Bishops' Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe (Medieval Church Studies, 44) - Brepols Publishers (2021)

Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and
Networks in Medieval Europe

MEDIEVAL CHURCH STUDIES
Editorial Board under the auspices of the

Department of History, University of Nottingham
Ross Balzaretti, Peter Darby, Rob Lutton, Claire Taylor
Previously published volumes in this series are listed at the back of the book.
Volume 44
Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and
Networks in Medieval Europe
Edited by
Sarah E. Thomas
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
© 2021, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN: 978-2-503-57910-8
e-ISBN: 978-2-503-57911-5
DOI: 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.114823
ISSN: 1378-868X
e-ISSN: 2294-8449
Printed in the EU on acid-free paper
D/2021/0095/237
Contents
List of Illustrations vii
Acknowledgements ix
Introduction
SARAH E. THOMAS 1
Part I. Cohorts of Bishops

Understanding the Appeal of the Courtier Bishop in
Thirteenth-Century England
KATHERINE HARVEY 15
Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval

Portugal (1268–1289)
HERMÍNIA VASCONCELOS VILAR 37
Bishops, Nepotism, and Social Mobility in Central and

Northern Italy in the Fourteenth Century
STEFANO G. MAGNI 65
The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510: From Chapter’s Men

to King’s Men
CHRISTINE BARRALIS 85
vi Contents
Part II. Episcopal Networks

Premeditation and Determination on the Way to the Polish Episcopacy in the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
JACEK MACIEJEWSKI 107
Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile:

The Cathedral Chapter at Sigüenza (Fourteenth – Fifteenth Centuries)
AÍDA PORTILLA GONZÁLEZ 121
The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province:

Metropolitan Authority and Relations with their Suffragans
STEINAR IMSEN 153
Part III. Individual Bishops

The Scolari Family at the Head of the Bishopric of Volterra (1261–1269)
JACOPO PAGANELLI 179
Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324): A New Bishop for a
New Era in Salamanca
FERNANDO GUTIÉRREZ BAÑOS 199
Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval

Castile: The Bishop of Burgos, Luis de Acuña (1456–1495)
SUSANA GUIJARRO 223
Part IV. Bishops and the Papacy

Episcopal Appointments in Northern Italy during the
Papacy of John XXII
FABRIZIO PAGNONI 243
Episcopal Appointments and Careers of the

Archbishops of Split (1294–1426)
MIŠO PETROVIĆ 263
Between Uppsala and Rome: Swedish Bishops’ Contacts

with the Papal Curia in the Late Middle Ages
KIRSI SALONEN 289
Index 307
List of Illustrations
Diagrams
Diagram 6.1, p. 134. Mendoza’s Social Network.
Diagram 6.2, p. 136. Bernardino López de Carvajal’s Social Network.
Diagram 10.1, p. 228. Bishop Acuña’s kinship and patronage networks.
Figures
Figure 9.1, p. 200. ‘Tomb of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d. 1322–1324), Bishop of
Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, chapel of San Nicolás. c. 1330–1340
Figure 9.2, p. 204. ‘Seal of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d. 1322–24), Bishop of
Salamanca (impression dated 1322)’, España, Ministerio de Educación,
Cultura y Deporte, Archivo Histórico Nacional, SIGIL-SELLO, C.81, N.1.
Figure 9.3, p. 208. ‘House of Nuño Pérez de Monroy (d. 1326), Abbot of
Santander’, Plasencia (Cáceres).
Figure 9.4, p. 208. ‘Castle of the Monroy family’, Monroy (Cáceres).
Figure 9.5, p. 213. ‘Wall paintings of the tomb of Pedro Pérez de Monroy
(d. 1322–24), Bishop of Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, chapel of
San Nicolás.
Figure 9.6, p. 214. ‘Tomb ascribed to Diego Fernández (d. 1320–21), Bishop
of Lamego and Zamora and former Dean of Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old
Cathedral, south transept. c. 1310–1320.
viii list of Illustrations
Maps
Map 6.1, p. 124. Diocesan Hispanic Geography, 1250–1500.
Map 7.1, p. 155. The eleven dioceses of the Nidaros province consisted of c. 1900
parish churches in 1300, a minimum number, and forty-four monasteries.
Map 9.1, p. 206. The Iberian peninsula in the early fourteenth century, with
major places cited in the text.
Tables
Table 4.1, p. 91. Translations to and from the see of Meaux.
Table 4.2, p. 93. Appointments of the Bishops of Meaux.
Table 6.1, p. 140. Types of Appointment.
Table 6.2, p. 142. Interventions by the Bishops.
Table 6.3, p. 144. Joint Bishop and Chapter Intervention.
Table 6.4, p. 147. Bishops and Relatives in the Chapter.
Table 6.5, p. 148. Mendoza's Social Network: Ties of blood/Artificial Kinship.
Table 6.6, p. 148. Bernardino López de Carvajal's Social Network: Ties of

blood/Artificial Kinship.
Table 7.1, pp. 165–166. Appointments of bishops to Hólar, Skálholt,

Kirkjubøur, and Gardar c. 1230–1370.
Table 13.1, p. 293. The presence of the Swedish bishops at the papal Curia
during their appointment.
Acknowledgements
T
his collection of essays has its origins in the final conference of the AHRC
project ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern
Europe’. The conference, ‘Bishops’ Identities, Careers and Networks’,
held at the University of Aberdeen on 26 and 27 May 2017, brought together
twenty-six scholars to discuss bishops, their identities, careers, and networks.
We encountered bishops from as far afield as Iceland, Poland, the Iberian
peninsula and Italy and from both the early and later Middle Ages. The variety
and geographical and chronological range of papers prompted much vibrant
discussion and comparisons which we might not otherwise have considered. As
the majority of papers focused on later medieval bishops, we chose to restrict the
conference volume to these papers.
For the conference organization, I am indebted to Jill Barber who did much
of the administration including setting up the webpage for the conference and
organizing the payment. Professor Stefan Brink and his team of PhD students
— Michael Frost, Stefan Drechsler, Beñat Elortza Larrea, Deniz Cem Gülen,
Blake Middleton, and Keith Ruiter — ensured that the sessions ran smoothly
and essential supplies such as coffee and lunch arrived on time! Finally, I have to
thank all the conference speakers and attendees who made it so worthwhile.
The volume itself has been a pleasure to edit with contributors who, for the
most part, have kept to deadlines and willingly and patiently accepted editorial
changes. I have learnt so much about bishops from across Europe. It has been very
rewarding, not say revealing, to edit this geographically disparate group of papers
and to reflect on the parallels and differences between these bishops and those I
have been researching in Scotland and Norway.
Introduction
Sarah E. Thomas
B
ishops were powerful individuals who wielded significant spiritual,
economic, and political influence. To be a bishop was to be a leader
who might crown kings or foment rebellion. They were also players
on an increasingly international stage: the period of study, from 1250 to the
Reformation, saw the centralization of the Church under the papacy, and bishops
therefore faced more demands for their attendance in the Curia. From the early
fourteenth century onwards, candidates for bishoprics usually had to travel to
Rome or Avignon in order to be appointed. Yet, at the same time, national or
state structures were increasingly important with kings wanting to control who
became bishops. The very nature of the international Church meant that such
clerics travelled and had connections well beyond their home countries. That,
combined with university education, meant that bishops were key conduits for
the transfer of ideas. How men became bishops in the later Middle Ages was
the key question for the AHRC project ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’
Careers in Northern Europe’ which studied bishops’ identities, careers, and
networks in the British Isles, Scandinavia, and the North Atlantic.1 This volume
stems from the final project conference which sought to place the bishops
1
AHRC Project ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe’, grant
reference AH/K008307/1.
Sarah Thomas (sarahthomaseditorial@gmail.com) is an academic copy-editor and a

professional member of the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading. She was previously
a lecturer in Medieval History at the University of Hull and the PI of the AHRC project
‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe’. Her publications include
The Parish and the Chapel in Medieval Britain and Norway (Boydell, 2018).
Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe, ed. by Sarah E. Thomas, MCS 44
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), pp. 1–12
BREPOLS PUBLISHERS 10.1484/M.MCS-EB.5.120609
2 Sarah E. Thomas
studied in our project within the wider European context.2 The project and the
conference sought to identify which factors ensured that certain men rose to
senior ecclesiastical positions. Both asked what were these clerics’ familial, social,
and educational backgrounds. In studying their career paths, we considered
whether there were typical career paths to the episcopacy, for example through
diocesan or royal service. The chapters/conference papers here also explored
the significance to future bishops of royal, papal, and lordly patronage. Bishops’
social and familial backgrounds were also a topic for discussion, examining how
bishops such as William Turnbull of Dunkeld, and later Glasgow, were able to use
their familial connections to key patrons to secure promotion first to important
parochial benefices and latterly to episcopal success.
The essays included in this volume have been organized under four related
themes: the prosopography of cohorts of bishops, episcopal networks, the
biographies of specific individuals, and relations with the papacy. The thirteen
essays — covering bishops in England, Italy, France, Hungary-Croatia, the
North Atlantic, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden — enable the
reader to envisage the kinds of clerics who might be promoted to the episcopate
throughout Europe. The result is to gain different insights available from
different approaches while achieving geographical breadth and highlighting a
range of case studies.
The first approach to studying how clerics rose to episcopal power is
prosopographical, that is, to study both the identity and networks of a group
of individuals. Prosopography is not biography; biography is the study of the
life of a specific individual, whereas prosopography examines ‘the average, the
general and the “commonness” in the life histories of more or less large numbers
of individuals’.3 Through studying the social context of individuals’ families and
networks, prosopography allows us to assess whether an individual is typical or
unusual. Prosopography aims to establish both an individual’s identity and his
or her identity within a wider group or groups.4 The characteristics of the overall
cohort, clearly defined, are the primary focus of the analysis, not individuals.
Relevant criteria for analysis of late medieval bishops include family status,
nationality, local origin, educational attainment, and finally career paths. Using
these carefully defined criteria, we are able to analyse the careers of particular
groups of late medieval bishops in aggregate. Thus, by seeking many details of our
2
The final project conference, ‘Bishops’ Identities, Careers and Networks’, was held at the
University of Aberdeen on 26 and 27 May 2017.
3
Verboven, Carlier, and Dumolyn, ‘A Short Manual of the Art of Prosopography’, p. 37.
4
Magdalino, ‘Prosopography and Byzantine Identity’, p. 47.
Introduction 3
bishops’ families, training, and careers, we are able to analyse what is exceptional
and what was the norm.
Prosopography as a methodology is particularly suitable for relatively poorly
documented dioceses; Paul Magdalino argued that ‘prosopography is most useful
in the study of societies where the number of recorded individuals is relatively
modest, and where the records do not lend themselves to the construction of
major biographies’.5 Prosopography is reliant upon there being suitable sources
for answering a historian’s questions about individuals within a defined cohort.
However, because we study the individual within his or her context of a larger
group, it allows us to undertake analysis which might not otherwise be possible
because the levels of documentation concerning individuals within the group
may vary considerably.
Hitherto, the prosopographical study of cohorts of individuals has been fairly
limited for the medieval Church, though in recent years this has begun to change.
Dale Streeter’s doctoral study of French bishops in the first half of the fourteenth
century marked a new way of studying the identities of high-status clerics in late
medieval France, examining the identities, backgrounds, and career routes of
this select group of men.6 Whilst Streeter’s work is explicitly prosopographical,
studies of twelfth- and thirteenth-century bishops from England, Normandy, and
Greater Anjou examined not only the bishops themselves, but also the legal and
political process of their election.7 Katherine Harvey’s monograph on Episcopal
Appointments in England offered valuable insights into the make-up of the English
episcopal cohort in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. She identified
some key changes in the composition of the medieval English episcopate, in
particular the increase of royal servants ascending to the episcopacy after the
introduction of papal provisions.8 Further afield from England and France, among
other work the ‘Portuguese Clergy 1071–1325’ project produced an excellent
edited volume bringing together scholars from Portugal, Germany, Spain, France,
Hungary, the United Kingdom, and Poland.9 In contrast, prosopographical
research of high-status clerics in Scandinavia and the North Atlantic has until very
recently been extremely limited. The exceptions are Eldbjorg Haug’s examination
5
Magdalino, ‘Prosopography and Byzantine Identity’, p. 42.
6
Streeter, ‘The Bishops of France from 1305 to 1352’; Streeter, ‘The Pope’s Loyal
Franciscans’.
7
Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England; Peltzer, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest;
Ambler, Bishops in the Political Community of England.
8
Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 178–79.
9
Carreiras Eclesiásticas no Ocidente Cristão.
4 Sarah E. Thomas
of the activities of minor papal penitentiaries in Scandinavia and Michael Frost’s

PhD on the bishops of the North Atlantic dioceses.10
Cohorts of bishops are the particular focus of four articles in this volume.
Katherine Harvey studies a subset, English courtier bishops — that is, bishops
whose main role, prior to their ascension to the episcopate, was as royal servants.
The courtier bishop held considerable attraction, not only to the king, but
also within the cathedral chapter, and it is this appeal which Harvey examines.
Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar turns to discuss the Portuguese bishops who found
themselves caught between the Portuguese king and the papacy between 1266
and 1289. She argues that royal service became increasingly important for a
successful clerical career, making bishops more dependent upon the Portuguese
Crown. Stefano Magni argues that one strategy for a high-flying clerical career
was nepotism; in fourteenth-century central and northern Italy families like the
Rossi benefited from powerful relatives like Bishop Ugo Rossi. Finally, Christine
Barralis examines the origins, training, and careers of the bishops of Meaux. The
chapter of Meaux increasingly lost influence over the choice of bishop as the
power and influence of the French Crown grew. Royal service became one of the
key criteria for promotion to the bishopric of Meaux. It is clear that a key criterion
for an ascent to the episcopate in England, France, and Portugal was royal service.
Network history and social network analysis is arguably part and parcel, or
a natural extension, of prosopography: it looks at the ties between individuals.
This allows for examination of how senior clerics acted within the ecclesiastical
and secular arenas. Social network analysis has four key components: firstly,
individuals or actors are interdependent, not independent; secondly, the links
between actors allow the transfer of information, affection, or other resources;
thirdly, how these ties are structured may restrict or allow action; and finally,
economic, political, and social structures are circumscribed by the ties between
actors.11 Undertaking network analysis facilitates the evaluation of an individual’s
horizontal, that is, links at the same level, and vertical, either above or below,
connections. Historians can also seek to determine network densities and
typical contacts, ‘offering an insight into the social and political dynamics of a
specific society’.12 This methodology provides a means of analysing the common
connections, relationships, and interactions of individuals and/or groups.13
10
Haug, ‘Minor Papal Penitentiaries of Dacia’; Frost, ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’
Careers in Northern Europe’.
11
Wetherell, ‘Historical Social Network Analysis’, p. 126.
12
Verboven, Carlier, and Dumolyn, ‘A Short Manual of the Art of Prosopography’, p. 46.
13
Knappett, An Archaeology of Interactions, p. 57.
Introduction 5
Considering an individual’s friendship and patronage networks allows scholars

to understand their roles in wider society. The use of social network analysis by
medieval historians has been patchy; although there is strong interest in networks,
engagement with the theory and methodology has been less comprehensive.
Christine Carpenter’s 1994 article on ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval
England’ discussed social network analysis and used the terminology, but she
did not use the approach again and subsequent studies by other historians such
as Polden on the same topic also did not use network analysis.14 Friendship
networks in medieval Europe have been analysed using social network theory by
Julian Haseldine.15 The research potential and problems of using social network
analysis on datasets which may be incomplete is also discussed by Haseldine in an
unpublished position paper.16
Other subjects which have been deemed suitable for network analysis include
patterns of trade, migration, religious practices, and intellectual networks. For
example, Ysebaert demonstrated how Archbishop William of Champagne
used his personal contacts to advance the Capetian King Philip II Augustus’s
struggle against the Flemish counts.17 A number of historical projects with large-
scale prosopographical databases have been experimenting with social network
analysis; one example is Rachel Stone’s consideration of the possibility of social
network analysis on ‘The Making of Charlemagne’s Europe, 768–814’. ‘The
Transformation of Gaelic Scotland in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’
project used the ‘People of Medieval Scotland’ database to undertake social
network analysis on the intensity of social relationships. The scholars who
undertook this social network analysis were able to assess the density of individual
networks; they demonstrated that two bishops who on the face of it appear
quite similar — Bishop Andrew of Caithness (d. 1184) and Bishop Matthew
of Aberdeen (d. 1199) — had very different network densities. 18 Although
they were near contemporaries and appear quite similar, Bishop Matthew had
a much larger network compared with Bishop Andrew and Matthew’s network
was less dense since he witnessed a greater variety of charters, including royal,
ecclesiastical, and private documents. Hammond argues that ‘what Matthew’s
low density is pointing to here is that he had an importance which is not fully
14
Carpenter, ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval England’; Polden, ‘The Social Networks
of Buckinghamshire Gentry’.
15
Haseldine, ‘Friendship Networks in Medieval Europe’.
16
Haseldine, ‘Medieval Friendship and Social Networks’.
17
Ysebaert, ‘The Power of Personal Networks’, p. 181.
18
Hammond, Social Network Analysis and the People of Medieval Scotland, p. 501.
6 Sarah E. Thomas
captured by simply his titles and positions’.19 Social network analysis here is
therefore able to identify a potential broker in society and how such an individual
might therefore have acted between different sections or interests in society.
Family connections and personal networks are the focus of two contributions
to this book by Jacek Maciejewski and Aída Portilla González. In medieval Poland,
Maciejewski’s study shows that noble families used their familial connections
to support and prepare their relatives for promotion to the episcopate. Bishops
Bodzęta and Jan Doliwa both came from the Doliwa noble family; Jan Doliwa
owed his promotion to Bodzęta. The social networks of the bishop and
chapter of Sigüenza are the focus of González’s chapter. She argues, using social
network analysis, that Sigüenza’s chapter was composed of clerics who had close
connections to powerful men in medieval Castile such as Cardinals Mendoza and
Bernandino López de Carvajal. The final contribution to this section by Steinar
Imsen considers the ecclesiastical networks of the archbishops of Nidaros; he
demonstrates how contacts between the insular bishops and their metropolitan
diminished with only occasional visits to Norway by insular bishops after 1350.
The studies therefore bring out different ways of considering networks, and also
that there were varied patterns in how and which bishops were appointed.
An alternative approach to prosopographical studies of cohorts of bishops
and to network analysis is to study individual bishops in greater depth. This
biographical approach enables the detailed analysis of networks, backgrounds,
and contributions to political and ecclesiastical affairs. This is a form of historical
biography which allows the historian to place ‘the life and accomplishments
of individual actors within the larger forces of regional and global history’.20
Biography has frequently been dismissed as not history or at the very least
an inferior kind of history because it only studies one life and it is frequently
undertaken by non-academics whose work lacks the thoroughness of formally
trained historians.21 According to David Nasaw, a historian’s objective is not to
give a cradle-to-grave account of an individual, but to set that person ‘in the study
of the world outside that individual and to explore how the private informs the
public and vice versa’.22 Historians’ attitudes to biography began to change from
the 1970s onwards, marked by significant works such as Kathryn Kish Sklar’s
study Catharine Beecher: A Study in Domesticity (1973). Kish Sklar argued that
this was a study not merely of one individual, but of the mid-nineteenth century
19
Hammond, Social Network Analysis and the People of Medieval Scotland, p. 467.
20
Rotberg, ‘Biography and Historiography’, p. 320.
21
Banner, ‘Biography as History’, p. 580.
22
Nasaw, ‘Historians and Biography: Introduction’, p. 574.
Introduction 7
through the life of Catharine Beecher.23 In the 1970s, historical biographies

