Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. …‚, No. , January ‚€€.

Printed in the United Kingdom 

#  Cambridge University Press

Peter the Chanter, Innocent III and

Theological Views on Collective
Guilt and Punishment
by P. D. CLARKE

Innocent III regularised ecclesiastical usage of several penalties which punished the innocent along
with the guilty, notably the interdict. His actions need to be understood in their intellectual as well
as political context. It has long been thought that Peter the Chanter taught the future pope when
he studied theology at Paris. This article presents evidence of the Chanter’s radical influence on
Innocent’s attitude to collective guilt and punishment and compares their views with canonistic
doctrine.

mong the many contributions of Innocent  (–) to the

A law of the medieval Church were a number of rulings which

extended punishment beyond the guilty, in particular the
disinheritance of Catholic sons of heretics under his decretal ‘ Vergentis ’
(). In addition, he used the interdict to an extent perhaps
unparalleled by any of his predecessors, a sanction which deprived a
whole community of religion for the sin of its ruler." He exploited it as a
political weapon in disputes with kings of England, France and Leo! n

Arsenal l Bibliothe' que de l’Arsenal ; BAV l Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana ; BL l

British Library ; BN l Bibliothe' que nationale ; Po. l A. Potthast, Regesta pontificum
romanorum, Berlin –. Where a manuscript is cited without folio number, the
manuscript, or that section of it, was unfoliated. All biblical citations are to the Vulgate.
An earlier version of this paper, entitled ‘ Innocent ’s use of Scripture regarding
collective punishment : the theological sources ’, was read at the conference ‘ Innocent  :
urbs et orbis ’, Rome, – September . I am enormously grateful to Professor J. W.
Baldwin for his helpful criticisms and comments on this oral version and a subsequent
draft. I am also grateful to the Courty family of Cha# tenay-Malabry for accommodating
me during a research trip to Paris.
I would like to dedicate this article to the memory of Fr Leonard E. Boyle  (†  October
), a distinguished medievalist and much respected Prefect of the Vatican Library.
" On ‘ Vergentis ’ and related rulings see P. D. Clarke, ‘ Innocent , canon law and the
punishment of the guiltless ’, in J. C. Moore (ed.), Pope Innocent III and his world, Aldershot
, –, and K. Pennington, ‘ ‘‘ Pro peccatis patrum puniri ’’ : a moral and legal
 . .      
among others. Such developments need to be considered in the context of
contemporary scholastic debate on collective guilt and punishment which
may have inspired or at least bolstered them. The intellectual influences
on the young Lothario dei Segni, the future Innocent , are a matter of
debate, however. We know that he studied theology in the Paris schools.
His only acknowledged master at Paris was Peter of Corbeil, although it
is supposed that he was also taught by Peter the Chanter, and evidence
will be given here of the influence of the Chanter and his pupil, Stephen
Langton, on the later pope. It is also known that he stayed briefly in
Bologna in the late s, but the assumption that he studied canon law
there and that he was taught by Huguccio has been challenged recently
by Kenneth Pennington.# None the less, it seems odd that he should
not have attended lectures on the subject in which Bologna held an
international reputation and did not hear its leading canonist of the day.
Stefan Kuttner and others have identified Huguccio’s influence on
Innocent , and this will be supported below. Hence, theology and
arguably canon law both shaped Innocent ’s mindset. We must be
careful, however, not to draw a false dichotomy between these subjects in
the late twelfth century. Although they would become quite distinct from
one another a century later, these disciplines were still closely related in
their views and concerns in the young Lothario’s day, and we will note
below a remarkable correspondence between the thinking of Peter the
Chanter and Huguccio on collective guilt and punishment. To suggest, as
Pennington has done, that Innocent was more of a theologian than a
canonist implies a distinction with little force so early. While it is true that
the Bolognese canonist, Vincentius Hispanus (c. –), would identify
an opinion in Innocent’s decretal ‘ Litteras tuas ’ as that of Peter of
Corbeil, which he rejected as contrary to current canonistic doctrine,
theological and canonistic strands in Innocent’s thought can rarely be
separated so easily.$ The views on collective guilt and punishment
expressed in his decretals and theological writings, as will be shown, grew

problem of the inquisition ’, Church History xlvii (), –, repr. in his Popes, canonists
and texts …€–……€, Aldershot , no. . On Innocent ’s use of interdicts see E. B.
Krebhiel, The interdict : its history and operation with especial attention to the time of Innocent III,
Washington .
# K. Pennington, ‘ The legal education of Pope Innocent  ’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon
Law iv (), –, and ‘ Further thoughts on Pope Innocent ’s knowledge of law ’,
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fuW r Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung lxxii (), –.
Both are reprinted in his Popes, nos , .
$ Vincentius Hispanus on  Comp. .. v. in istis, BAV,  Vat. lat. , fo. va :
‘ Hec opinio est magistri P. de Corbolio, nec eam recipio ’. No works of Peter of Corbeil are
known to survive but quotations attributed to him, though none relevant to this article,
in writings of his contemporaries have been collected by E. Rathbone : ‘ Peter of Corbeil
in an English setting ’, in J. J. G. Alexander and M. T. Gibson (eds), Medieval learning and
literature : essays presented to Richard William Hunt, Oxford , –.
       
out of an interaction between the two. Since I have treated the canonistic
context of his rulings on this question elsewhere,% here I will concentrate
more on theological influences, in particular on Innocent’s use and
interpretation of Scripture in relation to collective guilt and punishment.
Indeed, we should not ignore the biblical citations and imagery in his
official correspondence, for these often find echoes in his sermons and
were, therefore, among his most personal contributions to letters drafted
by his chancery.
When twelfth-century theologians and canonists considered the
question of collective guilt and punishment, they spoke in terms of one
suffering for another’s sin. This is perfectly understandable given that
they believed that all humans inherited the sin of Adam. For this original
sin all humans suffered physical death, but, as St Augustine had taught,
if they had been baptised and remained in a state of grace at death, they
were safe in eternity. From this teaching Abelard and subsequent
theologians, including Peter the Chanter and Stephen Langton, drew the
conclusion that God punished sons for their fathers’ sins with a temporal
penalty, that is suffering confined to this life (which might include their
own death), but never by an eternal penalty, such as damnation.&
Canonists from at least the time of Rufinus, who wrote his Summa on
Gratian’s Decretum c. , also applied this distinction to human
ecclesiastical justice, arguing that excommunication as an eternal penalty
might not be imposed for another’s sin,' while one decretist writing in
c. – observed that a general interdict as a temporal penalty might
legitimately punish a community for another’s sin. Peter the Chanter also
expressed this view, arguing that the Church ‘ justly ’ imposed such a
sanction for a prince’s sin on his subjects and lands.( Innocent  cited this
theological argument, which had become part of canonistic discourse,
when he justified the disinheritance of orthodox sons of heretics imposed

% See P. D. Clarke, ‘ A question of collective guilt : popes, canonists and the interdict c.
–c.  ’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fuW r Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung lxxxv
(), –, and ‘ Punishment of the guiltless ’.
& A. Landgraf, ‘ Die Vererbung der Su$ nden der Eltern auf die Kinder nach der Lehre
des . Jahrhunderts ’, Gregorianum xxi (), –, esp. p. .
' Rufinus, Summa decretorum on C.  q. , ed. H. Singer, Paderborn , .
( Anonymous gloss on C.  q.  d.a.c.l v. Quod autem (inserted in Huguccio’s Summa on
the Decretum), BAV,  Vat. lat. , fo. rb : ‘ Pena duplex est, eterna et temporalis.
Ad eternam non imputatur alicuius peccatum alii. Ad temporalem id imputatur. Sed
temporalis alia est corporalis, alia est spiritualis. Corporalis pro peccato alterius alteri
infertur. … Spiritualis etiam quandoque infertur alteri pro altero ut apparet in filiis
sacerdotum adulterorum fornicatorum qui ab ordine repelluntur. Item pro peccato
alterius quandoque ciuitas tota interdicitur ’. Peter the Chanter on Ezek. xviii. , BN, 
lat. , fo. ra : ‘ Anima etc. morietur … Ecclesia quoque adhuc pro peccatis aliorum alios
punit, quia pro delicto principis excommunicat seruos eius et universam terram eius
terram eius. Sic pro peccato unius punitur iuste alius temporaliter sed non eternaliter.’
 . .      
by his decretal ‘ Vergentis ’ (Po. ) : ‘ in many instances, even according
to divine judgement, sons may suffer a temporal punishment because of
their fathers, and, according to canonical sanctions, retribution may be
inflicted not only on the authors of crimes but also on the offspring of the
condemned ’.
The biblical locus classicus on the question of sons suffering for the sins
of their parents was Exodus xx. , in which God warned Moses that he
would visit the sins of parents on their offspring down to the third and
fourth generations. It had long troubled theologians that, taken literally,
this passage appeared to contradict another divine teaching in Ezekiel
xviii, that each soul should suffer for its own sin, and therefore a son should
not bear the burden of his father’s wickedness. Likewise, God had
condemned the popular Hebrew saying that when fathers ate sour grapes,
their sons got the sour taste, since God taught that none should suffer for
another’s faults but each should be accountable for his own.) St
Augustine had attempted to resolve this apparent contradiction between
the models of divine justice presented in Exodus and Ezekiel by arguing
that the God of Exodus was not cruel but merciful since he postponed
judgement of sinners until the third and fourth generation of their
offspring in patient expectation of their repentance. This explanation was
familiar to twelfth-century canonists since Gratian had included it in the
Decretum under a quaestio on imputing a father’s crime to his son (C.  q.
).* Peter the Chanter elaborated on it in various glosses, observing that
the sinful father was more severely punished by seeing his offspring suffer
on his account since men were accustomed to live long enough to see their
offspring of the fourth generation, their great-grandchildren."! The
implication is that a father’s realisation that he was the cause of his son’s
affliction might induce him to repent. As we will see later, this
psychological motive for collective punishment is stated more clearly
elsewhere in the writings of the Chanter and of his pupils, Stephen

