas Vincent, Peter des Roches: An Alien in English Politics, 1205–1238 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1996), p. 83; Maleczek, ‘Kardinalskollegium’, p. 159.
74 Two years earlier, Durand had been sent to treat with Otto IV of Brunswick, John’s nephew and another ruler whom Fossanova seems to have supported at the curia, Regestum super negotio imperii, ed. Kempf, no. 190, pp. 403–404; Diplomatic Documents, ed. Chaplais, nos. 19, 195, pp. 28–30, 130.
75 Between God and Man, trans. Vause, Gardiner, p. 49.
76 Maleczek, Kardinalskolleg, pp. 179–183, 390.
77 In general, see Acta Guala, ed. Vincent, pp. xli–lxvi.
78 Agostino Paravicini Bagliani, I testamenti del cardinali del duecento (Società romana di storia patria: Rome, 1980), pp. 117–118, 120; Gioanni Lampugnani, Sulla vita di Guala Bicchieri, patrizio Vercellese, prete cardinale di S. Martino al Monti (Ibertis: Vercelli, 1842), p. 83.
79 Lampugnani, Guala Bicchieri, pp. 104–106.
80 Diplomatic Documents, ed. Chaplais, no. 203, pp. 136–138; Charles-Victor Langlois, ‘Notices et documents relatifs a l’histoire du xiiie et du xive siècle: Nova curie’, Revue historique 87 (1905), pp. 55–79, at 60–62.
81 Rotuli litterarum patentium, i, 1, p. 158b; Maleczek, Kardinalskolleg, pp. 185–186.
82 Rotuli litterarum patentium, i, 1, p. 158b.
83 Christopher Cheney, ‘The Office and Title of the Papal Chancellor, 1187–1216’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 22 (1984), pp. 369–376, at 372–373; Harry Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica per la Germania e l’Italia, trans. Anna Maria Voci-Roth, 2 vols. (Archivi di Stato: Rome, 1998), i, p. 224.
84 Foedera, ed. Clarke et al., i, 1, p. 167. This letter is dated in the Foedera to 1222 but Rainier said his pension had not been paid in six years. Henry III ordered the pension for the second year of his reign (October 1217–October 1218) to be paid to Rainier’s nuncio in May 1218: Rotuli litterarum clausarum, i, p. 362. Pandulf’s death in 1226 gives the latest possible date.
85 Royal and other Historical Letters illustrative of the Reign of Henry III, ed. Walter Shirley, 2 vols. (Longman: London, 1862–6), i: 1216–1235, no. 200, pp. 227–228.
86 Diplomatic Documents, ed. Chaplais, no. 23, p. 31.
87 Royal and other Historical Letters, ed. Shirley, i, no. 8, p. 534; Diplomatic Documents, ed. Chaplais, no. 47, pp. 44–45; Jacques Boussard, ‘Ralph Neville évéque de Chichester et chancelier d’Angleterre’, Revue historique 176 (1935), pp. 217–233, at 225 3n. The report is undated but gives the recent itinerary of the curia which fits 1220 rather than 1221.
88 AAV, Reg. Vat. 11, f. 118r. Calendar of Papal Registers, ed. Bliss, p. 81 misses out Fossanova.
89 Benedict Wiedemann, ‘Master James, a Papal Scribe in the Household of Pandulf Verracclo, Papal Legate to England, 1218–1221’, Manuscripta: A Journal for Manuscript Research 61 (2017), pp. 105–110, at 109.
90 Rotuli chartarum in Turri Londinensi asservati, i, par. 1: 1199–1216, ed. Thomas Hardy, 1 vol. in 1 (Record Commission: London, 1837), i, 1, p. 198; Cheney, Innocent III and England, p. 95.
91 English Episcopal Acta, xxi: Norwich, 1215–1243, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2000), no. 23, pp. 18–19.
92 Italia Sacra, ed. Ferdinando Ughelli, 9 vols. (Tanum: Rome, 1644–62), i, cols. 1405–6.
93 Boussard, ‘Ralph Neville’, p. 225 2n.
94 See chapter six.
95 Bullaire de l’Église de Maguelone, ed. Roquette, Villemagne, ii, nos. 241–244, 246, pp. 35–42, 45–46.
96 Maleczek, Kardinalskolleg, pp. 172–174.
97 See chapter six.
98 Pedro el Católico, Rey de Aragón y Conde de Barcelona (1196–1213): Documentos, Testimonios y Memoria Histórica, ed. Martín Alvira Cabrer, 6 vols. (Institución Fernando el Católico: Zaragoza, 2010), iv, no. 1499, pp. 1526–1527; Layettes du trésor de chartes, ed. Alexandre Teulet et al., 5 vols. (Plon: Paris, 1863–1909), i, no. 1044, pp. 390–391. For the identification of Rainier, see Maleczek, Kardinalskolleg, p. 185 463n.
99 Boussard, ‘Ralph Neville’, p. 225 2n; Liber censuum, i, no. 274a, p. 524.
100 Acta Guala, ed. Vincent, no. 140, pp. 101–103.
101 Annales Monastici, ed. Henry Luard, 5 vols. (Longman: London, 1864–9), ii, p. 296; AAV, Reg. Vat. 11, f. 262v.
102 Honorii opera omnia, ed. Horoy, ii, no. 143, cols. 176–7.