predominantly focused on women, though increasingly other groups too merited
similar attention.24 In the 1980s and 1990s historical biographies also linked
with another historical methodology, that of microhistories of communities,
families, or individuals. These had developed in Italy in the 1970s by Carlo
Ginzburg and Giovanni Levi and had a similar approach.25 Nonetheless, despite
the increasing popularity of biography as a methodology for historians, there
are those, such as Ian Kershaw, who argue that biography does not allow such
significant analysis. Kershaw assumes that the subjects of biographical history
will be prominent individuals, predominantly men, and that the biography can
shed light on their motivations, actions, and views, but not on the wider long-
term processes.26 Kershaw’s limiting of who can be the subject of a biography is
misguided and is based on his narrow definition of biography. For our subject
area and era, biography where the author uses the life of a specific individual to
demonstrate wider social patterns or to reveal the nature of their wider society is
highly relevant and often very revealing.
The papers in this volume by Paganelli, Gutiérrez Baños, and Guijarro
demonstrate how fruitful delving into one individual’s family, career, and actions
during their episcopate can be. In the first paper, Jacopo Paganelli examines how
Bishop Alberto Scolari and his family consolidated their power in the rural
lordship of Volterra in Tuscany in the mid-thirteenth century. He demonstrates
that Scolari deliberately strengthened his position by admitting members of
another powerful Ghibelline Florentine aristocratic family into his entourage
as well as including his own family members. The starting point for Fernando
Gutiérrez Baños’s chapter is an episcopal tomb in the chapel of San Nicolás in
the Old Cathedral of Salamanca in Spain which he convincingly identifies as that
of Bishop Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–24). He examines his family origins
and connections to the Castilian royal court and his ascent to the Salamancan
episcopal throne, in addition to his analysis of the iconography of the tomb.
We then move from fourteenth-century Salamanca north-east to Burgos in the
fifteenth century and the long-serving Bishop Luis de Acuña. Susana Guijarro
analyses how he attained his bishopric through his family, patronage, and
clientelism. He was actively involved in the politics of the Kingdom of Castile,
choosing sides according to his kinship and client ties. During his extended
23
Caine, Biography and History, p. 23.
24
25
26
8 Sarah E. Thomas
reign, he succeeded in placing clerics from his familial and client networks in
the cathedral chapter of Burgos. These three chapters successfully place these
individuals in their wider contexts; they demonstrate how important a cleric’s
personal networks were for advancement.
One key feature of the late medieval Church was the growth of papal power.
During the fourteenth century, the administration and organization of the
Church was centralized under the Avignonese popes. A change of particular
relevance to future bishops was the papal provision of bishops. Clement IV’s bull
Licet Ecclesiarum, of 1265, had laid out the principle that all bishoprics belonged
to the papacy, meaning that the pope might choose who to appoint when the
bishopric fell vacant, though in practice only those bishoprics which were vacant
because the incumbent had died at the Curia were reserved to the pope.27 By the
early fourteenth century, the system for papal provisions was nearly complete,
extending to almost all bishoprics.28 It did not mean that election by the chapter
ceased entirely or became invalid, but it reduced its significance. Andrew Barrell
has argued election now served to act as a guide to the pope as to who might be
appointed.29 That was not to say that the pope had to accept the bishop elect,
and there are certainly many cases where the pope appointed an alternative. The
historiography of papal provisions divides into two camps: the first, represented by
historians such as Guillaume Mollat, Bernard Guillemain, and Walter Ullmann,
interpreting the growth of papal provisions as the result of a determined effort to
expand papal power and increase financial gains, the second camp emphasizing
the importance of the supplicants to the papacy and increasing requests to the
papacy to intervene and award benefices.30 Based on this interpretation, the
expansion of the papal administration was partly in response to the demand for
their services.
Papal provision of bishops is covered in a number of papers in this volume:
for example, Christine Barralis highlights how closely connected many of the
bishops provided by the pope in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were
to the French Crown, and she argues that this was ‘a mark of favour from the
pope to the king’. The final three contributions consider the role of the papacy
in the appointment of bishops and the evidence for contact between faraway
bishops and the popes. These chapters by Pagnoni, Petrović, and Salonen
effectively consider what impact the growth of papal power had on bishops in
27
Barraclough, Papal Provisions, p. 9.
28
Smith, ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, p. 111.
29
Barrell, The Papacy, Scotland & Northern England, p. 192.
30
Smith, ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, pp. 114 and 115–17.
Introduction 9
northern Italy, Split, and Sweden respectively. Fabrizio Pagnoni argues that the
policies of Pope John XXII significantly changed the composition of the Italian
episcopate. A large group of bishops had undertaken some form of papal service
in roles ranging from chaplains to ambassadors for the Apostolic See. In contrast
to the comparative homogeneity of the Italian bishops, the archbishops of Split
studied by Mišo Petrović had varied backgrounds. Petrović suggests that whilst
the successful candidates for the archbishopric owed their appointment to
their connections to the papacy, this was not the result of a deliberate policy by
the popes, but rather a response to local communities’ and secular authorities’
requests. Similarly, Kirsi Salonen argues that papal involvement in the selection
of Swedish bishops in the second half of the fifteenth century was limited to the
confirmation of the election if the appropriate documentation was provided. The
Swedish bishops, Salonen demonstrates, were not obliged to travel to Rome for
their papal confirmation, but they were expected to visit the papal Curia every
three years. Many simply ignored this obligation or sent representatives on their
behalf. However, ignoring the papacy could trigger significant censure; Bishop
Kort Bitz of Turku had to petition for absolution and dispensation because he
had failed to keep to his oath that he would visit the Curia every three years.
Becoming a Bishop
The picture which has emerged of the types of men who became bishops in later
medieval Europe is a complex one, depending on the location and period. There
are some common features such as the increasing importance of royal service in
making an episcopal career more likely. From Portugal to England via France,
an astute career choice for an aspiring bishop was to serve the Crown in some
capacity. Cathedral chapters too, where they had a role in episcopal selection,
might not baulk at men who were likely to be experienced administrators who
would competently run the diocese. High-flying clerical careers could also be
achieved through family connections; for instance, nepotism in late medieval
northern Italy was a key factor for some episcopal promotions. In medieval
Poland, it was extremely difficult for non-nobles to gain bishoprics since noble
clerics used their familial connections to help them en route to the episcopate.
The use of family connections to aid episcopal promotion is also encountered
in late medieval Spain. In sum, becoming a bishop was realistically open to a
limited field of candidates, and the evidence suggests that social mobility via the
episcopate was restricted to some unusual individuals such as Bishop Jan Muscata
of Cracow. These conclusions from principally mainland European dioceses tally
10 Sarah E. Thomas
with our ongoing research on Scottish, North Atlantic, and Norwegian dioceses.
In the Scottish diocese of Dunkeld, access to the bishopric became primarily
restricted to clerics belonging to the lesser nobility — that is, the sons of untitled
nobles.31 One difference between the bishops of Dunkeld and their counterparts
in Meaux was royal service; apart from a small group in the mid-fifteenth
century, fewer Dunkeld bishops than those of Meaux had a background as royal
administrators.32 Like Meaux, higher education became increasingly important, so
much so that to become bishop a Master of Arts was the minimum required with
many bishops possessing additional qualifications in canon law and/or civil law.33
This volume uses four main approaches to throw fresh light on how senior
clerics became bishops in late medieval Europe. It shows the potential for further
research in this area and the possible advances to be made in order to understand
the patterns or difference displayed here in the various case studies and countries.
31
Thomas, ‘Well-Connected and Qualified Clerics?’, p. 114.
32
Thomas, ‘Well-Connected and Qualified Clerics?’, pp. 119–22.
33
Thomas, ‘Well-Connected and Qualified Clerics?’, p. 116.
Introduction 11
Works Cited
Ambler, S. T., Bishops in the Political Community of England, 1213–1272 (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2017)
Banner, Lois W., ‘Biography as History’, American Historical Review, 114.3 (2009), 579–86
Barraclough, Geoffrey, Papal Provisions: Aspects of Church History, Constitutional, Legal
and Administrative in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1935)
Barrell, Andrew D. M., The Papacy, Scotland & Northern England, 1342–1378
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)
Caine, Barbara, Biography and History (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010)
Carpenter, Christine, ‘Gentry and Community in Medieval England’, Journal of British
Studies, 33.4 (1994), 340–80
Carreiras Eclesiásticas no Ocidente Cristão (séc. xii–xiv) / Ecclesiastical Careers in Wes
tern Christianity (12th–14th c.) (Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa,
Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2007)
Frost, Michael, ‘A Prosopographical Study of Bishops’ Careers in Northern Europe,
c. 1230–c. 1470’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 2017)
Hammond, Matthew, with contributions by Cornell Jackson, Social Network Analysis and
the People of Medieval Scotland, 1093–1286 (Glasgow: University of Glasgow, 2017)
Harvey, Katherine, Episcopal Appointments in England, c. 1214–1344: From Episcopal
Election to Papal Provision (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014)
Haseldine, Julian, ‘Friendship Networks in Medieval Europe: New Models of a Political
Relationship’, AMITY: The Journal of Friendship Studies, 1 (2013), 69–88
—— , ‘Medieval Friendship and Social Networks: A Transaction-Based Approach’, position
paper, November 2014; available at <https://hull.academia.edu/JulianHaseldine>
[accessed 31 August 2018]
Haug, Eldbjørg, ‘Minor Papal Penitentiaries of Dacia, their Lives and Careers in Context
(1263–1408)’, Collegium Medievale, 21 (2008), 86–157
Knappett, Carl, An Archaeology of Interactions: Network Perspectives on Material Culture
and Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
Magdalino, Paul, ‘Prosopography and Byzantine Identity’, in Fifty Years of Prosopography:
The Later Roman Empire, Byzantium and Beyond, ed. by A. Cameron, Proceedings of
the British Academy, 118 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 41–56
Nasaw, David, ‘Historians and Biography: Introduction’, American Historical Review,
114.3 (2009), 573–78
Peltzer, Jörg, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest: Episcopal Elections in Normandy and
Greater Anjou, c. 1140–c. 1230 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
Polden, Anne, ‘The Social Networks of Buckinghamshire Gentry in the Thirteenth Cen-
tury’, Journal of Medieval History, 32.4 (2006), 371–94
Rotberg, Robert I., ‘Biography and Historiography: Mutual Evidentiary and Inter-
disciplinary Considerations’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 40.3 (2010), 305–24
Smith, Thomas W., ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, History
Compass, 13.3 (2015), 110–21
12 Sarah E. Thomas
Stone, Rachel, ‘Building a Charter Database 1: The Factoid Model and its Discontents’,
11 September 2014, The Making of Charlemagne’s Europe (blog), <http://www.
charlemagneseurope.ac.uk/blog/building-a-charter-database-1-the-factoid-model-
and-its-discontents> [accessed 17 June 2020]
Streeter, Dale, ‘The Bishops of France from 1305 to 1352: A Prosopographical Study’
(unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2002)
—— , ‘The Pope’s Loyal Franciscans: Fifteen French Bishops in the Early Fourteenth
Century’, Medieval Prosopography, 26 (2005), 183–96
Thomas, Sarah, ‘Well-Connected and Qualified Clerics? The Bishops of Dunkeld
and Sodor in the Fifteenth Century’, in The Fifteenth Century XV, ed. by L. Clark
(Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2017), pp. 109–24
Verboven, K., M. Carlier, and J. Dumolyn, ‘A Short Manual of the Art of Prosopography’,
in Prosopography Approaches and Applications, a Handbook, ed. by K. S. B. Keats-
Rohan (Oxford: Unit for Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, University of
Oxford, 2007), pp. 35–69
Wetherell, Charles, ‘Historical Social Network Analysis’, International Review of Social
History, 43.S6 (1998), 125–44
Ysebaert, Walter, ‘The Power of Personal Networks: Clerics as Political Actors in the
Conflict between Capetian France and the County of Flanders during the Last
Decade of the Twelfth Century’, in Aspects of Power and Authority in the Middle Ages,
ed. by Brenda Bolton and Christine Meek (Brepols: Turnhout, 2007), pp. 165–83
Part I
Cohorts of Bishops
Understanding the Appeal
of the Courtier Bishop in
Thirteenth-Century England
Katherine Harvey
I
n the early years of the thirteenth century, Gerald of Wales — cleric, former
courtier, prolific author, and would-be Bishop of St Davids — set down his
thoughts on the English bishops, a group of which he did not have a very
high opinion. The problem, he thought, was clear: the wrong sort of man was
being promoted to the episcopate, with far too many of the bishops originating
from the Exchequer. Indeed, he went so far as to claim that, ‘Qui bonus est hic
uectigalium accumulator, dignus est statim ut prelatus Anglicana in ecclesia
magnus habeatur’ (Whoever is good at being a tax collector immediately deserves
to be a great prelate in the English Church).1 In particular, he singled out for
criticism Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who encapsulated
everything that Gerald disliked about the contemporary episcopate:
Bonus uir ille scilicet Bangorensis electus vocatus fuit a claustro, ego a studio, et
archiepiscopus unde? A scaccario et quid scaccarium? Locus in Anglia publici
erarii, Londoniis scilicet tabula quasi quadrata, ubi fiscales census colliguntur
et computantur. Ab hoc studio, ab hoc gignasio, in quo iam senuit, ad omnes
dignitatum suarum gradus, sicut omnes fere Anglicani episcopi, uocatus fuit.2
1
Giraldi Cambrensis, De Invectionibus, ed. by Davies, p. 114.
2
Giraldi Cambrensis, De Invectionibus, ed. by Davies, p. 97.
Katherine Harvey (k.harvey@bbk.ac.uk) is a research fellow at Birkbeck, University of

London. Her publications include Episcopal Appointments in England, c. 1214–1344 (Ashgate,
2014), and she is currently writing a book on the episcopal body for Oxford University Press.
16 Katherine Harvey
[That good man, the Bishop elect of Bangor, was called from the cloister, I from
the schools, and whence came the archbishop? From the Exchequer. And what is
the Exchequer? It is the place of the public treasury in England, namely a square
table in London, where taxes are collected and counted. This was the study, this
was the gymnasium, in which the archbishop grew old, this was the training from
which he was summoned to all the ranks of promotion in the Church, like all the
English bishops.]
Given such unsatisfactory training, it was, Gerald suggested, unsurprising that

Hubert turned out to be a deeply unsatisfactory archbishop, more interested in
royal service than in his ecclesiastical duties, and unable even to listen to a sermon
without making himself the butt of his better-educated clerks’ jokes.3
Gerald’s hostility to courtier bishops was undoubtedly shaped by his own
experiences: he desperately wanted to be a bishop, and was elected Bishop
of St Davids in 1199, only to be thwarted in his ambitions by none other
than Hubert Walter.4 Nevertheless, his views were not atypical of the time,
and several other thirteenth-century clergymen expressed similar opinions.
Stephen Langton, who succeeded Hubert Walter as Archbishop of Canterbury,
complained about bishops who were elected not according to the will of the Holy
Spirit, but according to the ‘spirit of the Exchequer in London’.5 Simon Langton,
Archdeacon of Canterbury, argued against the postulation of Ralph Neville to
that see in 1231, on the grounds that ‘illum curialem esse et illiteratum’ (he is
a courtier and illiterate); it seems that, in Langton’s vocabulary, ‘courtier’ was
as much a term of abuse as ‘illiterate’.6 Similarly, Robert Grosseteste objected to
Robert Passelewe’s election as Bishop of Chichester because of the latter’s role
in organizing and leading the notoriously oppressive forest eyre of 1244–45.7
Even the king was not beyond using royal service as the basis for opposition to
a would-be bishop: when the long-serving royal justice William Raleigh was
postulated to Winchester against royal wishes in 1240, Henry III claimed that
his erstwhile favourite had ‘multo plures lingua quam alius gladio trucidavit’
(killed more men with his tongue than anyone else with his sword).8
3
Giraldi Cambrensis, De Invectionibus, ed. by Davies, pp. 101–02. For a more sympathetic
overview of Hubert’s career and character, see Cheney, From Becket to Langton, pp. 32–41.
4
Bartlett, ‘Gerald of Wales’.
5
Sabapathy, Officers and Accountability in Medieval England, p. 93.
6
Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iii, 207.
7
Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iv, 400–401.
8
Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iii, 494.
understanding the appeal of the courtier bishop 17
Contemporary cynicism about courtier bishops has been shared by most

modern historians of thirteenth-century episcopal elections, who have typically
assumed that such men would not have been elected ‘by the better judgement
and free choice of their respective cathedral chapters’.9 This assumption is
underpinned by truth: both Henry III and Edward I worked hard to secure
bishoprics for their favoured candidates, using all the tools at their disposal
to persuade cathedral chapters to elect the right man, and appealing to Rome
when their wishes were thwarted. Royal candidates were almost always courtiers,
and men such as Peter Aigueblanche, Aymer de Lusignan, and Robert Burnell
undoubtedly owed their bishoprics to the Crown. Moreover, there were some
spectacular electoral disputes during the course of the thirteenth century, which
have led both medieval chroniclers and modern scholars to conclude that there
was a clear Church/State divide in approaches to episcopal appointments, with
the king promoting royal servants regardless of suitability, and the Church
desperately trying to secure bishoprics for more deserving holy men.10
But to focus on these disputes is to mispresent the broader history of
episcopal elections in thirteenth-century England, and to underplay the power
of the cathedral chapter in the decades after the Freedom of Election charter
(1214) enshrined its rights in English law, ushering in a golden age of relative
electoral freedom.11 Of course, even in a free election a chapter might be swayed
by the views of others, or decide to elect a candidate who they believed would be
acceptable to the Crown, hoping to avoid trouble. Nevertheless, throughout the
thirteenth century, and especially during the reign of Edward I, the majority of
elections were held without uncanonical royal involvement. Moreover, the fact
that electoral disputes happened demonstrates that electors were not afraid to
defy royal wishes. Ultimately, the vast majority of the bishops appointed during
the thirteenth century were chosen by cathedral chapters — including the
majority of the courtier bishops.
9
Gibbs and Lang, Bishops and Reform, p. 88. For studies of thirteenth-century episcopal
elections which broadly follow this argument, see Sweet, ‘The Control of Episcopal Elections
in the Thirteenth Century’; Gibbs and Lang, Bishops and Reform, pp. 53–93; Powicke, King
Henry III and the Lord Edward, i, 259–89; Scotney, ‘An Examination of the Theory and Practice
of Appointments to Bishoprics’; Evers, ‘Disputes about Episcopal Elections in the Reign of
Henry III’. For my own take on the subject, which aims to present a more nuanced approach, see
10
Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 76–99, examines the role of the king
between 1216 and 1307, and considers the major electoral disputes of this period.
11
For the text of the charter, see Councils and Synods, ed. by Powicke and Cheney, ii.1,
40–41, and for discussion Harvey, ‘The Freedom of Election Charter’.
18 Katherine Harvey
Many previous interpretations of medieval ecclesiastical elections have

assumed that the motivations of cathedral chapters were somehow purer than
those of the king. In reality, their concerns were often equally pragmatic. Just
as the king sought the promotion of candidates who would be useful to the
Crown, so cathedral chapters favoured bishops who had something to offer
them. Throughout the period under consideration, courtier bishops were elected
in large numbers; they formed the largest single group within the episcopate
throughout Henry III’s reign, and for much of Edward I’s, losing their dominant
position only briefly in the early years of the fourteenth century.12 If we accept
that cathedral chapters had significant control over the outcome of elections,
then we also have to accept that cathedral chapters often chose to elect courtier
bishops, rather than merely having them thrust upon them by the king. Despite
the rhetoric of commentators such as Gerald of Wales, and the (justified)
criticisms made of some individuals, it seems that that the courtier bishop had a
certain appeal in the thirteenth century, and not just to the king.
* * *
Gerald of Wales’s criticisms of courtier bishops emphasized their lack of training
for the job: they were, he implied, good at counting, but not much else. Yet in
his denigration of such bureaucratic skills, Gerald was out of step with his time.
By the early thirteenth century, the English Church was a vast institution, its
activities enabled by a huge number of administrators and a rapidly growing
bureaucracy, and there can be little doubt that the role of the bishop underwent
a significant process of change during the course of the twelfth century.13 Writing
around the year 1120, Eadmer could celebrate St Anselm’s lack of interest in
business and worldly affairs: his sanctity rested largely on his spirituality and his
longing to return to the cloister.14 By 1200, things had changed, such that even
a saint-bishop such as Hugh of Lincoln needed to be portrayed as an effective
diocesan administrator and as a provider of ecclesiastical justice.15
The effects of this transition were felt across Europe, but England’s large and
wealthy dioceses had a particular need for bishops with a flair for administration,
bureaucracy, and management: being Bishop of Durham was a very different task
12
13
Cheney, From Becket to Langton is the classic account of this process. The growth of
episcopal bureaucracy is perhaps best understood through the volumes of the English Episcopal
Acta.
14
Eadmer, The Life of St Anselm, ed. and trans. by Southern, especially pp. 45–46, 69–71,
80–81 for references to his hatred of business.
15
Byrne, ‘Legal Learning and Saintly Authority in Thirteenth-Century Hagiography’.
to being bishop of a much smaller French or Italian diocese, or of a much poorer