) Ezek. xviii.  ; Jer. xxxi. –.

* For a detailed discussion of C.  q.  see A. Winroth, ‘ The making of Gratian’s
Decretum ’, unpubl. PhD diss. Columbia , –.
"! Peter the Chanter on Ex. xx. , Eton College,   ; Arsenal,  , p. a. :
‘ Iniquitates patrum in filios usque in terciam et quartam generationem. Non solum de patre, cum
peccat, ultionem sumo, sed etiam in filium, nepotem et pronepotem uindictam temporalem
extendo, ut in illis etiam puniatur pater et auctor cladis uidens eos sic cruciari. Vsque ad
quartam generationem et non ultra dicit se punitura peccata patrum, quia usque ad has
generationes solent uiuere homines et posteritatem suam uidere.’ On Deut. v. , Eton Coll.,
  ; Arsenal  , p. a : ‘ Reddens iniquitatem patrum super filios … idest. temporaliter
puniens filios et nepotes propter peccata patrum, ut sic pater grauius puniatur in morbo
et flagello filii, eum uidens furiosum uel leprosum, ut de Achab legimus et Iehu uindictam
sumptam.’ On Ezek. xviii. , BN,  lat. , fo. va : ‘ Quid est vertitis parabolam in
proverbium …. Temporaliter autem sepe punit deus filios pro peccatis parentum, quia in hoc
ipso punitur pater, ut in leprosia filii. ’
       
Langton, himself a Paris theology master until , and Innocent , the
latter in a decretal excusing an interdict.
The repentance explanation was not, however, the dominant hypothesis
which twelfth-century theologians and canonists used to resolve the
contradiction. Following Peter the Lombard, most twelfth-century
theologians noted that God in Exodus was threatening to extend
punishment to the third and fourth generations ‘ of those who hated him ’,
that is to say those offspring who imitated the sins of their fathers and
thereby made them their own. Thus God was not punishing them for the
sins of others only but also for their own."" This was not only a
commonplace of theological debate, for Gratian had also introduced it
into canonistic discourse at C.  q. , where, after listing many examples
from the Old Testament of divine retribution falling on whole peoples for
their leaders’ wrongs, he concluded that these did not prove that any were
bound for the sins of others except ones who imitated their wickedness.
The Glossa ordinaria on the Bible, which attained its definitive form in
Innocent’s pontificate, spoke of those who took after their sinful forefathers
as hating God by some sort of hereditary evil. Peter the Chanter had also
spoken of evil as being transmitted genetically, observing that the evil of
tyrants lived on in sons who imitated them."# But elsewhere he explained
that God punished imitators of wickedness down to the fourth generation
since up until that generation they were accustomed to follow and not
forget their forefathers’ ‘ house ’, and he considered this especially true of
usurers."$ Stephen Langton subsequently put this argument more
"" Landgraf, ‘ Vererbung ’, –, –. See, for instance, a marginal note on Peter
the Chanter’s gloss on Ps cviii. , BL,  Royal .C.v, fo. rb : ‘ Nota quod numquam
aliquis in inferno punitur pro peccato alterius nisi illud per imitationem faciat suam ’ ; cf.
Stephen Langton, in a version of his gloss on Exodus xx. , Durham Cathedral, 
A.III., fo. ra : ‘ In filios …. Ergo non est mirum si deus temporaliter puniat filios non
tantum fpropterg peccata patrum sed et propter peccata propria, sicut quando filius
imitatur patrem in danda usura.’
"# Biblia Latina cum glossa ordinaria, Strassburg \, iii. , on Ezek. xviii.  : ‘ Quid
est quod inter vos …. Non enim puniuntur filii quia peccauerunt patres eorum, sed quia eis
similes quodam hereditario malo Deum oderunt ’ ; cf. Peter the Chanter on Deut. v. , Eton
Coll.,   ; Arsenal,  , p. a : ‘ His reddam qui oderunt me. Idest, qui quasi hereditate
impietate, quam imitando patres contraxerunt, Deum oderunt ’. On Ps cviii. , BAV, 
Ottob. lat. , fo. vb ; BL,  Royal .C.v, fo. rb : ‘ Iniquitas patrum eius redeat in
memoriam … tyrannus uiuit in filiis. Hoc de illo dicitur cuius tyrannidem filii imitantur.
Similiter quidam consuetudines introducunt quia patres et predecessores eas seruauerunt.
Similiter et predia et huiusmodi occupant et ita peccatum predecessorum reuixit in
talibus.’ Cf. also Stephen Langton, in a version of his gloss on Ex. xx. , Durham
Cathedral,  A.III. , fo. ra : ‘ In filios … non punit Deus filios quia patres
peccauerunt sed quia similes eis quodam hereditario malo Deum oderunt ’.
"$ Peter the Chanter on Ex. xx. , Eton Coll.,   ; Arsenal,  , p. a : ‘ In quartam
etc. Quia usque ad has generationes solent filii patrissare nec obliuisci domum patris ’.
(Stephen Langton quotes this argument in a version of his gloss on Ex. xx. , v, In terciam
et quartam generationem, Durham Cathedral,  A.III., fo. rb, defining ‘ domum patris ’
 . .      
explicitly, arguing that if a generation was calculated as fifteen years, then
a man living over seventy years might see his descendants of the fourth
generation, and they seeing their forefather would imitate him, which
they would not have done if they had not seen him, for men tend to
imitate what they see rather than what they have not seen."% In addition,
collective punishment might be justified in prevention of such imitation.
Peter the Chanter had thereby excused God’s destruction of the children
of the Sodomites in Genesis xix.  as merciful, because, if God had spared
them, they might have followed their parents’ example and suffered a fate
worse than death, namely to lose sight of God. Stephen Langton also
adopted this view on Genesis xix. , which blamed the parents not God
for the deaths of their children."&
Such arguments might well have influenced Innocent ’s canon aimed
at patrons who maltreated clerks of churches under their protection,
which excluded their heirs from the clergy down to third and fourth
generations (Conc. Later. IV c. ). However, these arguments were only
meant to justify divine punishments falling on a son for his father’s sin. As
Stephen Langton observed on Deuteronomy xxiv. , God had instructed
Moses to punish in a way different from his, namely sons were not to be
as that of the devil). Peter the Chanter on Deut. v. , Eton Coll.,   ; Arsenal,  , fo.
a : ‘ His reddam qui oderunt me … ideo dicit quia usque ad terciam et quartam
generationem sequentur posteri impietatem parentum, ut usurarii et huiusmodi ’. (cf.
Langton in n.  on usurers). On Ezek. xviiii. , BN,  lat. , fo. va : ‘ Quid est
vertitis parabolam in proverbium … ‘‘ usque in terciam et quartam generacionem ’’ dicit quia
pater tamdiu potest uiuere, ut uideat nepotes et prenepotes et abnepotes qui solent peccata
parentum imitari ’.
"% Stephen Langton on Ex. xx. , Trinity College, Oxford,  , fo. ra ; Durham
Cathedral,  A.I., fo. ra : ‘ Ego sum visitans …. Sed quare dicitur ‘‘ In terciam et
quartam generacionem ’’, cum in qualibet generacione puniatur imitator paterni flagicii ?
Solutio. Ideo dicit quia tamdiu solent patres uiuere. Prima, enim, generacio a xv annis
et supra et sic usque ad lxx annos sunt quatuor generaciones, et quod semper est uite
hominis labor et dolor. Et ideo hoc dixit quia filii uidentes patres eos pocius imitantur
quam si non uiderent. Quod enim uidemus pocius imitamur quam quod non uidemus.’
Another version ibid.  A.III., fo. ra : ‘ In terciam et quartam generationem … usque ad
has generationes solent antiquitus homines uiuere et posteritatem suam uidere, sicut
constabit si anni computentur. Homo, enim, in xva etate potest generare, quae etas, si per
v multiplicetur, erunt fere lxxx anni ’.
"& Peter the Chanter on Gen. xix. , Eton Coll.,   ; Arsenal,  , p. b : ‘ Et
habitatores urbium et cuncta terre virencia …. Infantes cum parentibus in sodomis cremati
sunt … et prouisum est illis ne diu uiuentes parentum exemplum sequerentur et sic seuius
punirentur. Parentes quoque tam pro eis quam pro se rei sunt. Mors enim filiorum est
parentum, ideo futuri sunt accusatores eorum …. Quomodo cum paruulis sodomorum
actum est misericorditer ? Sed pena ibi accipitur pro dampno. Nullum maius dampnum
est homini quam non uidere Deum ’. Stephen Langton makes the same points in his gloss
on Gen. xix.  v, parvuli pro peccatis parentum, Trin. Coll., Oxford,  , fo. rb, adding
that God’s anger condemns these children ‘ temporaliter ’, presumably sparing them the
eternal damnation which they would have endured, had they lived to follow their parents’
bad example.
       