Scottish see.16 Moreover, the responsibilities of an English bishop extended beyond
his diocese: he was expected to be an active participant in national affairs, advising
the king, attending Parliament, engaging in diplomacy, playing a role in justice and
local government, even concerning himself with military matters. Some bishops
held major royal office even after their appointment to a bishopric.17 Not for
nothing did the royal licence to elect state that the electors should choose a bishop
who would be ‘useful to the king and the kingdom’.18 Being an English bishop in
this period was about much more than spirituality, and it took a very skilled and
experienced man to exercise this amount of power and responsibility effectively.
The need for practical skills was increasingly recognized by canon law and in
theoretical tracts on the conduct of elections. Arguably, the germ of the idea was
to be found in the Apostolic Rule, which stated that a bishop must be ‘One that
rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity — for
if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of
the church of God?’19 By the twelfth century, this vague sense of the necessity of
leadership skills had developed into a firm requirement that a would-be bishop
be capable of running a diocese. Thus Gratian’s requirements included ‘a sense
of responsibility for his affairs’, which Rufinus (in his summary of Gratian)
interpreted as meaning that the bishop must have enough experience of secular
business to enable him to administer his diocese properly. Stephen of Tournai
and Bernard of Pavia both agreed that a bishop’s scientia must include experience
in administrative matters, whilst Huguccio demanded a good knowledge of both
canon and secular law.20 Such sentiments were echoed in the writings of English
bishops. Robert Grosseteste once quoted Bernard of Clairvaux’s long list of
desirable episcopal qualities in a letter to Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester,
including the requirement that he be ‘upright in judgment, farsighted in counsel,
discreet in commands, assiduous in organization, energetic in action’.21
16
Bouchard, Spirituality and Administration, especially pp. 135–44; Graham-Leigh,
‘Hirelings and Shepherds’, pp. 1097–98; Ott, Bishops, Authority and Community, pp. 31–32;
Sabapathy, Officers and Accountability in Medieval England, pp. 155–56. For a comparison
between English and Italian bishops, see Brentano, Two Churches, pp. 174–237.
17
Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, p. 1.
18
Records of Antony Bek, ed. by Fraser, p. 181.
19
i Timothy 3. 4–5. For the importance of the Apostolic Rule in the later Middle Ages, see
Weiler, ‘The Requirements of the Pastor Bonus in the Late Middle Ages’.
20
Peltzer, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest, pp. 48–50.
21
The Letters of Robert Grosseteste, trans. by Mantello and Goering, p. 215.
20 Katherine Harvey
In practical terms, the value placed on administrative experience is reflected in

the make-up of the English episcopate: virtually every bishop of this period had
previously held a high-ranking position in either royal or ecclesiastical service,
which demanded significant involvement in worldly affairs.22 The term ‘courtier
bishop’ is an ill-defined one, often used loosely to refer to any man with royal
connections who was promoted to the episcopate — which leads to assumptions
that the primary quality of the courtier bishop was his personal relationship
with the king. In reality, though, with the exception of a very small number of
royal kinsmen, and one anomalous physician (Nicholas Farnham, who became
Bishop of Durham in 1241), courtiers who became bishops were almost always
men with a strong track-record of administrative excellence: royal chancellors,
senior officials of the Exchequer or the Wardrobe, and royal justices. This pattern
is mirrored when we consider the identities of bishops whose backgrounds were
primarily ecclesiastical. When chapters elected churchmen, they favoured senior
office holders, especially archdeacons and deans.23 On the much rarer occasions
when a member of the religious orders was elected, he was almost always a senior
figure in his order: the prior of a cathedral priory, the abbot of another major
religious house, or the provincial of an order of friars. It is hard to escape the
conclusion that the cathedral chapters shared the widespread contemporary
scepticism about the suitability of monk-bishops and wanted their bishops to
have some experience of the world.24
Besides the benefits of administrative skill, there was a strong case to be
made for bishops who had experience of royal service, and even for bishops who
continued in royal service after their election. Such bishops were inevitably the
focus of sharp criticism, such as Gerald of Wales’s claims that ‘they are fishers
of money more than fishers of men’.25 Yet, alongside such condemnation, there
existed a school of thought which suggested that clerical service to the Crown
was valuable, and perhaps even necessary. In his Dialogus de Scaccario, Richard
Fitz Neal (a royal administrator and Bishop of London) argued:
22
My analysis of episcopal origins is based chiefly on the tables found in the appendix to
Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England.
23
Ott, Bishops, Authority and Community, pp. 31–32, makes a similar observation about the
archdiocese of Reims. Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages, pp. 137–48,
outlines the duties of the dean, and pp. 243–50 the role of the archdeacon.
24
25
Gerald of Wales, The Jewel of the Church, trans. by Hagen, p. 228.
Ordinatis a deo potestatibus in omni timore subici simul et ocsequi necesse est.
Omnis enim potestas a domino deo est. Non ergo uidetur absurdum uel a uiris
ecclesiasticus alienum regibus quasi precellentibus et ceteris potestatibus seruiendo
sua iura seruare, presertim in his que ueritati uel honestati non obuiant.
[With all due reverence, we must subject ourselves and give obedience to the powers
ordained by God, for all power comes from the Lord God. Therefore, it is perfectly
proper and even suitable for clerics to serve kings, who surpass all others, and also
other secular authorities, and to safeguard their rights, especially in matters which
are not dishonest or dishonourable.]26
Peter of Blois, Archdeacon of Bath, was not an uncritical commentator on the

Angevin court: he once wrote that ‘the courtier’s life is the death of the soul […] it
is damnable in a cleric to mix in courtly or worldly affairs’. But he also argued that
courtiers ‘frequently accomplish works of salvation’. He continued:
I confess it is a holy thing to assist our lord the king: for he is holy and is the Lord’s
anointed […] it is not only laudable but glorious to assist our lord the king, to
administer the State, to be unmindful of oneself, wholly dedicated to all mankind.
The ruler’s divine qualities, and the potential benefits to society, made it incumbent
upon the cleric to serve the king.27 Besides, such service was not only of benefit to
the king, for the medieval acceptance of royal intervention in ecclesiastical affairs
was matched by an expectation that the Church would involve itself in affairs of
state. Bishops who served as chancellors are usually assumed to be royal creatures,
motivated by a desire for power and patronage, and undoubtedly this was sometimes
the case. But such activities could also work to the benefit of the Church, helping
it to achieve its (and implicitly God’s) work. Peter of Blois’s ideal bishop was a
man who was willing to intervene in secular government; indeed, he argued that a
bishop who left the court completely did a disservice to his flock. Rather, he should
use his wisdom and compassion to attack unjust laws and to restrain bad kings.28
Electing a bishop with strong royal connections could thus be a pragmatic act,
designed to enhance the Church’s influence over secular government.29 According
26
Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. and trans. by Church and Amt, pp. 2–3.
27
Dronke, ‘Peter of Blois and Poetry at the Court of Henry II’, pp. 194–96; see also Cotts,
The Clerical Dilemma, p. 156.
28
Cotts, The Clerical Dilemma, p. 212.
29
For a case study of such capitular pragmatism, see Hoskin, ‘Diocesan Politics in the See of
Worcester’, which demonstrates how the difficult relationship between Bishop William of Blois
and the Worcester monks paved the way for their acceptance of his successor, Walter Cantilupe,
despite the latter’s non-monastic background and strong links to the Crown.
22 Katherine Harvey
to Herbert of Bosham, some of those who elected Thomas Becket as Archbishop

of Canterbury hoped that he would serve as ‘gratioso inter regnum et sacerdotium
mediatore’ (an obliging mediator between the king and the priesthood).30 If all
went well, a curial bishop (whether he resigned his secular roles or continued in
royal service) could serve as a useful hinge between Church and state, bringing
benefits to both parties.31 If things went wrong, a courtier bishop — wealthy,
powerful, and well-connected — was well placed to stand up to the king, in a way
which the English seem to have particularly expected and admired.32 Contrary to
what we might assume, relatively few courtier bishops were merely royal yes-men.
Throughout the thirteenth century, they worked with their fellow members of
the episcopate to defend ecclesiastical rights, as attested by various chroniclers
(especially Matthew Paris) and by the numerous gravamina of this period.33
Former royal administrators such as Walter Cantilupe were heavily involved in
the political upheavals of Henry III’s reign, especially the Barons’ Revolt.34
* * *
Despite Timothy Reuter’s characterization of post-eleventh-century bishops as
‘managers with an MBA’, the possession of administrative skills (even administrative
skills honed in royal service) did not have to mean that an individual was lacking
in all other episcopal virtues.35 First and foremost, it is worth remembering
that, despite their secular employment, these men were clerics, in holy orders
and holding ecclesiastical benefices.36 Often, they held similar offices to their
ecclesiastical counterparts: prebends in cathedral chapters, archdeaconries, and
even deanships. For example, Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester (1222–44) and
Archbishop elect of Canterbury (1231–32), combined a successful career in the
royal chancery with being Dean of Lichfield (1214–22); he also held a string of
livings across the country and was a canon of London and of Lincoln.37 Similarly,
30
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iii, 183.
31
Pantin, ‘Grosseteste’s Relations with the Papacy and the Crown’, pp. 204–08.
32
Weiler, ‘Bishops and Kings in England’.
33
See Councils and Synods, ed. by Powicke and Cheney; Jones, ‘Bishops, Politics, and the
Two Laws’.
34
Ambler, Bishops in the Political Community of England, pp. 105–95.
35
Reuter, ‘A Europe of Bishops’, p. 38.
36
Tout, ‘The English Civil Service in the Fourteenth Century’; Davis, ‘Clerics and the
King’s Service in Late Medieval England’.
37
Cazel, ‘Ralph de Neville’.
Antony Bek’s career in royal service brought him numerous prebends and livings,
along with positions as precentor of York and Archdeacon of Durham, prior to his
election as Bishop of Durham in 1283.38
Such careers have often, and with some justification, been viewed with
extreme scepticism. The benefices these men held were, it is argued, the spoils
of royal service, held in plurality and used as piggy banks by men with no real
interest in the Church other than as a source of profit and status. Undoubtedly
the accumulation of benefices by royal servants ran counter to ecclesiastical ideals,
and they were sometimes rebuked for this. Antony Bek, for example, was warned
by Archbishop Pecham that unless he at least obtained a papal dispensation for
plurality, he could never be considered for a bishopric.39 Despite this, many of our
assumptions about courtier clerics are problematic, and worthy of re-examination,
if we are to properly understand the appeal of the courtier bishop.
Critics of such bishops have often made an example of men such as Thomas
Blundeville, Bishop of Norwich (1226–36), who was ordained priest the day before
his consecration.40 To the modern eye, this seems like evidence that Blundeville
was not committed to a clerical career and was willing to become a priest only once
his bishopric was secured. But such an interpretation ignores both the importance
of the hierarchy of orders within the medieval Church and contemporary norms.
During the Middle Ages, becoming a priest was the culmination of a long process
which often took place over a period of many years. First, a man must be tonsured,
before proceeding through seven distinct grades of ordination: doorkeeper,
exorcist, reader, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and priest. By the eleventh century, it
was normal for a man to receive all the minor orders (up to acolyte) on the same
day, after which he should progress through the higher orders (subdeacon, deacon,
and priest) step by step. Whilst the primacy of the priesthood was not questioned,
it was quite normal for a man to remain a subdeacon or deacon for many years.
Indeed, a significant number of clerics never attained the priesthood.41
For many medieval clerics, their progression through the higher orders
was determined by the offices to which they were appointed. According to
clause 6 of the First Lateran Council (1123), ‘nullus in praepositum, nullus in
archipresbyterum, nullus in decanum nisi presbyter, nullus in archidiaconum
nisi diaconum ordinetur’ (no one except a priest may be ordained to the office
of provost, archpriest, or dean; no one except a deacon may be ordained to
38
Fraser, ‘Antony Bek’.
39
Fraser, ‘Antony Bek’.
40
Harper-Bill, ‘Thomas Blundeville’.
41
Barrow, The Clergy in the Medieval World, pp. 44–47.
24 Katherine Harvey
the office of archdeacon).42 In an age before the widespread production and

survival of episcopal registers, it is difficult to determine how far this ruling
was obeyed, but what evidence we do have suggests that the English Church
conformed, since ‘all the archdeacons down to the 1190s whose orders we know
were deacons’.43 Given that a majority of courtier bishops had previously been
archdeacons or deans, this suggests that a majority must have reached at least the
rank of deacon by the time of their election to the episcopate, although many
would have been ordained priest only days before their consecration. This was
the path followed by Thomas Becket. According to Herbert of Bosham’s vita,
Archbishop Theobald ordained him all the orders up to subdeacon, and then
deacon when he made him Archdeacon of Canterbury. Becket then remained
in deacon’s orders for some years, being ordained priest the day before his
consecration as archbishop.44
How far such a man felt himself to be a clergyman, and how far he would have
been viewed as such by his contemporaries, is unknowable at a distance of eight
centuries: perhaps courtier clerics did, as so many historians have assumed, view
themselves primarily as royal servants. It is, however, worth remembering that,
although a deacon was not able to celebrate Mass, he was a tonsured member
of the higher clergy, and as such was expected to remain celibate.45 Adherence
to such requirements surely suggests a serious commitment to the Church.
When considering the clerical status of such men, it may also be instructive
to compare the careers of individuals who have usually been viewed quite
definitely as churchmen — many of whom were ordained to the priesthood
much later than we might expect. For example, Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of
Lincoln (1235–53), was still in deacon’s orders in 1225, by which point he was
a man in his fifties with a long scholarly and ecclesiastical career behind him.46
Even Richard Wyche, the saintly Bishop of Chichester (1244–53), was not
ordained until the early 1240s, when he was studying theology in Orleans and
hoping to become a Dominican friar.47
42
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. by Tanner, p. 190.
43
Brooke, ‘The Archdeacon and the Norman Conquest’, p. 120.
44
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iii, 168, 188.
45
Barrow, The Clergy in the Medieval World, pp. 47–51. The requirement that priests,
deacons, and subdeacons remain celibate was another ruling of the First Lateran Council — see
clause 7 in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. by Tanner, p. 191.
46
Southern, ‘Robert Grosseteste’.
47
Lawrence, ‘Richard of Wyche’; his ordination at Orleans is recorded in Ralph Bocking’s
vita: Saint Richard of Chichester, ed. by Jones, p. 95.
In the light of such examples, the contention that courtier bishops could
not be seen as serious clerics because they were not priests of long-standing is
somewhat weakened. Other common assumptions about courtier-clerics are
equally worthy of re-examination. Such men have often been criticized (both in
their lifetimes and subsequently) for their flagrant pluralism and absenteeism —
charges which are usually impossible to refute. But, once again, context is key,
because such practices were not limited to the court. Papal dispensations for
pluralism were commonplace, and thinkers such as Peter the Chanter argued
that curial clerics needed to be properly provided for with benefices to prevent
simony.48 Consequently, bishops with backgrounds in diocesan administration
had usually been supported in the same way as their courtier counterparts, albeit
on a smaller scale. For example, Richard Wyche, during his years as Edmund
of Abingdon’s chancellor, was collated to the rectory of Charing (Kent) and to
the prebend of Deal (St Martin’s, Dover); he continued to hold both benefices
until he became a bishop.49 Although unlicensed pluralism could be a bar to
episcopal office, papally dispensed pluralism was an offence so rife that it is easy
to understand how a cathedral chapter might overlook such a small flaw in an
otherwise suitable candidate.50
The process of overlooking such technicalities may have been made easier
by personal knowledge of a would-be bishop, for it is worth remembering that
many future bishops came into frequent contact with the Church during the
performance of their royal duties.51 Only very occasionally do the surviving
records allow us to glimpse activities which suggest that a courtier cleric,
although an absentee pluralist, was genuinely interested in his benefices — but
when we do, it can go a long way to explaining why a man we view solely as a royal
official was considered to be a suitable candidate for the episcopate. As Dean of
Lichfield, Ralph Neville was surely a very infrequent visitor to the cathedral, but
his correspondence suggests that he was active in the management of its affairs.
His surviving letters include references to chapter business (such as the handling
48
Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants, pp. 182–83.
49
Lawrence, ‘Richard of Wyche’.
50
For Archbishop Pecham’s campaign against the promotion of undispensed pluralists to
the episcopate, see Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 103–04.
51
Chancery officials, for example, played an important role in the administration of royal
patronage, on which see Gemmill, The Nobility and Ecclesiastical Patronage in Thirteenth
Century England, p. 126. The administration of episcopal temporalities during a vacancy was
another important point of contact: Howell, Regalian Right in Medieval England.
26 Katherine Harvey
of vacant churches). Moreover, he fulfilled one of the most important duties of a

dean by attempting to improve the morals of the canons.52
Similarly, we know very little about the piety and devotional activities of
courtier clerics — a deeper knowledge and understanding of which might help
us to understand why certain individuals were promoted to the episcopate.
Recent studies of royal piety have demonstrated that many medieval kings were
deeply committed to their faith, which was not seen as incompatible with the
more unsavoury aspects of secular rule.53 Similar arguments have been made for
the significance of aristocratic piety, whilst studies of the medieval court have
highlighted its significance as a place of religious ritual and practice.54 What
of the royal administrators, the pool from which so many bishops were drawn,
whose religious practices have so far gone unstudied? Given that they lived in
a world where Christianity was so pervasive, the majority must have been at
least conventionally pious; some must have been genuinely devout. There are
fragments of evidence to support this supposition. In 1188, a year before his
election as Bishop of Salisbury, Hubert Walter endowed a Premonstratensian
abbey at his birthplace of West Dereham (Norfolk); the canons were to pray
for the souls of the founder and his family and friends, including the justiciar
Ralph de Glanville and his wife Bertha.55 Silvester of Everdon, a chancery clerk
who was elected Bishop of Carlisle in 1246, had a reputation for personal
piety, went on pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela in 1235, and apparently
expressed doubts about accepting high spiritual office in return for service to
the Crown.56 Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham (1283–1311), was reported to
be a virgin.57
If Bek was indeed a virgin, then he was in possession of a quality which was
highly prized by the medieval Church, and which would serve as a powerful
counterbalance to his royal service for any electoral body considering him as a
52
Boussard, ‘Ralph de Neville’, p. 229.
53
The literature on this topic is too substantial to be listed in full here, but see in particular
Webster, King John and Religion; Carpenter, Henry III, pp. 273–348; Vincent, ‘The Pilgrimages
of the Angevin Kings of England’; Vincent, ‘King Henry III and the Blessed Virgin Mary’;
Prestwich, ‘The Piety of Edward I’.
54
Crouch, The English Aristocracy, 1070–1272, pp. 224–46; Vale, The Princely Court,
pp. 220–46.
55
Cheney, From Becket to Langton, p. 38.
56
Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, ii, 494; Patent Rolls of the Reign of
Henry III, iii, 488; Summerson, ‘The King’s Clericulus’.
57
Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres, ed. by Raine, p. 64.
candidate for a bishopric.58 Indeed, his reputation could only be enhanced by the
fact that his virginity had been preserved not within the confines of a monastery,
but in an environment which provided ample opportunities for sin: the court.59
Post-Gregorian ideals of clerical sexuality focused in particular on the ‘battle
for chastity’, the idea that a man must struggle with and overcome his physical
desires.60 A cleric’s life at court posed many difficulties, but also opportunities
to display one’s virtue and self-control. Arguably, a pious courtier-cleric, already
inoculated against the dangers of the world, was better prepared to be a bishop
than a cloistered monk with no real experience of secular temptations.
Moreover, an ability to resist temptation was not the only valuable behavioural
trait which was most likely to be displayed by curial candidates for a bishopric.
Stephen Jaeger’s work on the courtier bishops of the Ottonian Empire has shown
that these men were appointed as much for their courtliness (essentially their
ability to conduct themselves appropriately) as for their administrative skills.61
Such qualities were equally valued in Angevin England, where a good bishop was
expected to ‘edify your subjects with respect to their appearance, countenance,
bearing, attire and gait’.62 Ideally, a bishop’s conduct should be so distinctive that it
could unmask him even when he was in disguise, as when an innkeeper supposedly
recognized Thomas Becket from his ‘way of eating’ and ‘the nature and posture of
his body’.63 The best place to learn such behavioural skills was, of course, at court
— which must have substantially enhanced the appeal of the courtier bishop.64
* * *
There were, then, many practical and pragmatic reasons why a cathedral chapter
might decide to elect a courtier bishop, and why they might be quite content
58
On the importance of episcopal virginity, see Harvey, ‘Episcopal Virginity in Medieval
England’.
59
For sexual immorality at court, including the employment of royal whoremasters, see
Vincent, ‘The Court of Henry II’, pp. 331–32.
60
Arnold, ‘The Labour of Continence’; Murray, ‘Masculinizing Religious Life’.
61
Jaeger, ‘The Courtier Bishop in Vitae’.
62
From Peter of Blois’s Canon Episcopalis, quoted in Cotts, The Clerical Dilemma, p. 207.
The importance of such qualities will be further explored in my The Episcopal Body in Medieval
England (Oxford, forthcoming).
63
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iii, 326–27.
64
Jaeger, The Origins of Courtliness is the classic work. For an English perspective, see David
Crouch’s publications on the English aristocracy, most recently Crouch, The English Aristocracy,
1070–1272, pp. 193–207.
28 Katherine Harvey
(or at least not seriously concerned) if he combined his episcopal duties with
continued involvement in secular affairs. Nevertheless, the election of a courtier
as bishop did not have to be a cynical move; electing a courtier did not necessarily
mean pinching one’s nose and resigning oneself to a second-rate bishop, on
the grounds that it would make for a quieter life. Indeed, there could be strong
ideological factors behind these appointments, which offered real hope that a
seemingly unpromising candidate could turn into a good shepherd of his flock,
and a champion of ecclesiastical liberties and reform.
Although such bishops attracted a good deal of criticism, there were also a
number of clerical authors who wrote in their defence, arguing that it was possible
for a suitable courtier to transform into a model bishop. Perhaps surprisingly, one
of the most passionate defences of the courtier bishop is to be found in a saint’s
life: the Dominican Ralph Bocking’s hagiography of the saint-bishop Richard of
Chichester. Neither author nor subject was a royal servant, and Bocking heavily
criticized Robert Passelewe, the courtier who was Richard’s rival for the see. But
Bocking was keen to stress that his criticisms of Passelewe should not be read as a
criticism of all courtier bishops:
Non me existimet quisquam, obsecro, presenti verborum serie generaliter omnes
aulicos curie regie suggillare vel erga omnes sic invehi. Licet enim antiqui canones,
propter quedam quibus irretiri solebant, huiusmodi curiales ad sacros ordines seu
gradus ecclesiasticos assumi prohibeant, fuere tamen sepe et per Dei gratiam adhuc
sunt et futuri sont nonnulli curiarum nexibus implicati ecclesiastici ordinis gradu
seu dignitate prorsus non indigni.
[I beg of you, do not let anyone infer from these remarks that I attack all royal
courtiers in this way or inveigh against them all like this. For although the ancient
canons forbid curiales of this sort to take holy orders or to receive positions in
the church because of the matters in which they are often ensnared, there have
nevertheless often been and, through God’s grace, still are and will continue to be
some involved in the business of kingly courts who are not in any sense unworthy
of a place in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.]
He named a series of biblical figures ( Joseph, Daniel, David) in support of his

argument. In particular, he drew attention to a recent English archbishop whose
life proved that a courtier could become a good prelate:
Et, ut de nostris non sileam, quis Anglorum regi suo tempore fidelior, quis in
regni negotiis sollicitior, quis vita purior, quid Christo Regi acceptior illo adleta
gloriosissimo beato Thoma, egregio martire? Hic tamen cum esset aulicus,
aulicorum tamen persecutiones sustinuit et gladiis occubuit.
[Moreover, so that I might not be silent about our own nation, who in his own
day was more faithful to the king of England, more deeply engaged in the business
of the realm, purer in his virtues, more beloved of Christ the King than His most
glorious champion and most renowned martyr Thomas? For although he was a
courtier, he nevertheless suffered persecution by courtiers, and died under blows
from their swords.]65
Bocking’s optimism about courtier bishops was shared by the chronicler Matthew
Paris, a monk of St Albans — most strikingly in his account of William Raleigh’s
consecration as Bishop of Norwich:
Cujus cum praenosticum esset, Gaudium est angelis Dei super uno peccatore poeni
tentiam, etc. [Luke 15. 10], omnes bonam spem de ipso conceperunt; ut quasi alter
Mathaeus, qui de theloneo ad apostolatum et evangelii auctoritatem, sic de curiali
occupatione ad magnae sanctitatis culmen subvolaret.66
[Since the prognostic [the verse read at the consecration] of this man was, ‘There is
joy amongst the angels of God over one sinner that repents’ — all conceived good
hopes of him that, like another Matthew, who had risen from being a tax collector
to the apostleship and to the authority of the Gospel, he would rise from courtly
employment to the very height of holiness.]
Paris’s approach to the ideal of the courtier bishop was, like Bocking’s, shaped by the
existence of positive models of what a courtier bishop could be, and in particular by
the example of Thomas Becket. In his account of the Winchester electoral dispute
of 1238–44, which resulted from Raleigh’s election against royal wishes, Paris
presents this former royal justice as a Becket-like figure, persecuted and driven into
exile by a tyrannical monarch who lacked respect for ecclesiastical liberties.67
Given the importance of saintly exemplars as focuses for imitation in medieval
Christianity, the precedents provided by St Matthew the Apostle, Thomas Becket,
and others comprised a powerful argument for accepting the courtier bishop.68 If
St Matthew could be ‘taken up from the work of exacting taxes, attached to the
company of the apostles, added to the group of the evangelists, and placed with
the catalogue of the martyrs’, how was it possible to deny that a medieval courtier
could imitate, or at least try to imitate, this example?69 And given the extent to
which Becket dominated the religious imagination in England post-1170, and
65
Saint Richard of Chichester, ed. by Jones, pp. 98–99, with the translation at p. 175.
66
Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iii, 617–18.
67
Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, iv, 296–97, 286. Paris also wrote
an evocative account of Raleigh’s good death, emphasizing his reverence for the sacrament:
Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. by Luard, v, 178–79.
68
Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?, p. 571.
69
Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, trans. by Ryan, p. 569.
30 Katherine Harvey
in particular the extent to which the Becket model shaped English conceptions
of what a bishop should be, it is surely unsurprising that English clerics were
willing to embrace the courtier bishop — for to fail to do so would be to deny the
example provided by one of their favourite saints.
Becket’s life provided not only a positive example, but also the method by
which a courtier could be transformed into a model bishop: conversion. The
idea of religious conversion — that is, not a change of faith, but a shift from one
way of life to another, better existence, with God as its focus — was strongly
attractive to many twelfth- and thirteenth-century writers.70 It was a model with
wide applications: baptism and crusading could both be viewed as a form of
conversion, and in the post-oblation age, entry to a monastic house was often
interpreted in this way.71 Nevertheless, Becket’s transition from loyal chancellor to
martyred archbishop was one of the most famous conversions of the age, and his
many biographers spent a good deal of time discussing its finer points.72 Ideally,
as in the case of Becket, the seeds of this good life would have been apparent
in his previous existence: in the words of Anon. I, ‘geminum virum gesserit,
ecclesiasticum scilicet et curialem’ (he bore the double man, the ecclesiastical and
the curial) throughout his time at court.73 But promotion to the episcopate could
itself have transformative powers. When the new archbishop was consecrated, he
‘mutatus in virum alterum veterum hominem cum actibus suis exuit, novumque
induit in justitia et sanctitate’ (put off the old man with his acts, and put on the
new man in righteousness and sanctity).74
This belief in the transformative powers of episcopacy was also expressed by
the twelfth-century chronicler Orderic Vitalis, in a passage which bemoaned the
appointment of men such as Ranulf Flambard, a controversial Bishop of Durham
(1099–1128). In recent years, he complained, ‘shallow, unlearned men’ had often
been promoted by ‘the help of powerful friends’, and several of these bishops used
their position to oppress the poor and to enrich themselves. But
70
Staunton, Thomas Becket and his Biographers, p. 76. For a wider discussion of conversion
in the central Middle Ages, see Morrison, Understanding Conversion.
71
Allen Smith, War and the Making of Medieval Monastic Culture, pp. 166–76; Miramon,
‘Embraser l’état monastique à l’âge adulte’. For an example of such a conversion, see Walter
Daniel, The Life of Aelred of Rievaulx, trans. by Powicke, pp. 90–100.
72
Staunton, Thomas Becket and his Biographers, pp. 75–96.
73
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iv, 12.
74
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. by Robertson and Sheppard, iv, 19–20.
Alii uero pro suscepto aecclesiastici regiminis onere diuinitus perterriti sunt;
sibique commissis intus et exterius salubriter prodesse studuerunt, uitasque suas
secundum beneplacitam uoluntatem Dei laudabiliter correxerunt […]. Quibus ita
promotis clemens Deus parcit ac miseretur, eisque postmodum supernae ubertas
gratiae infunditur, et coelestis sophyae per eos luce Dei domus illuminatur, et
utilibus studiis plures saluantur.
[Others, it is true, were filled with the fear of God on taking up the burden of
ecclesiastical authority, endeavoured to further the well-being and salvation of
those committed to their care, and reformed their lives worthily in accordance
with God’s gracious will […]. After their promotion God in his mercy pities and
spares them, in time filling them with the riches of divine grace, so that through
them the house of God is lit with the brightness of heavenly wisdom and many find
a way to salvation through useful activities.]75
* * *
Orderic Vitalis’s identification of the means by which these unsuitable
courtiers were transformed into good bishops highlights a factor which has
been underplayed in most modern accounts of medieval episcopal elections,
namely divine will. Throughout the thirteenth century, the ideal election was
one achieved by way of inspiration, in which ‘everyone, all at once, suddenly
and unexpectedly and unanimously elects someone, with one voice, with no
previous discussion, and no human incitement having preceded this’.76 When,
in 1257, the English Church complained about excessive royal intervention in
elections, it claimed that ‘the frightened electors more often give preference
to human wishes over the divine will’.77 Against the background of such
complaints, it is easy to be cynical about the frequency with which God’s
choice happened to be one which suited the king and/or the cathedral chapter.
But it is perhaps more interesting to ponder the question of how many electoral
bodies genuinely believed they were enacting God’s will when they elected yet
another courtier bishop.
Whether or not we accept the possibility of divine intervention, it is clear that
royal intervention was not the only reason why a medieval cathedral chapter might
choose a courtier as their bishop. Attempting a defence of the courtier bishop is
perhaps a fool’s errand, since it is in many ways a defence of the indefensible;
75
The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. by Chibnall, v, 204–05.
76
This was the definition given by William de Mandagot, Archdeacon of Nîmes and
compiler of the Liber Sextus, writing in the 1280s. Tractatus universi iuris, duce, et auspice
Gregorio XIII, xv.1, c. 52.
77
Councils and Synods, ed. by Powicke and Cheney, ii.1, 540.
32 Katherine Harvey
in many eyes, such a figure was irrevocably tainted by his years of royal service.
Yet all institutions, however noble their aims, need leaders who can make things
happen and get things done, and the thirteenth-century English Church was
no exception. It admired Mary, whose contemplative life was reflected in the
monastic tradition, and idealized the holy men and women who followed in her
footsteps. But it also embraced the example of Martha, whose active life formed a
model for the majority of the secular clergy.78
When electors chose a bishop, they could not know for certain whether they
were getting a Thomas Becket or a Hubert Walter, or — surely the best outcome
— someone in between, a man who could stand up for the Church but also
get along with the king, and who was thus unlikely to end up with his brains
scattered across the floor of his cathedral. In a world in which (to quote Nicholas
Vincent), a bishop’s success was determined by ‘his ability to walk the tightrope
that joined regnum and sacerdotium’, it is easy to see why a pragmatic group of
electors might choose a man who was spiritual enough, but also in possession of
the qualities needed to walk straight across without falling.79 Such choices might
be criticized, but they could also be justified, by the needs of the Church, by the
lessons of the past, and in particular by the example of Thomas Becket and his
remarkable conversion. Perhaps fortunately, Becket was a one-off, and a courtier
would rarely turn out be such an exemplary bishop. He could well, however, be
the best man for the job.
78
On Mary and Martha, see Constable, ‘The Interpretation of Mary and Martha’, especially
pp. 44–113. Thomas, The Secular Clergy in England, pp. 17–54, considers the models of
behaviour available to the secular clergy, contrasting ‘the Model Priest’ with ‘the Aristocratic
Cleric’.
79
Vincent, ‘Jocelin of Wells’, p. 33.
Works Cited
Primary Sources
Councils and Synods, with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, vol. ii: ad
1205–1313, ed. by Maurice Powicke and Christopher Cheney, 2 vols (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1964)
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. i: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. and trans. by Norman
Tanner (London: Sheen & Ward, 1990)
Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. and trans. by Stephen Church and Emilie Amt (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007)
Eadmer, The Life of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. and trans. by Richard
Southern (Oxford: Nelson, 1962)
The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. by Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969–80)
Gerald of Wales, The Jewel of the Church, trans. by John Hagen (Leiden: Brill, 1979)
Giraldi Cambrensis, De Invectionibus, ed. by W. S. Davies, Y Cymmrodor, 30 (1920), 1–248
Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres: Gaufridus de Coldingham, Robertus de Graystanes et
Willelmus de Chambres, ed. by John Raine (London: Surtees Society, 1839)
Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend, trans. by William Ryan (Princeton: Princeton
The Letters of Robert Grosseteste, trans. by Frederick Mantello and Joseph Goering (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2010)
Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. by James
Robertson and Joseph. B. Sheppard, 7 vols (London: Longman, 1875–85)
Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, ed. by Henry Luard, 7 vols
(London: HMSO, 1872–83)
Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 6 vols (London: HMSO, 1901–13)
Records of Antony Bek, Bishop and Patriarch, 1283–1311, ed. by Constance Fraser (Durham:
Surtees Society, 1953)
Saint Richard of Chichester: The Sources for his Life, ed. by David Jones (Lewes: Sussex
Record Society, 1995)
Tractatus universi iuris, duce, et auspice Gregorio XIII ponifice maximo in unum congesti,
25 vols (Venice, 1584–86)
Walter Daniel, The Life of Aelred of Rievaulx and the Letter to Maurice, trans. by F. M.
Powicke (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1994)
Secondary Sources
Allen Smith, Katharine, War and the Making of Medieval Monastic Culture (Woodbridge:
Boydell, 2011)
Ambler, S. T., Bishops in the Political Community of England, 1213–1272 (Oxford:
34 Katherine Harvey
Arnold, John, ‘The Labour of Continence: Masculinity and Clerical Virginity’, in Medieval
Virginities, ed. by Anke Bernau, Ruth Evans, and Sarah Salih (Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 2003), pp. 102–18
Baldwin, John, Masters, Princes and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and
his Circle, 2 vols (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970)
Barrow, Julia, The Clergy in the Medieval World: Secular Clerics, their Families and Careers in
NorthWestern Europe, c. 800–c. 1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)
Bartlett, Robert, ‘Gerald of Wales’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, <https://
www.oxforddnb.com/>
—— , Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things? Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs
to the Reformation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013)
Bouchard, Constance, Spirituality and Administration: The Role of the Bishop in Twelfth
Century Auxerre (Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1979)
Boussard, Jean, ‘Ralph de Neville, évêque de Chichester et chancelier d’Angleterre’, Revue
Historique, 176 (1935), 216–33
Brentano, Robert, Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth Century (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988)
Brooke, Christopher, ‘The Archdeacon and the Norman Conquest’, in his Churches and
Churchmen in Medieval England (London: Hambledon Press, 1999), pp. 117–37
Byrne, Philippa, ‘Legal Learning and Saintly Authority in Thirteenth-Century Hagiog-
raphy: The Magna vita sancti Hugonis’, Journal of Medieval History, 44 (2018), 39–55
Carpenter, David, Henry III: The Rise to Power and Personal Rule, 1207–1258 (London:
Yale University Press, 2020)
Cazel, Fred, ‘Ralph de Neville’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, <https://
www.oxforddnb.com/>
Cheney, Christopher R., From Becket to Langton: English Church Government, 1170–1213
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956)
Constable, Giles, ‘The Interpretation of Mary and Martha’, in his Three Studies in Medieval
Religious and Social Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 1–142
Cotts, John, The Clerical Dilemma: Peter of Blois and Literate Culture in the Twelfth
Century (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2009)
Crouch, David, The English Aristocracy, 1070–1272: A Social Transformation (Yale: Yale
Davis, Virginia, ‘Clerics and the King’s Service in Late Medieval England’, in Église et
État, Église ou État? Les Clercs et la genèse de l’État modern, ed. by Christine Barralis
and Jean-Paul Boudet (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2014), pp. 25–33
Dronke, Peter, ‘Peter of Blois and Poetry at the Court of Henry II’, Mediaeval Studies, 38
(1976), 185–215
Edwards, Kathleen, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages (Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1967)
Evers, William, ‘Disputes about Episcopal Elections in the Reign of Henry III, with
Special Reference to Some Unpublished Durham Documents’ (unpublished B.Litt.
thesis, University of Oxford, 1934)
Fraser, Constance, ‘Antony Bek’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, <https://

www.oxforddnb.com/>
Gemmill, Elizabeth, The Nobility and Ecclesiastical Patronage in ThirteenthCentury England
(Woodbridge: Boydell, 2013)
Gibbs, Marion, and Jane Lang, Bishops and Reform, 1215–1272 (London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1936)
Graham-Leigh, Elaine, ‘Hirelings and Shepherds: Archbishop Berenguer of Narbonne
(1191–1211) and the Ideal Bishop’, English Historical Review, 116 (2001), 1083–1102
Harper-Bill, Christopher, ‘Thomas Blundeville’, in Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, <https://www.oxforddnb.com/>
—— , ‘Episcopal Virginity in Medieval England’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, 26
(2017), 273–93
—— , ‘The Freedom of Election Charter’, Magna Carta Project Website (2014), <http://
magnacarta.cmp.uea.ac.uk/read/feature_of_the_month/Aug_2014>
Hoskin, Philippa, ‘Diocesan Politics in the See of Worcester, 1218–1266’, Journal of
Ecclesiastical History, 54 (2003), 422–40
Howell, Margaret, Regalian Right in Medieval England (London: Athlone Press, 1962)
Jaeger, Stephen, ‘The Courtier Bishop in Vitae from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century’,
Speculum, 58 (1983), 291–325
—— , The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of Courtly Ideals,
939–1210 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985)
Jones, W. R., ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws: The Gravamina of the English Clergy,
1237–1399’, Speculum, 41 (1966), 209–45
Lawrence, Hugh, ‘Richard of Wyche’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
<https://www.oxforddnb.com/>
Miramon, C. de, ‘Embraser l’état monastique à l’âge adulte (1050–1200): Étude sur la
conversion tardive’, Annales: Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 54 (1999), 825–49
Morrison, Karl, Understanding Conversion (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1990)
Murray, Jacqueline, ‘Masculinizing Religious Life: Sexual Prowess, the Battle for Chastity
and Monastic Identity’, in Holiness and Masculinity in the Middle Ages, ed. by Patricia
Cullum and Katherine Lewis (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2005), pp. 24–37
Ott, John, Bishops, Authority and Community in Northwestern Europe, c. 1050–1150
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)
Pantin, William, ‘Grosseteste’s Relations with the Papacy and the Crown’, in Robert
Grosseteste, ed. by David Callus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955), pp. 178–215
Peltzer, Jörg, Canon Law, Careers and Conquest: Episcopal Elections in Normandy and
Greater Anjou, c. 1140–c. 1230 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
Powicke, Maurice, King Henry III and the Lord Edward, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1947)
Prestwich, Michael, ‘The Piety of Edward I’, in England in the Thirteenth Century, ed. by
W. M. Ormrod (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1985), pp. 120–28
36 Katherine Harvey
Reuter, Timothy, ‘A Europe of Bishops: The Age of Wulfstan of York and Burchard
of Worms’, in Patterns of Episcopal Power, ed. by Ludger Körntgen and Dominik
Wassenhoven (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 17–38
Sabapathy, John, Officers and Accountability in Medieval England, 1170–1300 (Oxford:
Scotney, Phyllis, ‘An Examination of the Theory and Practice of Appointments to
Bishoprics during the Reigns of Henry III and Edward I, and of their Historical
Significance’ (unpublished master’s thesis, University of London, 1925)
Southern, Richard, ‘Robert Grosseteste’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
<https://www.oxforddnb.com/>
Staunton, Michael, Thomas Becket and his Biographers (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2006)
Summerson, Henry, ‘The King’s Clericulus: The Life and Career of Silvester de Everdon,
Bishop of Carlisle, 1247–1254’, Northern History, 28 (1992), 70–91
Sweet, Alfred, ‘The Control of Episcopal Elections in the Thirteenth Century’, English
Historical Review, 12 (1927), 573–82
Thomas, Hugh M., The Secular Clergy in England, 1066–1216 (Oxford: Oxford
Tout, Thomas, ‘The English Civil Service in the Fourteenth Century’, in The Collected
Papers of Thomas Frederick Tout, 3 vols (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1932–34), iii, 191–221
Vale, Malcolm, The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in NorthWest Europe
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
Vincent, Nicholas, ‘The Court of Henry II’, in Henry II: New Interpretations, ed. by C.
Harper-Bill and Nicholas Vincent (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007), pp. 278–334
—— , ‘Jocelin of Wells: The Making of a Bishop in the Reign of King John’, in Jocelin
of Wells: Bishop, Builder, Courtier, ed. by Robert Dunning (Woodbridge: Boydell,
2010), pp. 9–33
—— , ‘King Henry III and the Blessed Virgin Mary’, in The Church and Mary, ed. by R.
Swanson (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004), pp. 126–46
—— , ‘The Pilgrimages of the Angevin Kings of England’, in Pilgrimage: The English
Experience from Becket to Bunyan, ed. by Colin Morris (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002), pp. 12–45
Webster, Paul, King John and Religion (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2015)
Weiler, Anton, ‘The Requirements of the Pastor Bonus in the Late Middle Ages’, Dutch
Review of Church History, 83 (2003), 57–83
Weiler, Bjorn, ‘Bishops and Kings in England, c. 1066–1215’, in Religion and Politics in
the Middle Ages: Germany and England by Comparison, ed. by Ludger Körntgen and
Dominik Wassenhoven, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), pp. 157–203
Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in
Medieval Portugal (1268–1289)
Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar*
Frater Nicholae, non est quare hic advocare debeatis, quia non summus in tempore
advocandi.1
T
hese were the final words of King Afonso III (1247–79) at his last
meeting in October 1277 with Friar Nicholas Hispanus, who had been
appointed legate a few months earlier by Pope John XXI (1276–77):
a sentence in direct speech, giving voice and body to the final act of a long and
troubled legateship. This meeting with the monarch took place at the king’s
palace in Lisbon before a wide range of witnesses, both laymen and ecclesiastics
— including the heir, Dinis, and his brother Afonso, some of the most important
nobles of King Afonso III’s court, several Dominican and Franciscan friars, and
king’s clerics. This time the Bishop of Évora, Durando Pais, was absent, unlike
previous meetings in which he had been the only bishop present.2
*
Research work carried out within the scope of UID/HIS/00057/2013 (POCI-01–0145-
FEDER-007702), FCT/Portugal, COMPETE, FEDER, Portugal 2020.
1
Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, p. 572.
2
The detailed account of this legateship can be found in the minutes published by Marques,
O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 525–73, transcribed from an original from
the National Archives of Torre do Tombo. The vicissitudes of this visit of the legate received
the attention of many authors, from Herculano, História de Portugal, iii, 183–88, to Mattoso,
Identificação de um país, ii, 158–60, and Ventura, D. Afonso III, pp. 153–54.
Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar (hmav@uevora.pt) is assistant professor at University of Évora –

Portugal and research member of CIDEHUS.
38 Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar
Witnesses present at this gathering, apparently the last encounter between

the king and Friar Nicholas, also saw the final act of a series of (relatively
unfruitful) meetings between the legate and the Portuguese king. At this
meeting, Friar Nicholas intensified his last (sometimes desperate) efforts to get
King Afonso III to settle his conflict with the Portuguese bishops. Afonso III
died shortly afterwards, in February 1279, but the effects and vicissitudes of the
final legateship were probably recorded not only in Friar Nicholas’s memory or
the king’s, as protagonists of this dialogue, but also in the memories of the people
who witnessed the meetings, namely Prince Dinis.
The authors of Monarquia Lusitana, a Portuguese historical compilation
drawn up in the seventeenth century, probably concerned with the fate of the soul
and the image of the king, introduced into their narrative the royal repentance at
the time of his death before Bishop D. Durando, and the heir’s exhortation to
look for a quick solution regarding the conflict with the bishops.3 But it would
take another ten years for a solution to be found.
Indeed, the so-called second legateship of Friar Nicholas is a key moment in the
conflict between the Church and the Portuguese kings of the thirteenth century.
The minutes that have come down to us, relating the journey of the papal legate
across the kingdom as well as his meetings with the king, are central elements
in knowledge of these years of crisis and open conflict between Afonso III and
the bishops. This conflict is traditionally seen as beginning in 1266/67 with the
departure of the bishops of the Portuguese dioceses (except the prelates of Évora
and Lamego) to the Curia and the submission of a list of grievances with forty-
three articles against the monarch and his actions. And it ended, at least for many
historians, with the signing in February 1289 of two agreements, one with forty
articles and one with eleven.
The purpose of this study is not so much to provide a detailed analysis of
the contents of the list of aggravations presented by the prelates or the articles
forming the signed concordats,4 but rather to highlight the importance that this
conflict assumed between king and bishops and its role in the context of the end
of a reign that had begun, as we shall see, with the support of the Church. In
addition, we would like to stress some lines of the changing relationship between
royalty and episcopate in the Portuguese context during the second half of the
thirteenth century, after the halt of the Christian conquest and in a political
setting marked by the reaffirmation of royal power at different levels. Hence the
3
Brandão, Monarquia Lusitana, Parte IV, fols 254–255v.
4
About the use of the term ‘Concordats’, see Costa, ‘As concordatas portuguesas’.
Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval Portugal (1268–1289) 39
importance given to the episcopal group, not only as protagonists of the conflict,
but also as a mandatorily diverse element of political society.5
Thus the proposed analysis focuses on two key moments in this period: the
first coincides with the years in which the prelates withdrew from the kingdom
to draw around them the characteristics and the path of those who left and those
who remained; the second will focus on the months of Friar Nicholas Hispanus’s
second legateship. The surviving records, which we have already mentioned,
allow a privileged overview of the dialogue initiated between Afonso III and
Friar Nicholas and, above all, of the management of the circumstances of the
conflict. The final step will be a reflection around some features of the documents
of 1289, considered to be the end point of this long crisis.
In fact, the so-called 1289 Agreements are directly linked to the list of
grievances presented in 1268 at the Curia.6 The document drafted in 1289 under
the aegis of the pope gathered the previous complaints and merged them into
a model with one royal response to each article of grievance. In doing so, it was
possible to create a document which was acceptable to both parties and which
could be kept for future memory.
Departure of the Bishops