killed for their fathers, nor fathers for their sons, but each should die for
his own sin. Likewise, he observed on the same teaching in  Kings xiv. 
that sons might be punished temporaliter by divine but not human
judgement."' Peter the Chanter, however, had remarked on the same
verse that, in his day, the sons of forgers and traitors were executed for
their fathers’ sin, and Pope Alexander  tolerated this where the sons had
consented to their fathers’ sin, although those not consenting were often
fined for a father’s sin. In another version of this gloss, he made the same
points about papal support for such penalties and consent as a factor in
a different way, observing that fines were often imposed down to the third
and fourth generations. For example, the pope had denied the sons of a
hanged forger their father’s property but not their mother’s where she had
not consented to her husband’s crime."( We will return to the idea of
consent to the sin of others as a justification for sharing in their
punishment, but let us see first how Innocent  continued these papal
practices modelled on divine justice.
Innocent , as we have said, introduced penalties which made a son
suffer for his father’s sins, and also carefully adapted theological arguments
to excuse them. For example, when he observed in his decretal ‘ Innotuit
nobis ’ ( ; Po. ) that canon law contradicted itself on the question
of excluding the illegitimate from clerical office, he resolved it by reference
to Scripture rather than canonistic sources. He noted that Christ was
descended from illegitimate forebears and that in Ezekiel xviii.  God
had taught that a son shall not bear the consequences of his father’s
wickedness and had thereby revoked the saying of the Israelites, that the
fathers ate the sour grapes but the sons get the sour taste. But he went on
to qualify this position, noting that some held that the illegitimate were

"' Langton on Deut. xxiv. , Trin Coll., Oxford,  , fo. ra ; Durham Cathedral,
 A.I., fo.  rb : ‘ Non occidentur patres pro filiis. Nota dominus dixit Moysi qualiter ipse
deberet punire. Dominus autem aliter punit et ita aliud est de hiis quos dominus punit et
aliud de hiis quos punit Moysis.’ On  Kings xiv. , Bodleian Library, Oxford, 
Rawlinson C. , fo. ra ; Peterhouse, Cambridge,   : ‘ sicut precepit dominus
Moysi in Deuteron. xxiiii c. Non morientur patres pro filiis etc. Sed contra in Iosue c. vii. (Jos.
vii. –) Achor lapidatus est cum filiis. Ecce pro peccato patris puniti sunt filii. Item in
exodo xx c. : ‘‘ Ego sum Deus tuus fortis, zelotes, uisitans iniquitates patrum in filios.’’
Solutio. Sententia diuina puniuntur filii pro patribus temporaliter sed non eternaliter, sed
sententia humana non puniuntur, ut supradictum est.’
"( Peter the Chanter on  Kings xiv. , Bodl. Lib.,  Bodley , fo. va : ‘ fNong
morientur pro patribus. Modo tamen filii falsariorum et reorum crimine lese maiestatis
plectuntur morte pro peccato patris. Papa tamen Alexander hoc noluit pati nisi peccato
patris consenserint. Pena pecuniaria etiam non consentientes sepe puniuntur pro peccato
patris.’ The other version is in Eton Coll.,   ; Arsenal,  , p. b : ‘ Non morientur
patres pro filiis etc. Pecunia tamen sepe puniuntur usque in terciam et quartam
generationem, uti a domino papa filiis cuiusdam suspensi et remf ? ? ?gsis non est restituta
patris hereditas, sed matris hereditatem que non consenserat marito habuerunt filii. Etiam
sepe pro facinore filii exulant.’
 . .      
to be banned from clerical offices if they imitated their fathers’
incontinence. Innocent added that this view was supported by the
authority of divine law in Exodus xx. , which verse he took to mean that
God would visit the sins of fathers on those of their descendants down to
the third and fourth generations who imitated this paternal hatred toward
God. In a later decretal ‘ Nisi cum pridem ’ ( ; Po. ), he cited this
same reading of Exodus xx.  in order to justify the dispensation of those
illegitimate sons in holy orders ‘ who did not follow paternal vices ’.
By invoking the imitation argument to justify sons suffering for their
fathers’ sins Innocent was following theological doctrine, but, as with his
reference in ‘ Vergentis ’ to the legitimacy of a temporal penalty imposed
on sons for their fathers’ sins, he was also stating a convention which was
accepted by canonistic tradition. A greater dependence on theology is
more evident in his treatment of how a community might suffer for its
leader’s sins, for, as we will see, the Chanter’s circle held more radical
views on this question than many Bolognese canonists. In his decretal
‘ Magne devotionis ’ ( ; Po. ), Innocent warned the bishop of Troyes
that if he neglected to fulfil his crusading vow, it might set a bad example
to his subjects, for as God said to Moses in Leviticus iv.  : ‘ If a priest, who
is anointed, should sin, he will cause his people to go astray.’ In various
sermons Innocent expanded on this theme of a prelate’s sin corrupting his
subjects. One which took the Leviticus passage as its text and entitled ‘ On
the consecration of a priest ’ observed that, if the head was sick, the whole
body would be weak and warned that bad priests might encourage
heretics to claim that they were unfit to administer the sacraments and
receive offerings and thus might turn people away from the Church. It
concluded by exhorting priests to live not only chastely, so as not to harm
the dignity of the priesthood, but cautiously, that is they should avoid sin
lest they corrupt others by their sinning. Another sermon, preached at the
Fourth Lateran Council (), expressed similar pastoral concern,
pointing out that the message of Leviticus was that the clergy were the
main cause of people falling into corruption, for when the laity saw them
committing vile and outrageous wrongs, they too fell into wickedness and
wrongdoing after their example, and if anyone reproached them, they
excused themselves with the words of John v.  : ‘ A son can only do what
he sees his father doing.’ The prophecy of Hosea iv.  would be fulfilled,
he warned, that the people would become like the priest, and many evils
would arise for them : loss of faith, growth of heresies and worse.") I have
found no treatment of this theme by canonists of the period, though it is,
in a sense, a variant on that of sons imitating their fathers’ bad example.
A more obvious source was twelfth-century theology, for Stephen
Langton, like Innocent, had interpreted Leviticus iv.  in terms of a priest

") PL ccxvii. –, , .