As king, Afonso III was no stranger to the Portuguese Church or to the papacy.
He had risen to the throne following his brother’s removal by Pope Innocent IV,
in July 1245, after the Council of Lyon and the deposition of Frederick II. But
unlike the emperor with whom Innocent IV had had a struggle for power and
influence, Sancho II of Portugal was dismissed as a rex inutilis,7 unable to secure
peace and stability in his kingdom. To replace him, the pope then appealed to his
brother Afonso, who had been educated in the French court under the protection
of his aunt and mother of St Louis, Queen Branca. While still in Paris, the
chosen infante took the so-called Oath of Paris, in September of the same year,
5
For a recent example of a study on the role of bishops in a very particular political juncture
and the vicissitudes of their interventions, see Ambler, Bishops in the Political Community of
England; and on the preceding period, Cheney, From Becket to Langton.
6
The chronology of this presentation is uncertain, but 1268 is the year typically suggested.
Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 390–91. Alexandre Herculano
synthetizes the document kept in the papal archives. História de Portugal, iii, 131–40.
7
On the removal by the bull Grandi non immerito of Sancho II in 1245, see Fernandes, D.
Sancho II, pp. 259–62, and Varandas, ‘Bonus rex ou rex inutilus’, pp. 381–89.
before a group of Portuguese magnates who had travelled there, thus assuring
and promising to protect the Church and respect ecclesiastical freedoms.8 This
oath enabled him to secure the support of a significant part of the Portuguese
ecclesiastical hierarchy, particularly the Archbishop of Braga. Only after taking
this oath did he go to Portugal where he assumed government with only the title
of curator and regent of the kingdom, a title that he would retain until the sudden
and premature death of his brother in 1248 in Toledo, the city where Sancho II
was exiled after a short civil war with his brother.
During the first years of his reign Afonso tried to build an image marked by
gradual internal pacification and territorial consolidation of the kingdom, very
different from the last years that coincided with the end of the reign of Sancho II,
which were marked by internal instability and chaos, at least according to the
prelates whose complaints echoed in the Curia in order to justify his deposition.
The definitive conquest of the Algarve in 1249 contributed to this, as did the
halt of the conquest that the addition of this second kingdom represented. The
new monarch then included the new kingdom in his title, naming himself king of
Portugal and the Algarve. In parallel, the reign of Afonso III was marked by a high
degree of legislative activity, the scope and interventions of which consolidated
the exercise of royal power on different levels.
Relations with the Church appear to have been peaceful at least until the
early 1260s, notwithstanding the emergence of some sectorial conflicts during
the 1250s, as was the case with the Bishop of Porto over the fishing, navigation,
and trade rights on the River Douro and the doubts over the marital status of the
king.9 In May 1262, the Portuguese bishops sent Urban IV a request to legalize
8
The so-called Oath of Paris, to which we refer in this essay, was made when Afonso, at
the time Count of Boulogne, was chosen to succeed to Sancho II after the latter’s removal. In
this oath, the heir prince promised, as Leontina Ventura says, to accept the conditions ‘imposed
by the ecclesiastic authority’, which included respecting the people and the clergy, suppressing
injustices committed by his predecessors, hearing advice from the prelates, and obeying the
Roman Church. In this manner, the Archbishop of Braga João Viegas de Portocarreiro and João
Martins, representative of the Bishop de Coimbra, tried to ensure, on behalf of other prelates,
that this king, unlike his father and brother before him, would not act against the Church’s
will. The choice of Afonso, a prince who had left Portugal at an early age to go to France, where
he spent a substantial part of his youth at the royal palace, was not random or casual. Ventura,
D. Afonso III, pp. 70–71.
9
Count of Boulogne when he took his brother’s place, Afonso III was married to Matilde
of Boulogne. However, in 1253 he promised to marry Beatriz, the daughter of Afonso X of
Castile. His bigamy triggered the first interdict on the kingdom and several reprimands by
Pope Alexander IV, albeit without visible results. Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D.
Afonso III, p. 385. This request proves that, at that time, the episcopate still supported the king.
the marriage of Afonso III with Beatriz, daughter of Afonso X, and consequently
the request for the children born of this marriage to be made legitimate, after
the death of Matilde, Countess of Boulogne and Afonso’s first wife. The request,
which was made by the bishops and supported by the kings of France and Navarre,
as well as the counts of Anjou and Provence,10 would receive papal approval
about one year later, in June 1263, thus ensuring the legitimate succession of the
Portuguese throne.
About four years later, in 1267, most of those same prelates made a more
or less sudden departure from the kingdom to the Curia, where in the early
months of 1268 they presented Clement IV with a long list of grievances. On
the face of it, this strategy could not be said to be completely unknown in
the Christian kingdoms. Neither the presentation of grievances nor even the
appeal to the pope were seen as innovative strategies. Both England and Castile
had had experience of similar attitudes in times not far removed,11 a fact that
must be taken into account here when analysing the breadth and effects of this
option.
However, what seems salient in this case is the apparent absence of allusion
to a previous conflict or attempts at internal resolution of the problems
enumerated on that list. Contrary to what occurred in other neighbouring
kingdoms, both the departure of the bishops and the presentation of the list of
aggravations to the pope seem to emerge as attempts to solve a crisis of which
scarce signs can be found in the surviving documentation and whose reasons are
not always easy to attribute, as already highlighted by José Mattoso.12 Indeed,
as well as this last author, Leontina Ventura has already discussed the possible
reasons for this confrontation between a king who had secured Church backing
upon his accession to the throne in 1245 and a group of ecclesiastics with very
different profiles.13
The impact of the royal 1258 Inquisitiones must of course be stressed,
especially because the central area of those enquiries was largely coterminous
with the location of the dioceses whose bishops had left the kingdom. Although
the Inquisitiones were not an original initiative, having been started by the king’s
father in 1220, these 1258 inquests deserve special attention for their geographical
scope and the evident concern with making a record of royal property and the
10
Mattoso, ‘Dois séculos de vicissitudes políticas’, p. 141.
11
Jones, ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws’; Denton, ‘The Making of the Articuli Cleri
of 1316’; and O’Callaghan, ‘The Ecclesiastical Estate in the Cortes of Leon-Castille’.
12
13
Mattoso, Identificação de um país, ii, 158–60, and Ventura, D. Afonso III, pp. 151–54.
abuses it suffered.14 To this impact, we must add the effects, or the possible effects,
of the law established by Afonso III in 1265 which aimed at redressing the abuses
identified by the 1258 inquiries,15 despite doubts arising over the effectiveness of
its implementation.16
However, it seems not everything can be explained on the basis of these two
measures. Also of importance were the effects and disputes surrounding the
king’s attempts to devalue the currency in 1254 and 1261 and the loan requested
by the monarch in 1266 to provide military support to Afonso X of Castile. In
both 1254 and 1261, the clergy were one of the parties interested in preventing
or cushioning the effects of devaluation on their incomes. The king himself
echoes this pressure in the letter which he sent to the pope and to the masters
of the military orders in 1255, and in which he undertook the compromise of
not devaluing the currency, demonstrating that this was not a problem whose
repercussions were restricted to the limited scope of the kingdom.17
The impact of these measures and, above all, what they reveal about the
implementation of more effective royal policies for tax and income control,
must be taken into account when considering the reasons for the outbreak of
this conflict. All the more so when the measures undertaken, the aim of which
was closer control and more effective collection of royal income, both in terms
of land exploitation and levels of tax, were accompanied by the occurrence of
some poor years for agriculture, particularly in the early 1250s. It was quite
possibly the effects of an agricultural crisis in 1252 or 1253 that gave rise to the
issuance of the first price-fixing law in 1253 (Lei da Almotaçaria), a crisis that
had an effect across all farmland income. This cannot be seen as a means to seek
to affirm the emergence, based on the indications, of a foreseeable crisis or one
of greater magnitude and traditionally confused with that of the late Middle
14
The bibliography of the 1258 Inquisitiones is relatively abundant, and the use of these
sources in partial studies is highly significant. We may find a status report on the surveys in
Andrade, ‘Les Enquêtes royales au Portugal’, and a reflection about the importance of Luis
Krus’s work in the study of the surveys, as well as in establishing new lines of thought in
Andrade, ‘Luís Krus e as inquirições régias medievais’. On the importance of the Inquisitiones
as a governance instrument, special reference should be made to the studies collected in Pécout,
Quand gouverner c’est enquêter.
15
Herculano, Portugaliae monumenta historica, i.2, 215–16, and Ventura, D. Afonso III,
p. 151.
16
About these years, see also Mattoso, ‘1258–1264’, where the importance given by
Portuguese historiography to the role of this king is clear.
17
Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livre I, ii, docs
705–07, pp. 278–80.
Ages,18 but rather the design of a particular conjuncture, where the effects arising
from the previous years of chaos and manorial abuses were intertwined with
the consequences stemming from the implementation of a fiscal and ownership
policy which, while more assertive, was not always effective.
But the apparently peaceful relationship between king and bishops referred
to above and evident until the early 1260s can still be explained on the one hand
by the growing tendency for royal interference in episcopal elections to choose
clerics close and loyal to the king, which had necessary implications on the
internal constitution of this group; on the other hand, it stems from the apparent
support given by the papacy to the Portuguese king, despite the doubts that arose
around his marital situation. In fact, both Innocent IV, the pope responsible for
the deposition of Sancho II and soon for the confirmation of Afonso III as king
after his brother’s death, and also the pope’s immediate successors show a degree
of complacency in their way of dealing with the crises and complaints of the
Portuguese prelates, particularly in the years before 1268. This seems to be the
case with the problems already mentioned regarding the Bishop of Porto, but
also the monastery of Lorvão, which Alexander IV asked the King of Portugal in
1255 to stop harassing, and the Archbishop of Braga, who was concerned about
the breadth of his jurisdiction and his prerogatives before the king.19
But the same seems to occur around the conflicts that arose or developed in
different dioceses throughout the 1250s and 1260s. Added to the conflicts stirred
up by the disputed episcopal elections, as in Viseu and Lisbon, were the effects
derived from the continuation of the conflict between the see of Coimbra and the
Santa Cruz Monastery in Coimbra over privileges and assets, the management of
which would involve the successive intervention of the papacy and its legates.20 At
the same time, the bishops’ complaints about the faithful’s refusal to pay tithes or
the misappropriation of tithes by different religious institutions multiplied over
the course of these decades, and the complaints show the growing importance of
this tribute as a source of income, and also the situation of instability which was
prevalent in different ecclesiastical institutions.
Without constituting a coherent edifice, the fact is that these overlapping
indications within a short time frame seem to question the dominant scenario of
appeasement and a good relationship between powers. What seems to have been
18
About the importance of the idea of crisis in the characterization of the late Middle Ages,
see Watts, The Making of Polities, pp. 13–19.
19
Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, doc. 462, p. 328 and doc. 508, p. 352.
20
Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, docs 468–75, pp. 331–36, and ii, 220–23, and i, doc
517, p. 357. Martins, O mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra, pp. 438–48.
drawn under the diaphanous veil of political collaboration is a set of initiatives

and ecclesiastical reactions to an economic situation, the contours of which are
still unclear but marked by difficulties in exploitation on assets and the collection
of duties in the context of an increasingly monetarized economy. This is framed
in a context in which Afonso III’s manorial policy seems to have clearly benefited
the noble lineages closest to him, giving them the leading roles in a particularly
evident process of imposing noble landlords in southern Portugal, but which did
not benefit the ecclesiastical group, or at least not in the same way.
Thus, the complaints addressed to the papacy and headed by the Portuguese
bishops should be understood not only in the context of the royal actions
immediately before the year of the prelates’ departure from the kingdom, specifically
regarding the law of 1265 or the loan of 1266, but above all, in the context of an
accumulation of factors that resulted in the clergy having less ease of access to
new sources of income. And so, the complaints made by the bishops were not
shared or assumed by other social groups nor, as we shall see, despite the virulence
of some bulls, did they question the legitimacy of Afonso III’s right to govern.
As noted above, between the end of 1266 and the first months of 1267,
most Portuguese bishops left the kingdom for the Curia.21 Upon their arrival,
the Archbishop of Braga, Martinho Geraldes, and the Bishops of Porto (D.
Vicente), Coimbra (D. Egas Fafes), Lisbon (D. Mateus), Guarda (D. Rodrigo),
and Viseu (D. Mateus), accompanied by representatives of the bishops of Lamego
and Évora, submitted a long list of grievances against the king and his officers,
identifying infringements and perpetrators and reaffirming the king’s disrespect
for the commitments agreed upon. All the bishops placed their dioceses under
interdict, except Mateus, Bishop of Lisbon. Although he left for the Curia and
was apparently there in 1267, he returned to Portugal shortly afterwards and did
not subject his diocese to the ordeal of such enforcement.22
So, only two of Portugal’s nine bishops had seemingly remained in the
kingdom, that is, the Bishop of Lamego, Pedro Eanes, and the Bishop of
Évora, Martinho, who died that same year (1266) and was replaced by a close
collaborator of the king: Durando Pais. The two bishops nonetheless sent their
21
Again, we do not know the precise dates of departure of each bishop. We also do not
know if they left all at the same time. According to Maria Alegria Fernandes, the presence of
most prelates at the Roman Curia can be proved between 1267 and 1268. Marques, O Papado e
Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 390–91.
22
According to Herculano, some might have travelled across the Kingdom of Léon at the
end of 1266. He thus states the presence of the bishops of Coimbra, Porto, and Lamego at
Ciudad Rodrigo by the end of 1266. The Bishop of Lamego did not travel to the Curia himself;
he sent a representative. Herculano, História de Portugal, iii, 127.
representatives. The Bishop of Silves, Bartolomeu, was torn by split loyalties

between the Portuguese and Castilian jurisdictions.23
On the bishops’ side, we find a strange and heterogeneous group.
Martinho Geraldes, Archbishop of Braga between 1256 and 1271, was
already the diocese’s schoolmaster in 1245; shortly after, he secured the position
of rector of the church of Santa Maria de Guimarães.24 With close connections to
the Curia during the pontificates of Alexander IV and Clement IV, he received
several privileges from these popes, authorizing him to accumulate benefices and
reward some of his closest ecclesiastics.25 A chaplain and auditor of the pope,
he was at the Curia when he was appointed Archbishop of Braga, in 1256, and
returned to the Curia when things went awry in Portugal. He died at Viterbo in
1271 and was replaced by Pedro Juliães, future Pope John XXI.26
Vicente Mendes, Bishop of Porto, was the son of D. Mendo and D. Teresa,
a rich, noble family according to José Augusto Ferreira.27 When he was Dean
of Porto, he was elected bishop in 1260 and confirmed in 1261. He departed
with the other bishops to Viterbo, where he stayed until 1281, that is, shortly
after the death of Afonso III and the enthronement of King Dinis. As the
protagonist of a long conflict with the king regarding commerce and navigation
on the River Douro and the privileges of Porto, in 1264 he seemed to have
reached an agreement with the king.28 However this agreement was, apparently,
not good enough to prevent his departure. Indeed, the complaints to the pope
included one concerning the king’s support for the founding of new settlements
near lands owned by the Church, with inevitable economic consequences.
Undoubtedly, hanging over the wording of this complaint was the protection
given by Afonso III to the village of Gaia, founded on the opposite bank of the
River Douro, facing the city of Porto, which until then had been its episcopal
23
Marques, ‘Afonso X e a Diocese de Silves’.
24
Rodríguez de Lama, La documentación pontíficia de Alejandro IV, nº 201, p. 212;
Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 158–59; and Rodrigues, Os
capitulares bracarenses, p. 141.
25
Rodríguez de Lama, La documentación pontíficia de Alejandro IV, nº 202, pp. 202–03;
Jordan, Les Registres de Clément IV, nº 663, p. 233.
26
There is relatively abundant bibliography on Pedro Juliães, who became Pope John XXI.
On his pathway, Ventura, ‘A nobreza de Corte de Afonso III’, ii, 771–72; Rodrigues, Os
capitulares bracarenses, pp. 116–23; and Meirinhos, Pedro Hispano.
27
Ferreira, Memorias archeologicohistoricas da cidade do Porto, p. 249, and Cunha and
Silva, ‘The King’s Service and God’s Service’.
28
Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livre I, i, doc. 308,
pp. 351–52.
landlord. Returning to Portugal after 1281, Vicente was one of the leading
figures in the negotiations between the king and the bishops, under the pope’s
aegis, which led to the 1289 agreements.
Egas Fafes de Lanhoso was Bishop of Coimbra between 1248 and 1267,29 until
his transfer to the archbishopric of Compostela by order of Pope Clement IV.30
Canon and Archdeacon of Braga, his presence at the Curia is frequently
mentioned during the 1250s. As a possible result of such closeness he enjoyed
an important set of privileges, given to him by different popes, allowing him
to incorporate new property into the episcopal mensa,31 as well as to overcome
a disputed election.32 His concerns still seem to have centred on defining
competencies in relation to the Santa Cruz Monastery in Coimbra and defining
borders with the neighbouring diocese of Guarda.33 He was a member of a family
connected to royal service, a brother to three advisors to the king,34 and defended
the legitimacy of the marriage of King Afonso III to Queen Beatriz before the
pope. His appointment to Compostela allowed him some distance from the
Portuguese problems and avoided a direct confrontation with Portuguese royalty.
He died shortly after his appointment, in Montpellier, without taking possession
of his new archbishopric.
Meanwhile, for the diocese of Coimbra, left vacant by the appointment of
D. Egas to Compostela, the pope appointed a former collaborator of the king,
Mateus Martins, then Bishop of Viseu and chaplain of Afonso III.35 Despite
his previous relationship with the king, his appointment to Coimbra was never
29
He was elected in 1247 and approved by the Archbishop of Braga, but not confirmed by
the pope. Pope Innocent IV only confirmed his appointment in December 1248, mentioning
some accusations previously made. Berger, Les Registres d’Innocent IV, ii, nº 564, pp. 523–24.
Also see Ventura, ‘A nobreza de Corte de Afonso III’, ii, 750–52, and Cardoso, Catálogo dos
bispos da Diocese de Coimbra, p. 6.
30
Jordan, Les Registres de Clément IV, nº 543, p. 181.
31
In 1255 Pope Alexander IV granted him the possibility of incorporating the rents from
the churches of S. Martinho de Montemor, Pedrogão, and Avô, into the episcopal mensa,
recalling the poverty of the said mensa. The year before, Innocent IV had authorized him to
borrow money using Church assets as a guarantee up to a maximum of two hundred libras. Les
Registres d’Innocent IV, ii, nº 939, p. 825, and Rodríguez de Lama, La documentación pontíficia
de Alejandro IV, nº 130, pp. 135–46.
32
This disturbance is echoed in the pope’s confirmation bull. About the election process,
see Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, pp. 256–57.
33
Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, docs 504, 507, and 530–31, pp. 350–52 and pp. 363–64.
34
Morujão, A Sé de Coimbra, pp. 130–38.
35
accepted by Afonso, and he was never referred to as Bishop of Coimbra in royal

documentation. Curiously, the royal documentation between 1268 and 1279
always mentions the dioceses of Coimbra and Viseu as vacant.
The direct reasons for the king’s confrontation with his former chaplain are
unclear. His refusal to recognise Mateus as Bishop of Coimbra may be explained
by the fact that the king was probably interested in having someone else in this
diocese. His departure to Viterbo as Bishop of Viseu, supporting the other
bishops, probably did not please the king and sealed his destiny.
This destiny was not yet clear at the time of his election to Viseu. Chosen
by the chapter in 1254, his election led to a long conflict with the choirmaster
of Viseu, Pedro Peres, which lasted some years. This conflict forced the pope
to intervene and reach an agreement between the chapter and the choirmaster,
despite the king’s apparent opposition.36
Although he enjoyed royal support at the time, the king later forced him to
rule his diocese of Coimbra from a distance through vicars general successively
appointed until 1279. In that year, D. Mateus finally resigned his see into the
hands of the pope, who appointed Aymeric d’Ébrard. He then resumed his
position as Bishop of Viseu until 1287, although he never returned to Portugal.37
Mateus, Bishop of Lisbon, also seemed close to the king. His turbulent and
prolonged election, between 1258 and 1262, which was also marked by royal
intervention, would seal the fate of a long rule, in an environment of conflict
between the bishops and the king. Despite being mentioned in papal bulls, and
in the list of the bishops’ grievances, his support for the episcopal cause seems to
have been somewhat discreet, balancing between his loyalty to the monarch who
had supported him at the beginning of his rule (and whose support he wanted to
maintain) and his closeness to the group of bishops to which he belonged.38
Rodrigo Fernandes, Bishop of Guarda (1248–67), was probably one of
the few in this group who witnessed the events of Afonso III’s first years of
government. He was a relative of Fernão Martins Curutelo and uncle of Aires
Fernandes (de Meira) and so member of a noble lineage.39 Rodrigo Fernandes
36
Ventura and da Cunha Matos, Diplomatário da Sé de Viseu, doc. 348, pp. 320–59.
37
As regards the presence of the prelate in Viseu, see Farelo, ‘O episcopado após 1147’,
pp. 200–201.
38
This bishop’s career pathway and election process were recently studied in Antunes,
‘Mateus (1262–1282)’.
39
Ventura, ‘A nobreza de Corte de Afonso III’, ii, 748–48. A ceremony was celebrated in
memory of his soul at the monastery of S. Vicente de Fora, near Lisbon. Santos, Um obituário do
Mosteiro de S. Vicente de Fora, p. 134.
was the bishop of an inland diocese, a minor one, given its low income and lack
of political centrality. He died at the Curia and was replaced by Friar Vasco, a
Franciscan appointed by the pope.40
In short, this was the very heterogeneous group that left for the Curia after
placing an interdict on the kingdom. They were servants of the king and pope,
and what seems to unite them on all fronts is the beginning of their tenures in
the different dioceses, dating from the late 1240s or even during the 1250s. None
had been bishops during the 1245 crisis, nor had they witnessed the Oath of Paris
sworn by Afonso III. The only exception was Martinho, one of the two bishops
who remained in Portugal.
Martinho Pires de Évora died in 1266. Contemporary with the 1245 crisis,
it is quite possible that the delay to his consecration as bishop was partly due
to the problems arising from the political conflicts of the final years of King
Sancho II’s rule.41 Martinho Pires de Évora was close to the king, to whom he
granted, in 1253, two-thirds of the tithes of Beja’s churches to rebuild the wall of
the city,42 and it was to him that the king swore not to devaluate the coin, circa
1255.43 Martinho’s successor in the diocese would be an ecclesiastic with close
connections to royalty. Royal advisor, king’s cleric, and also queen’s chancellor,
Durando Pais was the only bishop who attended some meetings between
Afonso III and the papal legate Friar Nicholas Hispanus. He was also one of the
few ecclesiastics present at the king’s death, together with Domingos Anes Jardo,
his successor in the same diocese.44
Pedro Eanes, Bishop of Lamego between 1257 and 1270, was also close to the
king. In a letter sent to the Archbishop of Compostela in May 1258,45 Afonso III
says he is ‘viro utique literato provido et honesto tam in temporalibus quam in
spiritualibus’ thus asking for his confirmation as bishop.
Old age possibly justified the absence of both prelates, causing them to appoint
representatives. But the appointment of representatives, on the one hand, and
40
Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, p. 441, n. 242. Jordan, Les
Registres de Clément IV, nº 529, pp. 170–71.
41
Vilar, As dimensões de um poder, pp. 47–56.
42
Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro I, i, doc. 17,
p. 29.
43
Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro I, ii, doc.
705, p. 278.
44
Brandão, Monarquia Lusitana, Parte IV, fols 254–255v.
45
Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro I, i, doc. 143,
p. 165, and Ventura, D. Afonso III, p. 150.
the relatively disparaging reactions of the Bishop of Lisbon, on the other hand,
suggest that this group, albeit united by its grievances, was divided by multiple
loyalties and personal ties.
Yet this is the group heading the list of grievances presented to the pope
in 1268. Whether drawn up in Rome or Portugal,46 the drafting of this list
presupposes coordination and even exchange of information between prelates,
but no information has emerged about the existence of possible meetings or
exchanges. It is true that one of the complaints referred to the royal opposition to
meetings of bishops as well as parish priests. But this complaint was not original
or exclusive to Portugal. In 1279, the Castilian clergy also complained to the
pope about Afonso X’s opposition to holding meetings of prelates, giving the
appearance that these opinions were shared between Afonso III and his father-in-
law. These shared ideals would possibly have been extended to other neighbouring
monarchs, who were also not in favour of the holding of these meetings; it usually
ended with the complaints or requests being presented to the king or pope.47
But one way or another the drafting of this list implied coordination, the form of
which escapes us.
In fact, as a whole, the roll of complaints by the Portuguese bishops were
close to the themes present in similar situations. Aggravations resulting from
royal intervention in episcopal elections, abuses by royal officers on the persons
and property of the Church, conflicts of jurisdiction and the exercise of justice,
difficulties in the collection of tithes, and improper imposition of taxes were the
background of many other lists of grievances of greater or lesser extent which
bishops presented to kings and popes, particularly in the course of the thirteenth
century and even into the fourteenth century.48 Regardless of the virulence of the
criticism, little or no progress was made in the following years until the death of
the king.
These bishops, appointed to their dioceses after the crisis and the deposition
of 1245, were not members of the group who had imposed conditions, even if
theoretically, on the crown prince who aspired to the Portuguese throne. And
46
Probably the list with forty-three articles was preceded by the other list with forty-four
articles published by Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, from a copy
existing in the Braga archives. For this author the two documents are linked. In this list many
of the articles have examples of the behaviours of the king and his officials against clerics and
Church assets. Most of these examples were absent from the final list.
47
Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy, p. 174, and Linehan, ‘The Spanish Church
Revisited’.
48
This list was abridged by Herculano, História de Portugal, iii, 131–40. See note 6, above.
as such, their capacity to influence and place pressure on a king who had already
imposed himself was now much smaller. On the other hand, at the Curia, the
situation in effect between 1266 and 1289 made it easier to drag the situation out
and postpone a decision.
Between 1266 and 1289 there were nine popes in Rome, some of whom ruled
for a very short period. And the consequent instability was largely exploited by
royalty, especially by the Portuguese monarch and his supporters. The second
legateship of Friar Nicholas Hispanus serves as a good example. In addition to
the inevitable changes regarding the replacement of pontiffs, Afonso III tried to
ensure that he benefited from the election of the first Portuguese pope, John XXI,
former Archbishop of Braga and former king’s advisor. The sudden death of
John XXI and his short rule frustrated many of Afonso III’s expectations. The
king would refer to these in the account of Friar Nicholas Hispanus’s legateship.
The ‘Enterprise’ of Friar Nicholas Hispanus in Portugal

From 1268 to February 1277, before the second legateship of Friar Nicholas
Hispanus in Portugal, the papacy made some efforts to reconcile the Portuguese
bishops with the king, once again revealing the choice of a policy of conciliation
and even continued support for the king. An account of these vicissitudes
has already been made by José Mattoso and Maria Alegria Marques. Their
writings point to the idea of a continuous effort to create a lasting agreement,
interrupted by bulls that resumed the threats of interdicts on the kingdom and
of disconnecting the subjects from their loyalty oath to the monarch.49 Added
to this, Afonso III maintained a policy which combined attitudes of apparent
regret and the desire to make amends, as happened with the appointment of a
commission of ‘correctors’ from the Cortes of Santarém in 1273,50 with disregard
for papal guidelines regarding the deadlines for correcting such abuses.
49
Mattoso, ‘Dois séculos de vicissitudes políticas’, pp. 143–47. Pope Clement IV suspended
the interdict for six months in July 1268.
50
Despite the suspension of the interdict, a succession of popes frowned on the dubious
attitudes of Afonso III. The matter was discussed again by Gregory X who, in May 1273, urged
the king to change his attitude towards the Church. The monarch asked him for some time to
summon the Cortes, which took place at Santarém. In December 1273, a long and interesting
list of thirty-five correctors were ordered and empowered to correct all the things made by
the king against the Church: ‘corregam e façam correger todalas cousas que acharem e virem
que forom feytas per mim e pelos meus do meu Reyno sem razom que se devam a correger e a
entregar aos sobreditos arcebispo e aos bispos e aos prelados e aas eygrejas e aos moesteyros e
In the context of these somewhat troubled relations, Gregory X’s bull De

regno Portugaliae, dated September 1275, was a crucial step. Recapitulation of
the evolution of the conflict heralded a practice that would also be present at the
beginning of Friar Nicholas’s legateship. During his legateship, the presentation
and reading of consecutive bulls, together with the text of the king’s oath in Paris,
sought to demonstrate the blatantly disrespectful attitude of the king. It was
disrespectful of ecclesiastic privileges and liberties, as repeatedly reaffirmed by the
Church, but also contemptuous of the oath itself, through which he had secured
his appointment as protector of the realm in 1245, replacing his brother.
The Church thus tried to question the legitimacy of one who had been chosen
as an alternative to a rex inutilis. After that, Gregory X included in his bull a
three-month deadline for the king to comply, threatening him with increasingly
serious penalties and, ultimately, promising to release his subjects from loyalty
vis-à-vis the monarch — including an interdict over the entire kingdom.51 At the
beginning of 1276, however, the pope’s untimely death dissipated the chances of
immediate reaction.
Both Innocent V and John XXI resumed the policies of Gregory X’s bull and
gave Friar Nicholas Hispanus a new legateship, instructing him to begin a new
round of talks with the Portuguese king. Meanwhile ten years had passed since
the departure of the bishops from the kingdom. In this context, this legateship
emerged as another opportunity given by the papacy to reach a consensus and a
peaceful solution.
Friar Nicholas presented himself before the king at the royal palace of Lisbon,
on 7 February 1277.52 The proceedings of this legateship certainly are an
invaluable source of extremely important and rich information, reflecting those
aas pessoas das eygrejas e dos moesteyros e aos fidalgos e aas ordiis e aos concelhos e aos poboos
e a todalas comunidades do Reyno’. This group included Bishop Durando of Évora, a large
number of nobles as king’s clerics, whom in several cases we find again by the king’s side on the
occasion of the meetings between Afonso III and Friar Nicholas Hispanus. Chancelaria de D.
Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro III, doc. 6, pp. 243–45. As expected,
the results produced by this committee were none, and this might have been at the root of Pope
Gregory X’s 1275 bull.
51
Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, doc. 754, p. 473 (reference to the bull), and ii, doc. 753,
pp. 305–09 (transcript of the episcopal memorandum about the implementation of the bull De
regno Portugaliae). In the Middle Ages both bishops and popes frequently resorted to interdicts,
although their effects sharply varied according to each individual case. For a case study, see
Cheney, ‘King John and the Papal Interdict’. For a broader perspective on the enforcement and
contents of the interdict, see Clarke, The Interdict in the Thirteenth Century.
52
On the publication of these proceedings, see note 2, above.
who drafted them and the result of their work, that is, the papal legate and his
scribe. They seek to report to the pope, in writing, the impressions of their visit to
Portugal and the results of the meetings with the Portuguese king.53 This report,
albeit neither naïve nor impartial, brings us closer to the meanderings of those
multiple meetings held between February and October 1277. It corresponds,
however, to the way in which Friar Nicholas interpreted the successive delays and
repeated displays of power by the king during the meetings.
Although Afonso III received the legate and proved open to finding a solution
to the problem caused by the departure of most of the bishops to the Curia, the
royal strategy mostly unfolded in the corridors of the Curia — not through the
interaction with Friar Nicholas. Also, royal discourse seems to be clearly based on
such a dichotomy, that is, the unstable balance between maintaining negotiations
with the papal legate and getting royal representatives at the Curia to obtain
favourable results for the king’s claims.
As occurred in the ensuing meetings, at the first meeting on 7 February, Friar
Nicholas made his presentation in the vernacular and made public, before the
king and a large and diverse group of people, a bulky set of documents, including
several papal bulls, from the 1275 bull, reporting the history of the conflict,
to the bull removing Sancho II, as well as the text of Afonso III’s oath, among
others. The explicit reference to the speech in the vernacular language enables us
to glimpse a clear concern with being understood by the people who listened to
him, including those who had a limited understanding of Latin.54 In fact, this long
presentation before the king was witnessed by a group including many clergymen
but also a few laymen. On the bishops’ side, we can only identify Bishop Durando
of Évora, but other clerics also heard the speech.
Reference should be made to the Abbot of Alcobaça, along with dignities
and canons of several dioceses (namely Lisbon, Braga, Évora, and Viseu),55
53
Friar Nicholas was not the first legate sent by the pope to address issues between king
and Church. Other legateships had left their impressions on the Iberian territory, many of them
unrelated to the rule of Afonso III. The most famous, and most analysed one, is undoubtedly the
legateship of John of Abbeville in the 1220s. About this journey to the peninsula, see Linehan,
‘A Papal Legation and its Aftermath’, and Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy, pp. 20ff.,
and on subsequent legateships, pp. 188ff.
54
As regards the expanded knowledge of Latin among non-ecclesiastics, but also the
importance of hearing the word, see Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record, pp. 234–39 and
pp. 260–65.
55
Specifically: Pedro Martins, Dean and Vicar of the Bishop of Lisbon; Martim Dade,
Treasurer of the Church of Lisbon; João Soares, canon of Lisbon; Domingos Fernandes, also
canon of Lisbon; Vicente Eanes, Choirmaster of Évora and canon of Lisbon; Domingos Jardo,
some holding roles as king’s clerics or advisors, and a significant number of

Dominican and Franciscan friars and regular canons of a few monasteries.
A total of more than thirty clergymen, together with the masters and members
of the military Order of the Temple and of the military Order of the Hospital,
were joined by some fourteen laymen, clearly less important. The maiordomus, a
few lords of castles, the judge of the royal curia, the reposteiro (housekeeper), and
a royal scribe, among other laymen, completed this predominantly ecclesiastical
audience.56
By doing this, Afonso III thus showed the agreement between Church and
king in front of the pope’s envoy, despite the bishops’ opposition. He reaffirmed
that he was backed by the diocesan chapters, from which he recruited many
advisors, and whose bishops remained at the Curia — or were cautiously
remaining distant from the conflict, as did the Bishop of Lisbon.
After his long presentation, Friar Nicholas begged the king to take a stand and
obey the pope’s orders. But Afonso III concentrated on asking for copies of the
submitted documents — which were hardly unknown to him and could certainly
be easily obtained, as they had been sent to him by the predecessors of John XXI
— rather than acceding to the legate’s requests. Thus, the request for a copy was
presented as a prerequisite to a response by the monarch, and Friar Nicholas had
no option other than to accept the royal request.
Nicholas left the royal palace and descended to the Cathedral of Lisbon. In
front of Bishop Durando of Évora and many other clerics who were at the royal
hearing, he published and explained, once again in the vernacular, the details of
his arguments. Ecclesiastical circles close to the king thus fulfilled their obligations
to the pope’s legate, that is, escorting him and keeping him company during his
perambulations, without seeming to put their loyalty to the king in jeopardy.
This was the first of a series of meetings between the pope’s legate and King
Afonso III. At least six meetings were held from 7 February to 6 October 1277.
Indeed, all reports on every consecutive meeting show that the king apparently
wanted to buy time, successively postponing a response to the questions asked by
the legate, and he always did it in front of great audiences. The same happened,
king’s cleric and advisor and canon of Évora; Estevão de Rates, canon of Braga and king’s
advisor; João Pais, canon of Viseu and king’s advisor; Domingos Pires, canon of Coimbra and
king’s cleric.
56
Comparing this group to the group of correctors of 1273, we can see that around a third
of the participants are the same, especially those belonging to the nobility, clearly representing
a lower percentage in the meeting of February 1277 than in 1273. In the case of the clergymen
Durando of Évora, Estevão Rates, and Domingos Pires, they were present at both meetings as
king’s clerics, as well as Afonso Peres Farinha, Master of Knights Hospitaller in Portugal.
again, on 30 March, when Friar Nicholas urged the king to answer the pope’s
requests, after a meeting with the barons requested by the king, who had
postponed the next meeting to a date after Easter — celebrated on 28 March.
Very sure of his negotiations with John XXI, Afonso III said he wanted to
send representatives to settle the issue in a manner agreeable to both parties.
The king, faced with pressure from the pope’s legate to obtain his agreement,
together with the dangers that could result from any postponement to the royal
representatives’ journey to the Curia, reaffirmed his claim: ‘Illud quod predixi
facere volo’,57 and once more he did so in front of an audience composed mainly
of clergymen close to him.58
In this context Friar Nicholas took a difficult measure. He went from Lisbon
to several cities in central and northern Portugal, namely Santarém, Coimbra,
Porto, Braga, Guimarães, Lamego, Viseu, and Guarda. In each one and upon
his arrival, between April and late July, he read the pope’s letters and had them
published at the church door, urging the king to amend his alleged abuses and
exposing his own arguments to a large, albeit not participative, audience. He
visited the diocese centres, as well as Guimarães — where the powerful collegiate
of Santa Maria da Oliveira was located. He did all this in the absence of any
decision by the king.
The sudden death of John XXI in May 1277 made negotiations with the king
more complex, to the detriment of the claims of Afonso III. This was perhaps
the reason, as Maria Alegria Marques puts it, why Friar Nicholas was urged to
interrupt his journey through the main cities of the kingdom and stopped
publishing papal letters, when he was again received by the king. Afonso III
himself mentions the death of the pope as the reason for the meeting of 27 July,
in which the monarch wanted to know if Friar Nicholas could relieve him of his
penalties. The nuncio answered that such a pardon was not in his hands. As we
might have expected, the king did not like this answer.
Once again, impasse affected the legateship. The legate’s report says that, in
front of the people of Lisbon, gathered both at the city’s cathedral and the House
of Franciscan Friars, Friar Nicholas protested about the lack of a royal response,
in an effort seemingly directed to many of those who repeatedly took the king’s
57
Marques, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III, p. 565.
58
At the end of this meeting’s report, when the document was sealed, it was declared that
some of the ecclesiastics were present at the legate’s request. He wanted to gather evidence and
testimonies that ensured the future memory of the debate. However, since these were the same
ecclesiastics who were at the first meeting, it seems that Friar Nicholas sought the testimony of
clerics close to the king.
side. He then resumed his journey, now heading south to Évora, the bishop of
which had remained in Portugal. At Évora, before its prelate and members of the
chapter, as well as many members of the people, if we believe his account, Friar
Nicholas published the royal orders again. From there, he returned to Lisbon. At
that time, Portugal and Castile still disputed the diocese of Silves in the Kingdom
of Algarve. Nicholas’s journey therefore ended at Alentejo’s episcopal city.
All this took place before the final meeting with the king, when Afonso III
put an end to the discussion, saying that the time for discussion was already over.
This time, the audience was perhaps less impressive. The proceedings do mention
the presence of ‘quibusdam aliis’, but the only witnesses mentioned on the list at
the end of each meeting were those considered deserving by the pope’s scribe —
that is, those whose names he had been instructed to write down.
Dinis and Afonso, the king’s sons, are mentioned for the first time. This was
a clear reference to the succession that Afonso III possibly saw coming in the
near future, but also underscored the importance of the meeting, which would
put an end to the legateship. Besides the princes, whose names are at the top of
the list, we see a group of the king’s closest nobles for the first time: João Peres
de Aboim, Martim Gil, and Martim Eanes do Vinhal, among others. Only after
these, switching the order of all lists of witnesses until then, came a few friars and
king’s clerics, such as Domingos Eanes Jardo, canon of Évora at the time and its
future bishop, and Estevão de Rates, canon of Braga and king’s cleric, but in rather
smaller numbers than in previous meetings. This time, the display of power does
not seem to be represented by the group of ecclesiastics, but by the royal princes
and the king’s discourse. In this last meeting, Afonso III stated it was no longer
time for discussion and negotiation, clearly saying that the legateship would no
longer produce any results. Actually, Afonso III appeared to have little interest in
the results, or at least in the effectiveness, of the papal legateship.
King Afonso III was interested in obtaining a quick pardon and putting an
end to his excommunication. In their last meeting, he may have tried to convince
Friar Nicholas of the effects of Gil Rebolo’s action at the Curia and the eventual
pardon intended by John XXI, terminated by the pope’s sudden death in May
1277.59 To address this delay, the king requested the intervention of Afonso
Peres Farinha, Master of the Knights Hospitaller, who was sent to the Curia and
reaffirmed the pope’s intentions. Both parties’ intransigent stances led to the
blunt sentence of Afonso III quoted at the beginning of this essay.
59
The entire argumentation of Afonso III is based on the alleged success of Gil Rebolo and
Friar Afonso Peres Farinha’s journey to the Curia as his representatives. Master Tomé, treasurer
of the church of Braga had also represented the king at the Curia.
King Afonso III died in February 1279, and until that point, little news
(if any) was heard on any further developments in the king’s relationship with
the bishops. The hypothesis, according to which Friar Nicholas’s departure,
having obtained no royal reaction other than the need to review Gregory X’s
provisions, would have paved the way to ending Afonso III’s legitimate authority,
thus causing subsequent internal disturbances, does not seem likely, as already
stressed by José Mattoso.60 It was no longer possible for the nobility to use social
instability to improve their standing, as most of them had sided with the king,
even after the threat posed by the 1258 Inquisitiones. On the other hand, the time
for his successor to rise to the throne was approaching. His presence at the last
meeting seems to confirm it and, despite a few (implied rather than stated) issues
associated with his succession, in the first months of King Dinis’s rule, the power
of dynastic continuity certainly prevailed.61
The new king would have to find the agreements required to end this conflict,
which enabled the gradual return of the prelates to the kingdom and the renewed
intervention of the king in the episcopal domain — now legitimized by the
said agreements. Dinis, a silent witness of the last meeting between Afonso III
and Friar Nicholas Hispanus, inherited a problem that would take some time
to solve. Afonso III’s repentance, registered upon his death, paved the way for
reconciliation, but, like his father before him, Dinis did not want an agreement at
any price. That is why the negotiations were slow and troubled. And only in 1289
was a general agreement reached.
From Grievances to Agreements: A Possible Closure?