       
corrupting others by his sinful example, noting that the priest’s sin was so
apparent that it corrupted all, and he also concluded with the words of
Hosea that the people would end up like the priest. Peter the Chanter had
also discerned that not only a priest’s sins of commission could lead his
people astray but also his sins of omission, if he neglected to judge their
deeds, thereby provoking them to sin."* We will return in greater depth
to this idea of a Christian duty to correct the sins of others.
Innocent  and the late twelfth-century theologians had considered
that the sin not only of a prelate but also of a lay ruler might have
harmful consequences for his subjects. Their thinking on this question
helps us to understand the idea behind the general interdict, and indeed
is more illuminating in this regard than canonistic doctrine of the period.
Innocent  had tersely stated his view in his theological treatise ‘ De
miseria conditionis humane ’ of the s, observing that the guilt of a lord
brought the punishment of his serf, and he quoted approvingly the saying
of Horace that whatever wrongs kings commit, their subjects will suffer for
them.#! It is, therefore, unsurprising that Innocent made such frequent
use of the general interdict in his conflicts with secular rulers. One case of
interdict is particularly illustrative of Innocent ’s opinion that the
punishment of subjects for sins of their rulers was justified. In  he had
laid an interdict on the kingdom of Leo! n because its king refused to break
off his betrothal to his niece. Such a union between close relatives was
invalid under canon law without a papal dispensation which in this case
Innocent withheld despite the petition of three Spanish bishops. The
bishops had then petitioned for the removal of the interdict instead,
arguing that it had brought a three-fold danger for the kingdom, namely
from heretics, Saracens and discontented Catholics. In his decretal ‘ Etsi
necesse ’ ( ; Po. ), Innocent responded with a three-fold
justification of the sanction : it had been laid canonically ‘ ex animo,
ordine et causa ’, following right intention, procedure and cause. The
argument was canonistic, but when Innocent came to expand on the idea
of right cause, he cited an example from Scripture, God’s punishment of

"* Stephen Langton on Lev. iv. , Durham Cathedral,  A.I., fo. vb : ‘ Delinquere
faciens populum. per exemplum suum, quia componitur orbis reg. ad exemplum, unde
sacerdos per quodlibet peccatum alios corrumpit. Vel intellige hoc, quando peccatum
adeo est apertum quod omnes corrumpebat … unde dicit Osea. ‘‘ Erit populus sicut
sacerdos ’’, et dominus sicut seruus.’ Peter the Chanter on Lev. iv. , Arsenal,  ,
p. a ; BL,  Royal .C.viii, fo. va : ‘ peccaverit. in omittendo uel faciendo … negligens
aut peccans aut non iudicans populum peccare facit … eum ad peccandum
prouocans … quia sacerdos sicut populus et econtrario ’.
#! PL ccxvii.  : ‘ De miseria servorum et dominorum …. Culpa domini, serui pena : culpa
serui, domini preda : ‘‘ Quidquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achiui ’’ [Horace, Ep., i. , line
]. ’ In Horace, Epistulae, ed. J. Pre! aux, Paris , , it is noted that ‘ plectuntur ’ in this
proverb meant ‘ are punished ’ in the sense of ‘ to pay for ’, thereby emphasising the fact
that the people are not responsible for the wrongs which bring about their suffering.
 . .      
Israel for King David’s sin in counting its people. Innocent quoted King
David’s words of remorse in  Kings xxxiv.  : ‘ I am the one who has
sinned. I am the one who acted wrongly. Those who are sheep, what have
they done ? I beg you, O Lord, turn your wrath away from your people ? ’
Innocent was not prepared to relax the interdict completely until the king
of Leo! n satisfied his commands and, as his choice of quotation implied, the
sight of the king’s ‘ innocent ’ subjects suffering under the interdict for the
king’s wrong was meant to induce the king to repentant compliance.#"
Innocent’s use of this example was not coincidental, for Stephen Langton
had cited the same episode to justify the idea of punishing one for
another’s sin in a gloss on Exodus xx. . Moreover, Langton had
understood the purpose of this collective punishment in the same way as
Innocent did. In a gloss on the passage, he had noted a remark of Gregory
the Great that the wrath of God which struck the people of Israel
physically also prostrated David with grief. Langton expanded on this
point, observing that contrition was a punishment in itself, for David
suffered no other penalty but the contrition which he felt on seeing his
people die ; and contrition, according to twelfth-century doctrine on
penance, was prequisite for reconciliation.##
We have seen how the Chanter had given this psychological explanation
of punishing one through others in his gloss on Exodus xx. . In his gloss
on  Kings xxiv he too paraphrased Gregory the Great, who had explained
that the fates of peoples and rulers were so linked that life was often made
worse for a people through its ruler’s fault.#$ But the Chanter also offered
#" This letter was included in the Gesta Innocencii III (BAV,  Vat. lat. , fo. r ; PL
ccxiv, cols cv–cvi), but these passages were cut when it was edited by Petrus Benevantanus
for the collection of decretals from the first twelve years of Innocent’s pontificate, Compilatio
tertia, as  Comp. . . . In a sermon, Innocent interpreted the ‘ sheep ’ of  Kings xxiv
as ‘ innocents ’ (PL ccxvii. ) : ‘ Oues sunt innocentes, de quibus legitur ‘‘ Isti qui oues sunt,
quid fecerunt ? ’’. ’
## Stephen Langton on Ex. xx. , Trin. Coll., Oxford,  , fo. va ; Durham
Cathedral,  A.I., fo. ra : ‘ Ego sum visitans …. Nec est mirum cum etiam unus pro alio
puniatur, unde quia Dauid superbe numerauit populum, uindicta illa in populum
redundauit ’. Another version is in Durham Cathedral,  A.III., fo. ra : ‘ In filios ….
Temporaliter uero [Deus] punit frequenter proper peccata aliorum …. Item Dauid
numerauit populum et interfectus est populus qui tamen non deliquit, sed Dauid ’. On 
Kings xxiv. , Bodl. Lib.,  Rawlinson C. , fo. ra ; Peterhouse,  , fo. va : ‘ Et
addidit furor. Nota glosam Gregorii [see n. ] …. ‘‘ Ira enim que corporaliter populum
pertulit ipsum quoque dolore prostrauit.’’ Ex his uerbis glose uidetur quod contritio sit
pena quia Dauid non fuit punitus alia pena quam contritione quam habebat uidens
populum mori. ’ On contrition see P. Anciaux, La TheT ologie du sacrement de peT nitence au XIIe
sieZ cle, Gembloux–Louvain , –.
#$ Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob . xvi (PL lxxvi. – ; CCSL B, –).
The Chanter’s summary in his gloss on  Kings xxiv. , Bodl. Lib.,  Bodley , fo.
rb ; Arsenal  , p. b : ‘ Percutienti populum. Gregorious. Pro qualitatibus subditorum
disponuntur acta regentium, ut sepe pro malo gregis etiam uere boni delinquat uita
pastoris. Dauid enim deo teste laudatus, secretorum dei conscius, tumore repentine
       
another explanation for God’s punishment of Israel in  Kings. God, he
observed, had already taken revenge on David and his house for his killing
of Uriah but not yet on the people who either did not resist David or
consented to his acts of adultery and murder. Hence, argued the Chanter,
the people were punished both for David’s pride in counting their number
and their own sin since they had not resisted David when he killed Uriah
or had consented to his doing so. In one manuscript, a marginal note,
presumably of the Chanter, concluded that we ought to fear for ourselves
on account of the sins of prelates when we do not resist them. In another
version of this commentary he similarly remarked that a multitude of sub-
jects ought to restrain their prince from evil, when they can, lest they suffer
for his sin. He then quoted St Augustine’s well-known gloss on Psalm lxxxi.
, which blamed the Jews for allowing the crucifixion, because the Romans
would have feared holding Christ before such a multitude. Thus they had
had the power to restrain Christ’s killers from his death and thus free
themselves from consent to it.#% Similarly, the Chanter would later argue
in his Summa that if King David had been fearful of popular resistance to