The forty-article agreement which in principle brought an end to the conflict
with the bishops was approved on 12 February 1289 in the basilica of Santa
Maria Maggiore in Rome. It was confirmed by the papal bull Occurrit nostrae
considerationis dated 7 March 1289.62 The importance of this agreement and
another consisting of only eleven articles is attested to by its inclusion in the
Ordenações Afonsinas, the first major compilation of Portuguese law, drawn up
in the fifteenth century.63 In fact, the translation, copying, and incorporation of
these first documents regarding the agreements between the kings and bishops of
Portuguese dioceses into the said legal compilation unequivocally illustrate their
60
61
Pizarro, D. Dinis, pp. 65–72, and Vilar, ‘Inquirir e doar no final do século xiii’.
62
Costa, ‘Concilio Provincial de Compostela’, pp. 407–09.
63
Ordenações Afonsinas, livro II, pp. 3–44.
importance and also show the way in which the established guidelines continued
to regulate the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical powers. In tandem
with this draft, copies of the agreement were sent to different dioceses, where
they are still present in the archives.
This apparently simple and clean text seems to have been the subject of various
negotiations. This is because the text which was approved in 1289 was the version
which was to be recorded for the future. Thus, the 1289 agreement was advanced
as a set of forty articles that summarized the prelates’ complaints and requests,
with each of these articles followed by the answers of the two representatives
of the king. Their answers invariably affirmed the innocence of the present
king, Dinis, regarding his responsibility for the misconduct which the prelates
mentioned, or when there was a risk of the possibility of some abuse, they quickly
undertook to make the necessary corrections. Dinis was thus unusually shown
as a compliant, complacent king who respected ecclesiastical liberties and could
only have behaved in such a condemnable way by mistake.
It comes as no surprise that negotiations were lengthy and complicated. The
general agreement of 1289 represents a fragile equilibrium, carefully struck to
balance the interests of the three parties. In fact, like his father before him, Dinis
was in no rush to normalize the relationships with the bishops and the pope. The
inherited impasse does not seem to have spurred on royal action. As a matter
of fact, discussions about the final document which had taken place previously
when Dinis refused to accept a first draft of the agreement prove the importance
of the text that would become registered and codified for future memory.64 But
if Dinis was in no hurry to resolve this conflict, availability for such a resolution
was also limited on the part of the papacy in the years immediately following the
death of Afonso III.
In the same year of the death of Afonso III, 1279, Nicholas III addressed to
Afonso X a list of complaints of the Castilian bishops. This list had inevitable
64
A first version of the agreement, according to the definition of articles and the respective
royal responses, seems to have emerged from the Cortes da Guarda, in 1281. In 1284, Pope
Martin IV sent the final text for review, saying that some responses proposed by the king
could not be accepted. Domínguez Sánchez, Documentos de Martín IV, doc. 125, pp. 319–21.
Furthermore, the pope demanded a royal response to every article, which had not happened yet.
Upon Martin IV’s death, the process was once again interrupted. The Cortes of Lisbon in 1285
opposed certain proposals of the pope, arguing that, according to the bishops, they hurt the
Crown and the royal majesty. The main guidelines in this negotiation were described by Costa,
‘D. Frei Telo’. The request for clarification and the support asked by the bishops is mentioned
and partially transcribed in Linehan, Portugalia Pontificia, i, doc. 816, 509–10 and n. 3. The full
text can be found in Costa, Monumenta Portugaliae Vaticana, i, pp. xc–xci.
features in common with the list given a few years earlier by the Portuguese
prelates. Having recently emerged from a crisis of the nobility, the Kingdom of
Castile and the opposition between king and bishops put new pressure on the
papacy and its action of mediation. The appointment of a new legate was the
mandatory solution found by the pope; he appealed to the Bishop of Rieti, to
whom he issued a ballot in reference to the seven articles to be answered by the
king.65
The 1270s closed with Portuguese and Castilian prelates at odds with their
respective monarchs and their brethren in common complaints, while the high
pontiffs sought compromises and balances which were not always easy to enact.
This was especially the case when normalcy seemed to prevail while negotiations
took place, at least after the death of Afonso III. The bishops who acted as
representatives of the Portuguese prelates, as a whole, in February 1289 were quite
different from those who had left for the Curia in the mid-1260s. Four bishops
led the final formalization of the agreement, specifically those responsible for the
dioceses of Braga, Coimbra, Lamego, and Silves.
Friar Telo, the Archbishop of Braga, was a Franciscan appointed in 1278 by
Pope Nicholas III, who had previously been prior of his order in the province of
Castile. His appointment to Braga seems to have been marked from the outset by
the search for a solution to the lingering conflict, which the death and supposed
regret of Afonso III may have facilitated.
For its part, the diocese of Coimbra would see the arrival of the first of a long
list of prelates of French origin.66 A member of the Ébrard family, Aymeric is
one of his family’s first ecclesiastics to take an important position in Coimbra’s
ecclesiastical hierarchy;67 coming from Palencia, where he was archdeacon,
Aymeric was Bishop of Coimbra between 1279 and 1295.
Bartolomeu was the first Bishop of Silves to recognize the Portuguese king’s
right over the diocese of Algarve, after the agreements with Castile regarding its
possession in 1270.68 These circumstances spared him from leaving for the Curia
with the other bishops and possibly allowed him to remain close to the monarch,
with this proximity being strengthened by his position as king’s chaplain.
65
Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy, pp. 217–21, Linehan, ‘The Spanish Church
Revisited’, and Domínguez Sánchez, Documentos de Nicolás III, doc. 118, pp. 340–45.
66
67
Morujão, ‘La Famille d’Ébrard et le Clergé de Coimbra’ and Pradalié, ‘Quercynois et
autres méridionaux au Portugal à la fin du xiiie et au xive siècle’.
68
Chancelaria de D. Afonso III, ed. by Ventura and Resende de Oliveira, Livro III, doc. 15,
pp. 256–57.
Of the four new bishops, João of Lamego was the last to take an episcopal seat.
He was appointed by Honorius IV in 1285 after a disputed election.69
The connection of three of these bishops to the papacy, which could even be
seen in the way the pope presided over their appointment, thus seems to be a
point of connection between them, and this proximity may have contributed to
the gradual establishment of this agreement.
While these ecclesiastics were responsible for the final part of the negotiation
on the side of the bishops, on the other side were neither lay people or royal
officials, but also two ecclesiastics, belonging to the chapters of Évora and
Coimbra. Martinho Pires and João Martins de Soalhães were to be the voices for
the royal answers and communicators of Dinis’s will. Servants of the Church and
the king, they were to carry out the task faithfully and take from it the inevitable
fruits. Both would have successful careers in the Portuguese ecclesiastical
hierarchy from the 1290s onwards.70
Of course, these agreements, called the forty and eleven articles, established
in 1289 would not be the last to regulate relations between kings and bishops in
Portugal. A few years later, in 1302, a new, more restricted and partial agreement
would be established again, and after that many others would be registered.
However, the appeal to the pope by the Portuguese episcopate would never again
be made in the same way.
There can be no doubt that the departure of the bishops for the Curia in
1267 was a turning point in the relationship between King Afonso III and the
Church, as was the submission of such a long list of grievances. The conjunctural
circumstances that were the basis of this reaction have already been indicated, but
the fact is that this action of the Portuguese episcopate was no more than a reprise
of the line of action which was followed in neighbouring kingdoms by prelates
throughout the thirteenth century.
Castile, France, and England were also stages for dissent and protest between
the episcopate and their respective monarchs. The similarities between the
complaints of the Portuguese clergy in 1268 and those of the Castilian clergy
in 1279 are evident, as has already been shown, and a more detailed comparison
is now required. In England the numerous lists of grievances presented by the
English clergy since 1237 and studied by W. T. Jones,71 and which would lead to
69
Prou, Les Registres d’Honorius IV, nº 528, p. 368.
70
As regards these ecclesiastics, see Vilar, ‘The Life and Times of Martinho Pires de
Oliveira’, pp. 323–44.
71
Jones, ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws’.
the Articuli Cleri of 1316,72 also seem to point in a common direction, despite
differences in their conjuncture. Of course, this common direction lies not only in
the royal action and its effects on privileges and above all on ecclesiastical rights;
it lies rather in the balance between pope, king, and national clergy and then in
the balance of the different interests that played out in each space and each period.
In the Portuguese case, although recourse to the Curia individually or in
groups was not new to the Portuguese episcopate (although not on the terms of
that of 1268), the truth is that the power of the king himself never seemed to be
in question, despite the repeated papal threats — and never was his removal even
considered. The goal was to correct and impose corrections, a lengthy prolonged
process due to the instability of the papal throne that characterized the 1260s and
the 1270s, and to the frailty or the divisions amongst the prelates.
The growing importance of royal service to the construction of many
individual career pathways resulted in a rising dependence of the prelates vis-à-vis
the king. However, this relationship cannot only be read as being limited to the
effects of this intervention.
It became clear to some, such as Bishop Mateus of Lisbon, that staying
equidistant in the conflict at the Curia was the best solution. Others, like
Durando of Évora, did not hesitate to take sides with the king and stand by him,
even under the threat of Gregory X’s bull, which the king plainly declared an
‘ordenatio diabolica’. By his side, Dominican and Franciscan friars and members
of military orders upheld the royal discourse. Registered as direct speech in the
proceedings of the legateship of Friar Nicholas, the king’s speech sought to reach
an agreement with the bishops, but only under certain conditions.
Such conditions granted the king a new position regarding the Church, and
this is an element of continuity between the reigns of Afonso III and Dinis. Just
as Afonso refused Friar Nicholas’s proposed concord, prevented by the sudden
death of John XXI, Dinis also imposed conditions in the document ensuring the
agreement and registering its memory. After all, his crown, royal majesty, and
royal rights were at stake and, in that regard, the policy adopted by both kings
seemed consistent.
The archbishop and the bishops negotiating this document knew this quite
well. Their appeal to the pope, to receive instructions on the manner of procedure,
and their repeated affirmation of King Dinis’s desire to reach an agreement
indicate their wish to reach a conclusion rather than maintain confrontation.
Royal service and loyalty to the king did not result in the rupture of the
hypothetical cohesion or identity of the episcopal group. They just transformed
72
Denton, ‘The Making of the Articuli Cleri of 1316’.
it, connecting it indelibly to the circles of power and reinforcing their status as
political protagonists. The destiny of the kingdom was increasingly the destiny of
these bishops.
Works Cited
Primary Sources
Berger, E., Les Registres d’Innocent IV (1243–1254) (Paris, 1881–1921)
Brandão, Frei António, Monarquia Lusitana, Parte Quarta (Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional
– Casa da Moeda, 1974)
Costa, António Domingues de Sousa, Monumenta Portugaliae Vaticana (Montariol: Fran-
ciscana, 1968)
Diplomatário da Sé de Viseu (1078–1278), ed. by Leontina Ventura and João da Cunha
Matos, Documentos, 1 (Coimbra: Inst. de Estudos Medievais Centro de História da
Sociedade e da Cultura Imprensa da Univ. de Coimbra, 2010)
Domínguez Sánchez, Santiago, Documentos de Martín IV (1281–1285): referentes a
España, Colección Monumenta hispaniae pontificia, 6 (León: Universidad de León,
Área de Publ, 2010)
—— , Documentos de Nicolás III (1277–1280) referentes a España (León: Universidad de
León, Servicio de Publicaciones, 1999)
Herculano, Alexandre, Portugaliae monumenta historica: leges et consuetudines, vol. i.2
(Olisipone: Academiae Scientiarum Olisiponensis, 1858)
Jordan, E., Les Registres de Clément IV (Paris, 1904)
Linehan, Peter, Portugalia Pontificia: Materials for the History of Portugal and the Papacy,
1198–1417, Cultura Portuguesa (Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2013)
Ordenações Afonsinas, Cultura portuguesa, 2nd edn (Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulben-
kian, 1998)
Prou, M., Les Registres d’Honorius IV (Paris, 1888)
Rodríguez de Lama, I., La documentación pontíficia de Alejandro IV (1254–1261) (Rome:
Instituto Espanol de Historia Eclesiástica, 1976)
Santos, Maria José Azevedo, Um obituário do Mosteiro de S. Vicente de Fora: a comemoração
dos que passaram deste mundo (Lisboa: Academia Portuguesa da Historia, 2008)
Ventura, Leontina, and António Resende de Oliveira, Chancelaria de D. Afonso III,
Documentos, 3 vols (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 2006)
Secondary Sources
Ambler, S. T., Bishops in the Political Community of England, 1213–1272 (Oxford: Oxford
Andrade, Amélia Aguiar, ‘Les Enquêtes royales au Portugal, 1220–1343’, in Quand
gouverner c’est enquêter: Les Pratiques politiques de l’enquête princière (Occident, xiiie–
xive siècles). Actes du colloque international d’Aixen Provence et Marseille, 19–21 mars
2009, ed. by Thierry Pécout (Paris: De Boccard, 2010), pp. 23–42
—— , ‘Luís Krus e as inquirições régias medievais: Percurso Através de uma reflexão
inovadora’, in Inquirir na idade média: espaços, protagonistas e poderes (sécs xii–xiv).
Tributo a Luís Krus, ed. by Amélia Aguiar Andrade and João Luis Fontes (Lisboa:
Instituto de Estudos Medievais, 2015), pp. 13–25
Antunes, José, ‘Mateus (1262–1282)’, in Bispos e arcebispos de Lisboa, dir. by José Luís
Fontes (Lisboa: Livros Horizonte, 2018), pp. 195–212
Cardoso, A. Brito, Catálogo dos bispos da Diocese de Coimbra (Coimbra: [n.pub.], 1985)
Cheney, Christopher R., From Beckett to Langton: English Church Government, 1170–1213
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956)
—— , ‘King John and the Papal Interdict’, Bulletin of John Rylands Library, 31 (1945),
295–317
Clanchy, M. T., From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066–1307, 2nd edn (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1993)
Clarke, Peter D., The Interdict in the Thirteenth Century: A Question of Collective Guilt
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
Costa, António Domingues de Sousa, ‘As concordatas portuguesas’, Itinerarium, 1966,
24–46
—— , ‘Concílio Provincial de Compostela realizado em 1292, com a participação dos
bispos portugueses, e a data do efectuado no tempo do Arcebispo D. João Arias’,
Itinerarium, 1987, 395–470
—— , ‘D. Frei Telo, Arcebispo Primaz as Concordatas de D. Dinis’, in IX centenário da
dedicação Da Sé de Braga: Congresso Internaciona. Actas, vol. ii.1: A catedral de Braga
na históia e na arte (Braga: Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 1990), pp. 283–316
Cunha, Maria Cristina, and Maria João Oliveira Silva, ‘The King’s Service and God’s
Service: Attitudes of a Prelate from Porto, D. Vicente Mendes (1260–1296)’, in
Carreiras Eclesiásticas no Ocidente Cristão (séc. xii–xiv) / Ecclesiastical Careers in
Western Christianity (12th–14th c.) (Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa,
Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2007), pp. 259–67
Denton, J. H., ‘The Making of the Articuli Cleri of 1316’, English Historical Review, 101
( July 1986), pp. 564–95
Farelo, Mário, ‘O episcopado após 1147’, in História da Diocese de Viseu (séc. vi–1505),
ed. by José Pedro Paiva, 3 vols (Viseu: Diocese de Viseu e Imprensa da Universidade
de Coimbra, 2016), i, 185–249
Fernandes, Hermenegildo, D. Sancho II: tragédia, Reis de Portugal, 4 (Mem Martins:
Circulo de Leitores, 2006)
Ferreira, José Augusto, Memorias archeologicohistoricas da cidade do Porto (Braga: Cruz

Editorial, 1923)
Herculano, Alexandre, História de Portugal: desde o começo da monarquia até o fim do
reinado de Afonso III, 4 vols (Lisboa: Livraria Bertrand, 1982)
Jones, W. R., ‘Bishops, Politics, and the Two Laws: The Gravamina of the English Clergy,
1237–1399’, Speculum, 41.2 (1966), 209–45
Linehan, Peter, ‘A Papal Legation and its Aftermath: Cardinal John of Abbeville in Spain
and Portugal, 1228–1229’, in Historical Memory and Clerical Activity in Medieval
Spain and Portugal, ed. by Peter Linehan (Farnham: Ashgate Variorum, 2012),
pp. 236–56
—— , The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge Studies
in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd ser., 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2005)
—— , ‘The Spanish Church Revisited: The Episcopal Gravamina of 1279’, in Authority
and Power: Studies on Medieval Law and Government Presented to Walter Ullmann
on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. by Brian Tierney and Peter Linehan (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 127–47
Marques, José, ‘Afonso X e a Diocese de Silves’, in Relações entre Portugal e Castela nos
finais da Idade Média (Braga: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian/Junta Nacional de
Investigação Cientifica e Tecnológica, 1994), pp. 105–23
Marques, Maria Alegria Fernandes, O Papado e Portugal no tempo de D. Afonso III:
1245–1279 ([n.p.]: [n.pub.], 1990)
Martins, Armando Alberto, O mosteiro de Santa Cruz de Coimbra na Idade Média (Lisboa:
Centro de História da Universidade de Lisboa, 2003)
Mattoso, José, ‘1258–1264: o triunfo da monarquia portuguesa. Ensaio de história
política’, in Naquele Tempo: Ensaios de História Medieval (Lisboa: Circulo de Leitores,
2000), pp. 529–60
—— , ‘Dois séculos de vicissitudes políticas’, in História de Portugal, dir. by José Mattoso
(Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores, 1993), ii: A Monarquia Feudal, 23–161
—— , Identificação de um país: ensaio sobre as origens de Portugal, 1096–1325, Imprensa
universitária, 45–46, 2 vols (Lisboa: Estampa, 1985)
Meirinhos, José Francisco, Pedro Hispano (século xiii) (Porto: [n.pub.], 2002)
Morujão, Maria do Rosário Barbosa, A Sé de Coimbra: a instituição e a chancelaria,
1080–1318, Textos universitários de ciências sociais e humanas (Lisboa: Fundação
Calouste Gulbenkian Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, 2010)
—— , ‘La Famille d’Ébrard et le Clergé de Coimbra aux xiiie et xive siècles’, in A Igreja e o
clero português no contexto europeu (Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa,
Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2005), pp. 77–94
O’Callaghan, Joseph, ‘The Ecclesiastical Estate in the Cortes of Leon-Castille, 1252–1350’,
Catholic Historical Review, 67 (1981), 185–213
Pécout, Thierry, ed., Quand gouverner c’est enquêter: Les Pratiques politiques de l’enquête
princière (Occident, xiiie–xive siècles). Actes du Colloque International d’AixEn
Provence et Marseille, 19–21 mars 2009 (Paris: De Boccard, 2010)
Pizarro, José Augusto P. de Sotomaior, D. Dinis, Reis de Portugal, 6 (Lisboa: Círculo de