elationis inflatus populum numerando peccauit, et populus penam suscepit, quia

secundum meritum plebium disponuntur corda rectorum …. Ira enim que corporaliter
populum percutit ipsum quoque dolore prostrauit. Ita enim iuncta sunt merita rectorum
et plebium, ut sepe ex culpa pastorum deterior fiat uita plebium, mutetur uita
pastorum … [continued in n. ].’
#% Peter the Chanter on  Kings xxiv., Bodl. Lib.,  Bodley , fo. r ; Eton Coll.,
  : ‘ Et addidit furor domini etc. Iam enim ultio facta fuerat in Dauid et domo eius pro
interfectione Vrie sed nondum in populo qui uel non resistit Dauid uel consentit adulterio
et homicidio Dauid … dixit rex …. Punitus est ergo populus pro superbia Dauid numerantis
populum … et pro peccato proprio quia non resistit Dauid interficienti Vriam uel quia ei
consensit.’ In the Bodley , a marginal note added : ‘ ergo timere debemus nobis pro
peccatis prelatorum cum eis non resistimus ’. Another expanded version of this gloss is in
Arsenal,  , p. b : ‘ Addidit furor domini. Iam enim ultio facta fuerat in Dauid et in
domo eius sed non in populo qui non resistit Dauid uel ei consensit. Ecce peccatum
principis redundat in subditos et quod multitudo, cum posset, debet principem cohibere a
malo. Vnde super Psalmum lxxxi uersum ‘‘ Eripite ’’ etc. Augustinus : ‘‘ Per hoc ostendit
nec illos immunes fuisse a tanto scelere qui permiserunt Christum principibus teneri, cum
pre multitudine timerentur, et liberare possent illos a facto, se a consensu ’’.’ Augustine’s
gloss on Ps. lxxxi. , quoted here, had been adopted by Peter Lombard (PL cxci. ) and
Gilbert of Poitiers (Queen’s College, Cambridge,  ) in their glosses on Ps. lxxxi. .
Likewise, Peter the Chanter on Ps. lxxxi. , BL,  Royal .C.V, fo. va : ‘ Et liberate
egenum de manu peccatoris. Pilati, scilicet, et maiorum Iudeorum potestate. ‘‘ Per hoc
ostenditur ’’, ut ait Augustinus [as above], plebem Iudeorum non esse immunem a morte
Christi. Cum pre multitudine timerentur, facultatem haberent resistendi. Ut enim ait
Augustinus : ‘‘ Qui non resistit, cum potest, consentit.’’ … Sed numquid plebs potuerit
liberare adductum Binnocentem\ patibulo a principe, cum summa rerum gerendarum
non sit penes populum ? Numquid nisi liberauit pro posse suo, peccabit ? Ita maiores et
minores dominum crucifexerunt.’ On further such discussion of Jewish responsibility for
Christ’s death see J. Watt, ‘ Parisian theologians and the Jews : Peter Lombard and Peter
Cantor ’, in P. Biller and B. Dobson, The medieval Church : universities, heresy and the religious life
(Studies in Church History, Subsidia xi, ), –.
 . .      
royal wrongs, he would not have had Uriah killed, and so the populace
was culpable. He also held that when a multitude was at fault because it
neglected to oppose sin, the fault attached to every member, for even if an
individual could not have freed Christ from death, he should have incited
others to do so even if this resulted in his own capture or betrayal.#& As the
Chanter had argued in his Verbum abbreviatum, the fact that the multitude
or its rulers allowed wrongs to be committed did not excuse individuals any
more than Pilate was released from blame for Christ’s death by washing
his hands. They were like Saul who stood by and held the cloaks of those
who stoned Stephen, whereby he consented to the martyr’s death.#'
Clearly the Chanter believed that the people had a duty to resist a bad
prince and that their capacity to resist came from their force of numbers,
and moreover their failure to do so implied consent to his sins and merited
punishment.
However, we should be careful not to infer from this that he was
thereby encouraging subjects to revolt against the injustices of their rulers.
As John W. Baldwin has pointed out, ‘ the Parisian theologians must in
the last analysis be seen as supporting Paul’s principle which made
political obedience a divine command ’. Indeed, Baldwin noted that the
Chanter in his Summa ‘ interpreted Augustine as blaming the Jews not for
failing to rebel against their superiors, but for urging the crucifixion which
might have been in their power to prevent. Peter concluded that the
people do not have the right of insurrection in such cases ’. Baldwin also
found that a quaestio of Stephen Langton considered that ‘ in one sense [the
Jews] were obligated to liberate [Christ] from the cross, but in practice ’
their resistance should be limited to persuasion of the powerful by prayers
#& Peter the Chanter, Summa de sacramentis et animae consilio, III a, ed. J.-A. Dugauquier
(Analecta Medievalia Namurcensia xvi, ),  : ‘ Nonne dicitur in libro Regum quod
populus Israel punitus est pro morte Vrie ? Ergo habuit culpam in morte Vrie …. Si enim
rex timeret populum tamquam resistentem iniuriis regiis, non ita fecisset Vriam occidi.’
Idem, Summa, III b, ed. J. A. Dugauquier (Analecta Medievalia Namurcensia xxi, ),
 : ‘ Sed iste, demonstrato uno de multitudine, qualiter est in culpa quod Christus non
est liberatus ? Nam forte paratus erat iuuare et Christum eripere, si uideret alios ad hoc
promptos, sed solus per se nichil poterat. Nunquid tenebatur submouere, prouocare omnes
alios ad hoc, qui forte non consentiunt, uel etiam antequam uerbum ad omnes perueniret,
caperetur a maioribus et potentibus et occideretur, uel etiam illi qui submouerentur ab isto
et nollent consentire ad hoc, detegerent eum et facerent ipsum capi. Nunquid iste
tenebatur tantum discrimen subire ? Non uidetur, quod si non iste, nec aliquis alius, quia
non est maior ratio de alio quam de isto.’ Dugauquier dated the composition of the Summa
to c. –.
#' Peter the Chanter, Verbum abbreviatum, PL ccv.  : ‘ Peccatum unius saepe redundant in
universitatem …. Qui autem per multitudinem uel prelatum excusari a peccato credunt,
similes sunt Pilato lauanti aqua manus suas.’ Idem, long version of the Verbum, BAV, Reg.
lat. , fo. ra (cf. PL ccv. ) : ‘ Qui excusant se ab occasione peccati prestita nisi
manu peccauerint, se reos non putantes … similes sunt Saulo consentienti in necem
prothomartyris Stephani, et eum in manibus omnium lapidantium seruando eorum uestes
lapidanti [Acts vii. –viii. ]. ’
       
and petitions.#( Indeed, when Langton, in his own treatment of  Kings
xxiv, noted the Chanter’s argument that the people ought to resist a king
when he does wrong as much as it can and that its failure to do so would
be a sin, he considered this gloss ‘ disputabilem ’, although citing Jerome
as its original source rather than contradicting the Chanter, his teacher,
directly.#)
If the Chanter’s opinions on popular resistance courted controversy in
the schools, his contemporaries, Stephen Langton and the compilers of the
Glossa ordinaria on the Bible, and even the Chanter himself, adopted
Gregory the Great’s carefully balanced judgement on civil obedience in
their glosses on  Kings xxiv. All noted Gregory’s point that a ruler could
only be judged by God but his subjects might humbly suggest that he
correct what displeases them, lest they come to scorn and not respect him
as they should.#* Langton and the Glossa ordinaria also included Gregory’s
warning that since the conduct of rulers was limited by law, subjects ought
to respect them even if they displeased. As Gregory had concluded, noted
the Glossa ordinaria, a subtle path of righteousness and humility was to be
followed, but in practice it was hardly easy to do so.$! One wonders how

#( J. W. Baldwin, Masters, princes and merchants : the social views of Peter the Chanter and his
circle, Princeton , i. –. I am grateful to Professor Baldwin for bringing to my
attention P. Buc, L’AmbiguıW teT du livre : prince, pouvoir et peuple dans les commentaires de la Bible
au moyen aV ge, Paris , which discusses many of the texts and questions raised here in a
wider scholastic context at pp. –, –.
#) Stephen Langton on  Kings xxiii. –xxiv, Peterhouse,  , fo. rb : ‘ Urias et
Echeus : fNotag glossam disputabilem Ieronimi que sic dicit …. ‘‘ Iam enim ultio domini
facta fuerat in Dauid et in domo eius sed non in populo, uel quia non resistit Dauid uel
feig consensit ’’. Simul glosam secundum illud Psalmi, ‘‘ Eripite pauperem et egenum ’’
etc., quando ergo rex delinquit, populus debet ei resistere in quantum potest, uel si non
facit peccat. ’ Ps. Jerome, Quaestiones Hebraice in libros Regum et Paralipomenon, PL xxiii.  :
‘ Et addidit furor Domini irasci contra Israel. Iam enim ultio facta fuerit in Dauid et in domum
eius. In populo uero, qui noluit resistere Dauid in perimendo Vria Etheo, necdum ultia
diuina facta fuerat ’.
#* The Chanter’s summary of Gregory’s gloss [continued from n. ] : ‘ Sed quia
rectores habent iudicem suum, non temere iudicent subditi uitam regentium. Per
semetipsum effudit dominus es nummulariorum et cathedras fuendentiumg euertit,
significans quia per magistros iudicat uitam plebium, per semetipsum facta
magistrorum …. Dum ergo salua fide res agitur, uirtutis est meritum quicquid prioris est
tolerare, debet tamen humiliter suggeri si forte valeat quod displicet emendare. Sepe autem
prelati in subditos et uiceuersa committunt, quia prelati subditos minus sapientes
arbitrantur, et subiecti rectorum facta iudicant, et si regnum tenere contingeret, se melius
agere putant … prelatis curandum est ne eorum corda festimationeg singularis sapientie
locus superior extollat, ita subditis prouidendum est ne sibi facta rectorum displiceant, ita
quod illos contempnant uel non uenerentur, sed semper humilitas conseruetur.’
$! Langton’s summary in his gloss on  Kings xxiv. , Bodl. Lib.,  Rawlinson C.,
fo. vb ; Peterhouse,  , fo. va : ‘ Si autem magistrorum uita iure reprehenditur,
oportet ut subditi eos etiam cum displicent uenerentur ’. Gl. ord., ii. , adds on  Kings
xxiv.  : ‘ Subtilis enim uia tenenda est rectitudinis et humilitatis, ut sic magistrorum facta
displiceant, ut subditorum mens a magisterii reuerentia non recedat.’
 . .      
the king of Leo! n’s subjects could have avoided an interdict if their power
to resist him was so constrained, in theory and practice, by subservience.
Impractical as the Chanter’s teaching on  Kings xxiv might seem to
us, his remarks on consent and resistance are highly pertinent to papal
thought on collective punishment. As noted earlier, he observed that Pope
Alexander  tolerated the punishment of the sons of forgers and traitors
who had consented to their fathers’ crimes. Innocent  subsequently
ruled in his decretal ‘ Nuper a nobis ’ ( ; Po. ) that those who
knowingly participated in a crime with an excommunicate incurred
excommunication too ‘ since, according to canonical sanctions, a like
penalty constrains the one doing [wrong] and the one consenting [to it] ’.
This expressed the Pauline teaching in Romans i.  that not only those
who did wrong ought to be punished but also those who consented to their
wrongdoing. This principle was not only well-known to biblical commen-
tators like the Chanter, it had also been incorporated in two canons in
the Decretum. It was a commonplace of late twelfth-century canonistic
discourse that anyone who consented to another’s sin made it their own
and thus was as deserving of punishment as the actual sinner.$" The
Chanter, however, applied this principle to a community long before the
canonists. The only one who had come close to doing so before the Chanter
was Rufinus and then obliquely in regard to a specific instance, for he had
argued that if a prelate alienated the revenues of his church with the con-
sent of its brethren, the church might suffer as a consequence.$# Further-
more, Innocent , writing c. , was probably the first canonist to state
that an organised community might be punished by an interdict where it
had approved wrongdoings of its rulers. Seventy years earlier the Chanter
had observed that a city was punished by an interdict for the sin of its
lord alone, and if it consented to his evil, it might be excommunicated.$$

$" C.  q.  c.  : ‘ quia facientem et consentientem par pena constringit.’ C.  q.  c.

 : ‘ par enim pena et agentes et consentientes comprehendit. ’ On canonistic debate about
this issue see Clarke, ‘ A question of collective guilt ’, , –.
$# Rufinus on C.  q.  v. Quod autem ea, que ecclesia debentur, ed. Singer, – : ‘ Sine
contradictione uerum est quod ea, que ecclesie debentur, rectores eiusdem sine iudice
uendicare non ualent. Si autem hoc fecerint, utrum eo ipso a causa sua cadat ecclesia,
merito queritur. Et quidem putamus referre, utrum consensu ecclesie inuasionem faciant,
an suo dumtaxat motu. Si enim sua tantum auctoritate … ecclesia non propterea cadet a
causa …. Si uero cum consensu ecclesie inuasionem fecerit, tunc cadet ecclesia a causa ’.
$$ Innocent , Apparatus super quinque libros decretalium, Venice , on X . .  v.
consiliarios : ‘ Fatemur tamen quod si rectores alicuius uniuersitatis uel alii aliquod
maleficium faciunt de mandato uniuersitatis totius uel tantae partis, quod inuitis aliis
maleficium fecerint, uel etiam sine mandato fecerint sed postea uniuersitas quod suo
nomine erat factum ratum habet : quod uniuersitas punietur spirituali pena suspensionis
et interdicti,  q.  Vxor et c. Miror [cc.  and ], supra de spon. Non est [X ..],
et etiam temporali puta pecuniaria, ff. quod met. cau. Metum §Animaduertendum, ff. de
ui. et ui. arma. Si ui [Dig. .. §  ; ..],  q.  Dominus [c. ].’ Peter the Chanter
       
Similarly, in –, Stephen Langton linked the question of consent to
the interdict in a letter to the English people on the eve of Innocent ’s
interdict on England.$% The interdict was threatened because of King
John’s refusal to admit Langton as the new archbishop of Canterbury,
and Langton therefore wrote his letter in exile to his compatriot flock.
Langton entreated them not to consent in any way to the persecution of
the English Church, for ‘ a like penalty constrains those doing and those
consenting ’. Reference to this principle was not the only parallel with
Innocent’s decretal ‘ Nuper a nobis ’, for just as consent was there defined
as giving counsel, favour or aid, so here Langton saw it as giving counsel,
protection or defence to wrongdoers. For him it also included those
rejoicing in or failing to prevent evil deeds ; we meet again the Chanter’s
idea that non-resistance to the sins of others merits punishment. Langton
reminded knights of their investiture by the Church and their duty to
defend her, but rather than armed resistance, he preferred that the
English persuade their king by counsel and exhortation and restrain their
friends and subjects from consent to evil. In effect, Langton was urging
the English to put the theological teachings on  Kings xxiv into practice.
The English were to remain obedient to their king, he cautioned, but to
struggle also for the justice of their Church, for if they did so, it would be
just as meritorious for them to lack divine services under the imminent
interdict as partake of them at a better time.
Whether Innocent  thought that a people deserved an interdict if it
consented to the sins of its rulers is uncertain, though Langton may have
been partly reflecting papal thought. In the decretal ‘ Etsi necesse ’, it is
said that since the people of Leo! n saw that they had fallen under the
on Matt. xiii. , BN,  lat. , fo. vb ; Merton College, Oxford,   : ‘ Ciuitas
tamen pro peccato domini ipsius tantum interdicto punitur, que si malicie eius consenserit
excommunicabitur ’. See also Clarke, ‘ A question of collective guilt ’, –, –.
$% Acta Stephani Langton Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, ed. K. Major (Canterbury and York
Society, Series L, ),  : ‘ Item obsecramus et rogamus in domino Ihesu ne quis uestrum
presenti persecutioni aliquo modo consentire presumat quoniam consentientes et agentes
par pena constringit. Consentientes autem intelligitur, quicumque male agentibus
consilium aut patrocinium aut defensionem aliquam inpertitur ; nec a consentiente
distinguitur qui congaudet, aut mala facta dissimulat, cum ea possit in toto uel in parte
rationabiliter impedire. Et quis uestrum est qui in aliquo prodesse non potest ? Quoniam
qui non possunt recta fronte principi obuiare, possunt tamen ipsum salubriter commonere,
et dissipare consilia malignantium, et diminuere maleficia, que non poterunt penitus
annullare, familiares, subditos et amicos a consensu nequitie modo quolibet
reuocando … . Hec est, filii dilectissimi salus uestra si inobedientie uel contumacie contra
deum et sanctam ecclesiam conseritis, penitete, et ut alii idem faciant, laborate. Quod si
labor vester fuerit inefficax set tamen fidelis secure et cum sana conscientia interdictum,
sive quamcunque penam sancta ecclesia statuerit, expectate ; scientes eque meritorum erit
uobis diuinis obsequiis carere pro iustitia matri uestre collugentes ut eisdem oportuno
tempore interesse ’. Langton’s phrase ‘ interdictum … expectate ’ suggests that he was
writing after Innocent  had first threatened the interdict on  Aug.  but before its
proclamation on  Mar. .
 . .      
interdict along with their prince, they might not have thought themselves
free from blame, to which they had consented by keeping silent, that is in
not speaking out against their king’s crime.$& However, since this is stated
in the context of the Spanish prelates’ request to lift the interdict, it was
perhaps suggested to Innocent by the prelates, rather than expressing his
own view.
When it came to resisting others’ wrongs, he expressed his opinion more
cogently. In the decretal ‘ Quante presumptionis ’ ( ; Po. ), he
extended the excommunication of those who physically attacked a clerk
to those who failed to defend the clerk, when able to do so, and thereby
supported the attacker, for ‘ catholic authority condemns those doing and
those consenting to be bound by a like penalty ’. It is true that the Decretum
included texts at D. which regarded failure to oppose another’s sin as
consent, but Gratian and some subsequent decretists insisted that such
texts were directed at prelates alone, while Innocent’s ruling applied to
all.$' Admittedly, other decretists, notably Rufinus (c. ) and his
contemporaries, Stephen of Tournai and Joannes Faventinus, had taught
that subjects were to oppose a prelate’s errors, and Huguccio (c. )
argued that everyone was responsible for opposing the sins of others.$(
Innocent ’s ruling epitomised Huguccio’s opinion, but it is just as likely
that it was inspired by the Chanter, whose views on resisting another’s sin
coincided remarkably with Huguccio’s, although there is no evidence that
the one was directly familiar with the teachings of the other.
Innocent’s ruling effectively implemented Christ’s teaching in Matthew
xviii.  that a Christian ought to correct a brother who sins against him.
Indeed, Innocent cited this text in one of his sermons to make the point

$& Die Register Papst Innozenz’ III. Pontifikatsjahre ‚ (‰‰–‚€€), ed. O. Hageneder, W.
Maleczek and A. A. Strnad, Rome–Vienna ,  : ‘ cessante predicatorum officio
populi etiam deuotio tepescebat ; quia cum se cum principe suo quoad interdictum eidem
uideret pene subiectum, a culpa, cui uel tacendo consenserat, forte se non credebat
immunem, propter quod minus circa debellationem Sarracenorum feruebat, ne decederet
in peccato ’.
$' For example, Joannes Teutonicus in his glossa ordinaria on the Decretum (c. ), at
D. c.  v. possis, BAV,  Vat. lat. , fo. ra ; ‘ Editio Romana ’ of the Decretum (Rome
), i.  : ‘ Ex officio, hoc enim intelligunt quidam de prelato, arg. xxiii. q. iiii. Ita
plane [C.  q.  c. ], sed h[uguccio] de quolibet, xxiiii. q. iiii. Tam sacerdotes [C. 
q.  c. ] ’. See also Clarke, ‘ A question of collective guilt ’, –, .
$( Rufinus on D.  d.a.c.  v. Providendum, ed. Singer,  : ‘ Item aliquando prelatus,
aliquando minor consentit ’. Stephanus Tornacensis, Summa on D.  c.  v. cui non resistitur,
ed. J. F. Schulte, Giessen , – : ‘ Nota quod … errori subditi a prelato resistendum
est … Subiectus autem … errori prelati resistere debet ’. Faventinus repeated their views at
D.  d.a.c.  v. Providendum and at D.  c.  v. rector, BAV, Borgh. lat. , fos ra and
vb. Huguccio on D.  c.  v. cum possis, BAV, Arch. S. Pietro C. , fo.  : ‘ In quantum
ex officio suscepto, et secundum hoc restringitur tantum circa prelatos. Ego autem credo
quod ad hanc correctionem teneantur omnes, ar. ii. q. vii. Quapropter, et v. q. v. Non uos,
et xxiiii. q. iii. Tam sacerdotes [C.  q.  c.  ; C.  q.  c.  ; C.  q.  c. ].’
       
that the just would suffer for their neighbours’ sins.$) Peter the Chanter
had commented on this text that he who sees his brother sin and says
nothing also sins himself. He recognised that some, notably the theologian
Peter Comestor, held that this message was directed only at prelates, but
he concluded with others, such as the canonists Rufinus and Joannes
Faventinus, that it was enjoined on all subjects with regard to superiors
and vice-versa. He admitted, however, that this duty might present
difficulties for Cistercians, whose vows of silence might prevent them from
denouncing others’ sins. He even wondered who would be the prosecutor,
witness or judge in the case of a sinful pope, and supposed that it would
be the Roman Church, presumably represented by the cardinals. If not
even the head of the Church on earth was beyond reproach in his view,
it is little wonder that he agreed that anyone who knew of a brother’s sin
and failed to correct him deserved harsh punishment.$* He restated this
view in his gloss on Romans i. , observing that to keep silent when one
can reproach another’s sin or to support it with praise was to consent to
it and, as his text taught, this merited punishment. He again noted that
this placed in great peril ‘ claustrales ’, who did not speak against or object
to their prelates’ wrongdoings.%! Indeed, in his Verbum abbreviatum he
condemned the ‘ wicked silence ’ of those who failed to chastise a
neighbour when they saw him doing evil, especially if they were prelates.
Furthermore, in his Summa the Chanter assembled many examples,

$) PL ccxvii.  : ‘ Peccata proximorum, frixoria sunt iustorum. De correptione oris

Dominus ait, ‘‘ Si peccauerit in te frater tuus, corripe eum inter te et ipsum solum. Si te
audierit, lucratus eris fratrem tuum ’’ [Matt. xviii. ].’
$* Peter the Chanter on Matt. xviii. , BN,  lat. , fo. vb ; Merton College,
Oxford,   : ‘ Attendite … Ita enim peccat qui peccantem uidens tacet …. Sed si peccaverit
etc. … Hoc capitulum ad solos prelatos dicunt quidam pertinere eo quod in antiquibus
codicibus invenitur : ‘‘ Respiciens dominus discipulos dixit ad Petrum, Si peccauerit, etc.’’
Alii econtra asserunt, ut Io[annes] Fa[ventinus] et Rufinus, eo quod vitio scandali
omnibus sit inhibita. Et ad hoc pertineat hoc capitulum, sicut etiam testatur Augustinus,
dicens, hoc precipi omnibus et paribus in pares, et maioribus in minores et minoribus in
maiores. Item Theodorus in penitentiali : ‘‘ Quicumque fratrem peccare uiderit nec
increpat non modica pena dignus est.’’ Huic opinioni consentimus. Sed obicitur : Quis
igitur domino papa peccante erit accusator, testis uel iudex ? Num ecclesia romana ? Si
dixeris quod pater noster est, nos uero filii, [dico :] Sed et ipse frater noster quia nos fratres
etiam christi. Item quomodo silentium clareuallensium hoc preceptum poterit obseruare,
qui tamen de uenialibus uisis accusauit nec autem de criminalibus. ’ In a marginal note in
the Oxford , the Chanter indicated that Comestor was one of those who restricted the
command of Matt. xviii.  to prelates : ‘ ita m[agister] p[etrus] mandu[cator] ’.
%! Peter the Chanter on Rom. i. , Bl,  Royal .C.v, fo. va : ‘ etiam qui consentiunt
fa[cientibus]. ‘‘ Consentire est tacere cum opera possis arguere, uel errorem adulando
fouere.’’ Ergo in maximo periculo sunt claustrales constituti, qui prelatis suis peruerse
agentibus non contradicunt et obiciunt cum possunt.’ A marginal note added : ‘ Consentire
est adulatione errorem fovere, uel tacere cum possis corrigere.’ This was a popular gloss of
Ambrose, used by Peter the Lombard (PL cxci. ) and later the Biblia Latina cum glossa
(iiii. ) at Rom. i. .
 . .      
biblical and contemporary, of non-resistance as a ‘ remote ’ kind of consent
to another’s sin, including the failure of any Christian to defend another
from injury when he could, which, in his view, was a crime and worthy of
accusation before God, and, as he also noted, ‘ those acting and those
consenting are to be punished by a like penalty ’.%" The parallels with
‘ Quante presumptionis ’ cannot be overstated. Indeed, speaking in the
Summa about those who attack clerks, the Chanter believed that one who
saw a clerk attacked and said nothing ‘ as if it pleased him ’ should incur
the same penalty of excommunication as the attacker, since silence meant
consent when one could have easily intervened. As he had argued in the
Verbum abbreviatum, the fact that everyone else allowed sin to happen was
no excuse, for every single person could, and ought to, resist and speak
against it.%# Stephen Langton, however, was more cautious. In his gloss on
Romans i. , he remarked that Christ’s commandment in Matthew xviii.
 seemed to apply to all, so that if one saw a king sin or someone entering
a brothel and said nothing, one consented and thus sinned. But, like
Gratian, Langton believed that the correction of others was a power
restricted to prelates by virtue of their office.%$ Perhaps he feared that the
duty of criticising faults that one saw in others could be used against the
Church and clergy by their enemies, especially heretics.
By introducing the Chanter’s radical views into canon law, Innocent 
was challenging canonistic tradition, as the reaction of canonists to
‘ Quante presumptionis ’ makes clear. Alanus Anglicus included it in his
decretal collection (c. ), and his gloss on it was probably the first to
%" Peter the Chanter, Verbum, PL ccv.  : ‘ Contra malam taciturnitatem maxime
praelatorum … . Tacetur etiam male ad increpandum proximum, si uideris iniquitatem
proximi, et eum non argueris.’ Summa, II, ed. J.-A. Dugauquier (Analecta Medievalia
Namurcensia vii, ), –, esp. p.  : ‘ Nonne similiter, cum unusquisque homo
legius Dei esse debeat, si quemcumque a lesione hominis Dei, cuiuscumque scilicet non
reuocat cum possit, accusatione apud Deum dignus habetur, et reus criminis tenetur ? ’
%# Idem, Summa, III a,  : ‘ Idem enim est tacere et consentire illo modo, cum ipsa
posset facillime impendire, ac si precepisset illum uerberari.’ Idem, long version of the
Verbum, BAV, Reg. lat. , fo. va–b : ‘ Quod peccatum unius redundat in uniuersos … . Totum
unusquisque qui potest debet resistere et contradicere uel impedire. Ille uero qui se excusat
et excipit a peccato multitudinis uel delicto et per multitudinem uel etiam per prelatum
se credit, similis est Pilato, qui immundam habens conscientiam manus suas lauit [cf. PL
ccv.  in n. ] ’.
%$ Stephen Langton on Peter Lombard’s gloss (see n. ) on Rom. i. , BN,  lat.
, fo. vb ; CUL,  Ii. . , fo. ra : ‘ Consentire est tacere cum possis arguere. Ex hoc
uidetur quod illud preceptum, ‘‘ Si peccauerit in te frater tuus, corripe eum inter te et
ipsum solum ’’ [Matt. xviii. ], ad omnes pertineat, et ita si uideo regem peccare et taceo,
consentio et ita pecco, et si uideo aliquem intrantem lupanar et taceo, pecco. Ista maiori
indigent inquisitione, sed quantum ad expediens dicimus quod hic dicitur de posse officii
esse intelligendum. Unde sensus est, consentire est tacere cum possis de officio arguere. Et hoc ad
solos pertinet prelatos. Tamen in glosa media dicitur cum possis corrigere et planum est.’
No authentic tradition of Langton on the gospels, and therefore on Matt. xviii. , has
survived.
       
treat Innocent’s ruling. Alanus recognised that it was implementing the
Christian principle of defending one’s neighbour but nevertheless was new
law contradicting the canon ‘ Si quatuor ’, which had deemed innocent
those witnessing but not collaborating in an attack.%% Under Innocent’s
new law, there were no longer any innocent bystanders. Johannes
Teutonicus, another canonist who glossed this law in his own collection,
Compilatio quarta, taught c.  that all were bound by this law but
admitted that some canonists limited the duty to defend others to judges
and other holders of power.%& Twenty years later Vincentius Hispanus
also found the terms of this law too controversial and, while admitting
that it applied to all, restricted its penalty to those having the power to
defend clerks, such as judges, lords and podesta' s.%'

We have seen how late twelfth-century canonists and theologians were

participants in a general debate on collective guilt and punishment
exchanging ideas and arguments, to such an extent that it becomes almost
impossible and even false to distinguish whether Innocent  thought
more as a jurist or a theologian on this issue. Occasionally, however, the
source of his thinking seems to be predominantly theological, especially in
his application of the Chanter’s teaching on resisting another’s sin, which
was controversial even among theologians and drew a reaction from early
thirteenth-century canonists. Innocent was attempting to ‘ theologise ’
canon law again in a period when canonists were increasingly drawing
their ideas from Roman law rather than theology ; and canonists sometimes
criticised Innocent’s legal rulings for contradicting Roman law, as in the
provision in his decretal ‘ Vergentis ’ for disinheriting orthodox sons of
%% Alanus on Alan. .. (‘ Quante presumptionis ’) v. possunt, Vercelli, Cathedral 
, fo. va : ‘ Comodum qualiter unus alium debeat defendere diximus, xxiii.q.iii.in prin.
et c. Non inferenda [C.  q.  c. ], ubi ergo tenetur defendere proximum in illo casu.
Si non defendat clericum, per interpretationem Innocencii incidit in canonem ut hic
dicitur, et est ius nouum, sed xxiii.q. ult. c. ult. [C.  q.  c.  ; i.e. the canon ‘ Si
quatuor ’] contra ar.’
%& Johannes Teutonicus on  Comp. .. v. interpretans, BAV,  Vat. lat. , fo.
rb : ‘ dicunt tamen quidam solos iudices uel qui habent potestatem aliquam ad istud
teneri, ut xxiiii. q. iiii. Forte [C.  q.  c. ]. Sed quicquid sit de defensione laicorum,
quilibet tenetur ad defensionem clerici, nam hoc ad ius publicum spectat, ut supra di. i.
Ius publicum [D.  c. ].’ Many canonists copied this gloss into their own commentaries
on this decretal, notably Goffredo di Trani (Nationalbibliothek, Vienna,  , fo.
va) and Vincentius Hispanus (see n. ).
%' Vincentius Hispanus on X .. v. interpretans (c. ), BN,  lat. , fo. va :
‘ [appended to Johannes’ gloss in n. ] … ego Vinc. distinguo fquodg scelus fquodg est
commissum vel committendum omnes tenentur obuiare, xxiiii. q. iii. Tam sacerdotes, xiii.
di. Nerui [C.  q.  c.  ; D.  c. ]. Non tamen omnes non impedientes eos qui uolunt
percutere clericos credo incidere in canonem, sed fsolumg illos qui consentiunt habentes
in loco auctoritatem et potestatem defendendi, ut potestates et officiales et iudices
locorum, uel domini super servos, uel patres super filios, uel uiri super uxores, uel
paterfamilias super familiam ’.
 . .      
heretics.%( And the Chanter’s views not only coloured Innocent’s relations
with the canonists but also with secular rulers. The Chanter’s claim that
subjects had a duty to resist the sins of their princes can be seen as a reaction
to the growth of royal government in late twelfth-century France and
England, which in common with many contemporary churchmen, not
least Thomas Becket, he saw as intruding on ecclesiastical liberties and
jurisdiction. Innocent used interdicts and other collective penalties to
combat these perceived intrusions, and the interdict was designed to turn
the people against a lay ruler who violated ecclesiastical liberties. After his
papal interdict was proclaimed on England, for example, the ecclesiastical
authorities allowed preaching to persuade people to take the Church’s
side against King John for debarring Langton from the see of
Canterbury.%) Admittedly, neither Innocent nor the Chanter questioned
the legitimacy of royal power or sanctioned civil disobedience. For
example, once John had accepted Langton and submitted to Innocent,
the pope backed the king against his rebellious barons and condemned
Magna Carta as damaging to royal rights. Nevertheless, the views of Peter
the Chanter and Innocent  on collective guilt and punishment were
designed to reinforce a sense of popular collective duty to the Church over
and above, though not necessarily in derogation of, that owed to secular
rulers.

%( See n. .
%) Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, ed. E. Marte' ne and U. Durand, Paris , i. – :
‘ Item conuocent capellani parrochianos suos singulis diebus Dominicis et precipuis
festiuitatibus ad crucem aliquam in uilla, uel in cimiterio, et predicent eis cum omni
dilgentia patientiam et obedientiam, quia Christus factus est obediens Patri etc. Et doceant
plus esse obediendum Deo, quam homini. Nolite timere eos qui potestatem occidendi
corpus etc. Facta autem predicatione, dicant sacerdotes preces deuotissime pro pace
Ecclesie, et pro domino rege, et Dominus Jesus Christus dirigat pedes eius in uiam salutis,
et det ei spiritum consilii ut que agenda sunt secundum Deum uideat et ad implenda que
uiderit conualescat.’ These words come from a document, the Forma interdicti, discovered
by its editors in a Mont St Michel manuscript and which Christopher Cheney
convincingly suggests ‘ may have emanated from one or all the bishop-executors [of this
interdict] ’ (‘ King John and the papal interdict ’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library xxxi
[], ). It expresses the fear of these prelates that the king’s power of physical
coercion (‘ occidendi corpus ’) would sway people more than the Church’s power of
spiritual coercion.