Leitores, 2005)
Pradalié, Gérard, ‘Quercynois et autres méridionaux au Portugal à la fin du xiiie et au
xive siècle: l, exemple de l’église de Coimbra’, Annales du Midi: Revue Archéologique,
Historique et Philologique de la France Méridionale, 1982, 369–86
Rodrigues, Ana Maria S. A., Os capitulares bracarenses (1245–1374): notícias biográficas,
História religiosa, 5 (Lisboa: Centro de Estudos de História Religiosa-Universidade
Católica Portuguesa, 2005)
Varandas, José Manuel Henriques, ‘Bonus rex ou rex inutilus: as periferias e o centro,
redes de poder no reinado de D. Sancho II (1223–1248)’ (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Lisbon, 2003)
Ventura, Leontina, D. Afonso III, Reis de Portugal, 5 (Lisboa: Círculo de Leitores, 2006)
—— , ‘A nobreza de Corte de Afonso III’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Coimbra, 1992)
Vilar, Hermínia Vasconcelos, As dimensões de um poder: a Diocese de Évora na Idade Média
(Lisboa: Estampa, 1999)
—— , ‘Inquirir e doar no final do século xiii: Viseu e a diocese no contexto das inquirições
de D. Dinis’, Beira Alta, 76 (2017), 31–47
—— , ‘The “Life and Times” of Martinho Peres de Oliveira: From Évora to Braga’, in
Medieval Studies in Honour of Peter Linehan, ed. by Francisco J. Hernández, Rocío
Sánchez Ameijeiras, and Emma Falque (Florence: SISMEL - Edizioni del Galluzzo,
2018), pp. 323–44
Watts, John, The Making of Polities: Europe, 1300–1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2009)
Bishops, Nepotism, and Social Mobility
in Central and Northern Italy in the
Fourteenth Century
Stefano G. Magni*
W
hen analysing successful social strategies for a clerical career in
Western Europe during the Middle Ages and in the modern times,
nepotism can be a useful concept. It received an institutional seal
of approval with the first election of a cardinal nepote in 1538 by Pope Paul III,
and it represents a classic theme of the modern history of the Church.1 The
nepotism of bishops in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is a complex
problem.2 Among the many questions that arise, it is worthwhile focusing at
least on two of them. First, we should seek to define what is meant by nepotism
in this research context. Secondly, can we find evidence of nepotism in the
*
I am particularly grateful to Sarah Thomas, who has helped me to write the paper in
English. The reader should know that any remaining faults are definitely my own.
1
Carocci, Il nepotismo nel medioevo, p. 11. A substantial bibliography exists about the
bishoprics of late medieval Italy and it can be summarized as follows: De Sandre Gasparini
and others, Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo; Pievi e parrocchie in Italia
nel Basso Medioevo; Dal pulpito alla cattedra. A model synthesis about this world is Ronzani,
‘Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’. See also Pellegrini, Vescovo e città,
pp. 1–14. For the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see Sergi, ‘Poteri temporali del vescovo’;
Brentano, Two Churches. See also Gamberini, ‘La nobiltà del pastore’; Rossi, ‘Vescovi nel basso
medioevo’.
2
Reinhard, ‘Nepotismus’.
Stefano G. Magni (s.magni@lettere.uniroma2.it) is a postdoctoral researcher at the University

of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’. His primary research interests focus on society, economy, and religion in
Italy and Mediterranean Europe during the late Middle Ages.
66 Stefano G. Magni
central and northern Italian bishoprics of the late Middle Ages and early
modern period?
It is well known, and often highlighted by scholars, that central and northern
Italy shows distinct local differences in diocesan government. It is important
to underline these key distinctions once again since the aim of my text is to
compare multiple urban cases. 3 Yet when considering the individual, and
sometimes stark, differences within the diocese between the city and the rest
of the ecclesiastical institutions, and then between different bishoprics, I have
to admit that it is difficult to place nepotism in any rigidly defined research
framework. Nepotism therefore needs to be considered as an integral part of
wider questions about social mobility and the history of the Church in the
late Middle Ages.4 As it can be observed in the Iberian peninsula, a career in
the urban church could make it possible for a person or family to rise in local
society, and a bishopric or the major offices in the chapter could allow people
to strengthen social agency and give them the possibility to create extensive
patronage networks.5
However, it can be hard to define and understand nepotism. The concept
has been rarely used by Italian scholars studying the bishops of the late Middle
Ages, and this absence can be explained by a general lack of communication
between social and economic historians and those of the Church.6 In addition
to that, when studying local cases, the investigation of very specific periods
of urban church history has been preferred by historians. This is particularly
evident during those moments in which the chapter had a major role electing
the bishop from the twelfth to the early fourteenth century. That seems to
happen because of the common interest in celebrating local ‘conciliarism’ as
a specific aspect of a well-ruled bishopric. Vice versa, there are no new studies
dealing with the phase in which the pope started himself to choose the bishops,
even for the first decades of the fourteenth century, when the controversial
3
Menant, L’Italie des communes; Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens; Franceschi and
Taddei, Le città italiane nel Medioevo.
4
Carocci, ‘Italian Church and Social Mobility’, p. 122; Carocci, La mobilità sociale nel
Medioevo; Tanzini and Tognetti, La mobilità sociale nel medioevo italiano; Carbonetti Vendittelli
and Vendittelli, La mobilità sociale nel medioevo italiano; Gamberini, La mobilità sociale nel
Medioevo italiano; Carocci and De Vincentiis, La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano.
5
Diaz Ibáñez, ‘La formación de las élites eclesiásticas’, p. 310.
6
Reinhard, ‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen’, Prosperi, ‘Dominus beneficiorum’, and Bizzocchi,
‘Clero e chiesa nella società italiana alla fine del Medioevo’. In the last decade the problem was
investigated again in Guasco, ‘Storia della Chiesa in Italia’; in that volume, see Chittolini, ‘L’età
pretridentina’ and Varanini, ‘La ricerca storica sulle chiese locali in Italia’.
bishops, nepotism, and social mobility 67
process started.7 This national metanarrative has also been deeply influenced by
the events of the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trento.8 It should
also be remembered that the ecclesiastical and secular worlds in Italy during the
late Middle Ages were mutually complementary, and it can be very difficult to
separate the two fields.9
The methodology used in my research also forced me to make some complex
choices, since I found it complicated to identify and quantify nepotism in the
sources. Scholars have pointed out how nepotism remains poorly defined in
the documents.10 There are late medieval literary texts which directly speak
of nepotism practices such as those of Salimbene de Adam, Dante, or Bindo
Bonichi, but I believe that nepotism is for them a mental representation,
conceptually defined and motivated by political action. 11 Although the
accusations made by such writers could have been well founded, they show
moral and functional purposes which fail to help actually verify nepotism, even
if they are essential to a good knowledge of the theme and communal political
thought in the age of Dante. Then there is single or serial evidence in the local
documentation that allows the study of nepotism, whether the goal is searching
for ecclesiastical grants to familial members of positions or functions in the
diocese, financial connections, property transfers, and political protectorates.12
Among the useful sources for research, it is important to remember the papal
inquisitions on the behaviour of single bishops.13 This type of source is deeply
influenced by the political context, so even there particular attention is required
while making use of them in order to understand better the kind of nepotism
recorded.
7
Varanini, ‘Strategie familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica’.
8
Emich, ‘Dalla Chiesa tridentina al mito di Trento’, pp. 61–66.
9
Chittolini, ‘The Papacy and the Italian States’, p. 469.
10
Carocci, ‘Nepotismi di curia e mobilità sociale fra xiii e xv secolo’.
11
Bindo Bonichi was an expert politician in Siena at the beginning of the fourteenth
century. He acted also as moral poet, writing the lyric ‘Contro la chiericia disonesta’, collected
in Bonichi, Rime, pp. 93–98. Bindo’s rhymes are quoted in Brentano, ‘Vescovi e collocazione
socio-culturale del clero parrocchiale’, p. 241. See also Ragni, ‘Bonichi Bindo’. Considerations
on how Salimbene de Adam and Dante coped with ecclesiastical nepotism can be found in
Carocci, Il nepotismo nel medioevo, p. 125 and pp. 143–44.
12
An example of a useful source are the episcopal registers, formally described in Olivieri,
‘I registri vescovili nel Piemonte medievale’, pp. 7–8. A general survey on ecclesiastical sources is
Cammarosano, Italia medievale, pp. 225–38.
13
Rigon and Veronese, L’età dei processi.
68 Stefano G. Magni
These considerations bring us to the last point of my introduction. I am

persuaded that there is a common weakness in the way Italian historians have
studied episcopal nepotism. The scattered and still unquantifiable state of the
sources has reverberated on the scholarly debate, which has concentrated more
on the perception than on an effective and undoubtedly tough verification of
nepotism. It is common for historians in Italy to note that one bishop may have
practiced nepotism, even though no accurate investigation of the documentation
has ever followed this kind of observation.
My aim here is to explore three topics: first, the problem of nepotism; second,
to describe some case studies which have been analysed to identify the nepotistic
practice; third, I show how the data analysis has raised new questions.
Before moving to discuss the collected results, I want to define the kind of
nepotism presented here. Nepotism can be thought of as the practice of granting
institutional wealth to kin or to very close friends, generally patrimonial or rent-
oriented wealth. Studying nepotism in the Roman Curia from the point of view of
popes and cardinals, Sandro Carocci identified a specific type of nepotism, called
local or minor nepotism, perpetuated in every corner of Western Christianity
by bishops, abbots, archpriests, canons, and those other clergymen of unstable
economic conditions.
Nepotism could be performed by bishops with the granting of goods, benefices, or
offices to relations. In this direction, it is important to concentrate on the possessions
that the bishops gave to family members and fellow citizens. These wealth transfers
might have taken place through the granting of jobs to relations (or family members)
in the bishop’s Curia, highly or lowly paid offices in the chapter, and in local parishes,
or patronage.14 I have worked on six cases (Padova, Pisa, Siena, Parma, Gubbio,
and Asti) that I find particularly relevant for the current availability of studies on
both their urban history and evidence of nepotistic behaviour in their churches.
Nepotism practiced inside the familia of the bishop is a highly promising
field of research.15 Turning to the case studies, I would like to focus on two
examples from Padova and Pisa. For Padova the case of Ildebrandino Conti can
be highlighted.16 He was a member of a family of Roman barons, a jurist, and an
expert in classical culture.17 Even after his election to the bishopric of Padova,
he continued to practice a high political role for the pope all around Italy and
14
Carocci, Il nepotismo nel medioevo, p. 9 and p. 63.
15
Cipriani, ‘Familia ideale e familia reale’, pp. 389–90; Rossi, Gli uomini del vescovo, p. 7;
Sambin, ‘La familia di un vescovo italiano del ’300’, pp. 237–38.
16
Kohl, ‘Conti, Ildebrandino’.
17
Carocci, Baroni di Roma, p. 376, n. 28.
Europe. He governed as Bishop of Padua from 1319 to 1352, but with long phases
of absence from the seat. Ildebrandino’s behaviour was not out of ordinary; as
studies have shown, itinerant bishops were quite common in late medieval Italy.
In the episcopal familia, members of his family and fellow citizens can be found,
and many of them received grants at the local church. Some of his more trusted
kin had roles in the Curia or in the familia, as well as benefices in the diocese.18
A case in point was Francesco di Giovanni Pedone, general vicar of the bishop
from 1333 to 1338, who before and after his vicariate received the benefits of an
archdeaconry and a canonry in Padova.19
The second case is that of Simone Saltarelli, Archbishop of Pisa from 1323 to
1342.20 In this case, it is possible to identify at least ten nephews in the episcopal
familia, and many fellow citizens coming from Monte di Croce, a rural but
dynamic centre in the Valdisieve region, near Florence, where the Saltarelli family
came from.21 The case of this family is particularly interesting both for researching
episcopal nepotism and understanding more clearly the dynamics of social
mobility. The Saltarelli family had been aiming to obtain ecclesiastical wealth
even outside Pisa, because of a desperate need to preserve their lineage. They had
been economically and politically weakened by the violent political struggles
which went on in Tuscany during the first decades of the fourteenth century.22
In this case, nepotism could stop the social descent of the Saltarelli family, and it
shows its capacity for arresting and reversing declining social mobility.
It is important to underline how this bishop also used to practice clientelism.
He was transferred by the pope from Parma to Pisa, and he arrived in Pisa with a
group of clergymen from Parma, for example Guglielmo de Gogis, provost at the
Baptistery of Parma, who was named pontifical ambassador by the canons of the
cathedral of Pisa in 1324.23
18
Sambin, ‘La familia di un vescovo italiano del ’300’, pp. 238–39.
19
Canon of Saint Peter in Rome from 1329 to 1347, canon of Segni and Sens from 1327
to 1333, and after being vicar general of the bishop between 1333 and 1338, he was granted the
archdeaconry of Piove di Sacco between 1338 and 1347 and then a canonry in Padua: Sambin,
‘La familia di un vescovo italiano del ’300’, p. 240.
20
Luzzati, ‘Simone Saltarelli’; Ronzani, ‘“Figli del commune” o fuoriusciti?’, pp. 800–16;
see also Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, p. 925.
21
Luzzati, ‘Simone Saltarelli’, pp. 1648–49, n. 6.
22
Raveggi and others, Ghibellini, guelfi e popolo grasso, p. 46 and p. 72; see also Diacciati,
Popolani e magnati, pp. 232–33; Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, pp. 329ff.; and also Zorzi, La
trasformazione di un quadro politico, p. 120.
23
Ronzani, ‘“Figli del commune” o fuoriusciti?’, pp. 802–03.
70 Stefano G. Magni
Episcopal nepotism in the local ecclesiastical institutions was more generally

practised outside the episcopal familia, through the granting of properties, rights,
and jurisdictions of the mensa or benefices (with or without cure), and roles
in the Curia. In order to examine these kinds of varied and common forms of
the nepotistic practice, I found it useful to adopt a comparative approach and
therefore to examine cases of nepotism in four different urban examples.
The first example is Siena. Here the bishop had fewer seigneurial rights com-
pared to those of other Tuscan bishops. However, these rights were clearly defined,
and for this reason, they only became very attractive to the urban political power
of the commune of Siena by the end of the thirteenth century. It is important
to notice that in Siena a special ‘harmony’ between the two powers had been
preserved from the end of the twelfth century.24 Thanks to this equilibrium, the
bishop retained hegemony over part of the territory of Siena, which from the
eleventh century had been called Vescovado.25
In this context, the case of the Malavolti family is of great interest. From 1282
to 1371 every elected bishop in Siena was a member of this family, except in the
years 1307 to 1317, when the Dominican Bishop Ruggeri ruled.26 From the end of
the twelfth century, the Malavolti succeeded politically and economically among
the families which ruled the commune as milites, the peculiar military urban
aristocracy that dominated the Italian communes before the thirteenth century.27
They were members of the group of families that experienced (or even benefited
from) the economic growth of Siena which occurred between the end of the
24
Pellegrini, Chiesa e città. About the fourteenth century, see Nardi, ‘I vescovi di Siena e la
curia pontificia’. See also Franco, ‘Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State’.
25
Cammarosano, Tradizione documentaria e storia cittadina, p. 37. The bishop assumed
control of a portion of territory defined as districtus and organized in the centres of Crevole,
Murlo, Casciano, Vallerano, and other castles and villages in the diocesan area lying between the
Ombrone River and the southern tract of the Merse and the Farma Rivers.
26
Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel, p. 446. The chronologies of the bishoprics
quoted here in the text refer to data presented by Eubel. On the potential and the limits of
Eubel’s data, see Ronzani, ‘Note e osservazioni sui vescovi mendicanti in Italia centrale’,
pp. 134–35. Biographical profiles of the Malavolti bishops are in Bonucci, ‘Malavolti, Rinaldo’;
Bonucci, ‘Malavolti, Donosdeo’; Bonucci, ‘Malavolti, Azzolino’.
27
On the militia, see Maire Vigueur, Cavaliers et citoyens. In Cammarosano, Tradizione
documentaria e storia cittadina, p. 56 and p. 37, it is noted that an essential role in the commune
was played by Filippo, member of the Sienese consular aristocracy and second podestà of Siena
between 1199 and 1201, who opted for an ecclesiastical career for his descendants. However,
at this point there was still an absence of an institutional relationship between the consular
aristocracy and the bishopric.
twelfth and the first two decades of the thirteenth century, and they widened the
patrimonial horizons aiming at castles and properties outside the city.28 Bradley
Franco’s studies have demonstrated how the Malavoltis developed a special and
strong relationship with the Dominicans from 1226.29 This close relationship
opened the doors of the local ecclesiastical institution to the family, and it should
be considered as a key factor in an extraordinary nepotistic behaviour. From the
end of the thirteenth century, the presence of the family in the local church was
almost irrepressible. This nepotistic strength is clearly evident in the fourteenth
century with the case of Bishop Donosdeo Malavolti. He was the best organizer
of the ‘Malavolti system’ and of the nepotistic practice on which this system was
largely based. It is possible to observe here a clear case of familial privatization
of previously episcopal properties. The case should also be interpreted as an
overlapping of ecclesiastical offices and benefices with private goods, particularly
castles like Gavorrano, Pari, and Castiglion del Bosco.
In addition to this cut-throat competition to control castles, this extremely
aggressive aristocratic bishop also focused on the nepotistic management of the
major ecclesiastical positions. He granted four major positions in the cathedral
chapter to his kin, as well as other money-producing rights in the diocese.
Donosdeo worked very hard to obsessively push away the other major Sienese
aristocratic families from the resources of the urban church. That is why during
a long rule, it is impossible to find any member of the most powerful families
of Siena like the Tolomei, Piccolomini, or Salimbeni among the directors of the
diocese. There was a clear intention of the Malavolti to gain absolute control of
the chapter, and the aim was to ensure continuity of the familial hegemony over
the urban church.
The open hostility provoked a violent conflict between the Piccolomini and
the Malavolti which concentrated on the property of the castle of Castiglion
del Bosco. This Sienese aristocratic feud intertwined with the papal programme
of centralization and control of local churches in 1338 when the pope ordered
a detailed inquiry into the episcopal government of Donosdeo. Recently the
sources of this papal intervention were remarkably analysed by Julien Théry.30
Unfortunately, there is a lack of research on the later history of the ‘Malavolti
system’, and little is yet known about Bishop Azzolino Malavolti elected in 1351.
28
Bowsky, Un comune italiano nel Medioevo, p. 72 and p. 110; Milani, ‘Uno snodo nella
storia dell’esclusione’; see also Mucciarelli, ‘Il traghettamento dei mercatores’ and Cammarosano,
‘Il comune di Siena dalla solidarietà imperiale al guelfismo’.
29
Franco, ‘Church and Family’, p. 307.
30
Théry, ‘Faide nobiliaire et justice inquisitoire de la papauté à Sienne’.
72 Stefano G. Magni
Moving to Parma, it will be possible to concentrate once again on the first

half of the fourteenth century with the case of the Rossi family. It must be noted,
however, that in Parma episcopal nepotism can also be studied in the thirteenth
century with the cases of the Fieschi and the Sanvitale families.31 Unfortunately,
research on this subject has yet to be undertaken.
Among the noble families of Parma, the example of the Rossi has been properly
studied.32 Scholars have noted that in the case of Parma, it is impossible to find a
clear and extensive process of urban control and regulation of the territory as was
common in other Italian urban contexts. In this situation, the Rossi family aimed
to establish local domination. One effective tool for this aim was definitely the
direct nepotism of Bishop Ugo Rossi from 1323 to 1377, funded by the expenses
of the rich properties of the episcopal mensa.
The success of the Rossi family on the local political scene took place within
the institutions of the comune di popolo, the urban political regime of the
guilds. However, hard evidence of their efforts to gain supremacy within the
urban society involving the Rossi can be found in events in the ecclesiastical
world of Parma in 1324. In that year the twenty-three-year-old chaplain of the
cardinal-legate Bertrando del Poggetto, Ugolino Rossi, became the bishop. As
Marco Gentile noted, during the fourteenth century the Bishop of Parma was
the most important owner of seigneurial properties and rights in the territory.33
And in this period the Rossi family planned a large-scale privatization of
episcopal properties.
It is important to remember that during those years the political influence
of the Rossi was also strong in the lay communal institutions, and from 1322 to
1326 Rolando and Marsilio Rossi ruled the city as an urban personal domain. It
seems that episcopal nepotism could represent an important element for an urban
lordship. Nevertheless, this project of urban and territorial familial domination
based also on episcopal nepotism was stopped, among other reasons, by the
military aggression of the Della Scala of Verona. The expansion of the Della Scala
fostered aristocratic competition within the society of Parma and gave strength
31
Alberzoni, ‘La chiesa cittadina, i monasteri e gli ordini mendicanti’. On the Fieschi in
Genua and in Parma, see Petti Balbi, Governare la città, pp. 83–98; Ronzani, ‘Vescovi, capitoli e
strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’, pp. 121–22.
32
Gentile, ‘La formazione del dominio dei Rossi tra xiv e xv secolo’; Gentile, ‘Giustizia,
protezione, amicizia’. A narrative source for the events of this period is the ‘Chronicon Parmense’,
ed. by Bonazzi.
33
Gentile, ‘La formazione del dominio dei Rossi tra xiv e xv secolo’, p. 25. The properties
passing to the Rossi are Berceto, Bardone, Corniglio, Bosco, Roccaprebalza, Roccaferrara, Corniana,
and Castrignano; see also Gentile, Terra e poteri, p. 116, and Greci, Parma medievale, p. 124.
to the resistance of the Da Correggio, a familial group particularly hostile to the

Rossi, and it fatally hit the military resources of the Rossi, which had to be fully
absorbed by an expensive defensive strategy.
Another relevant case of the relationship between social status and episcopal
nepotism is the Gabrielli family of Gubbio, which has been accurately studied by
Alberto Luongo.34 In the second half of thirteenth century they took part in the
political life of the commune, and by the end of the century, they were dominating
the scene. But only in the first two decades of the fourteenth century did they
start aiming at ecclesiastical resources, even taking an aggressive approach, and
the change in social strategy coincided with the intention of the group to create a
lordship in the territory.35
By the end of the thirteenth century, the Gabrielli had gained a considerable
ability in the field of law and in the running of the popular political system of
the commune.36 However, in the fourteenth century, it is possible to observe a
change in their interests, and they started focusing on the acquisition of land and
rights in the contado.37 And similarly to Parma, the route they followed to reach
a ‘perfect’ seigneurial status was essentially achieved through the ecclesiastical
career and nepotism in the chapter of Pietro dei Gabrielli, Bishop of Gubbio
from 1327 to 1344.38
By the beginning of the fourteenth century the family had started placing
their members within the local ecclesiastical institutions, and between 1313 and
1318 there is a strong presence of members of the Gabrielli family as canons. The
game-changer, however, was the nepotism practised by Pietro. On 16 May 1337,
the bishop granted a lifelong land rent in the diocese without asking for anything
in exchange for one of his cousins. It has to be imagined that these lands were
presumably suitable for arable farming. The grant added to other episodes of
Pietro’s privatization of Church resources.
The next case is that of the Malabaila of Asti. Recent research has shown
how during the last decade of the thirteenth century in Asti, aristocratic
families concentrated their interests in the properties of the chapter, in order
to bypass the new constraining legislation of the popular regime which aimed
at limiting the acquisition of land by their opponents on the political scene,
34
Luongo, Gubbio nel Trecento.
35
Merli and Tiberino, Il castello eugubino di Carbonana, pp. 19ff.
36
Ciappelli, ‘Gabrielli, Cante’.
37
I use the word contado with a general meaning of the territory ruled by a communal
Italian city between the twelfth and fourteenth century.
38
Merli and Tiberino, Il castello eugubino di Carbonana, pp. 40–46.
74 Stefano G. Magni
the ‘magnates’.39 Nevertheless, it can be noticed that with the successful strategy
of the Popolo, the balance of forces within the ecclesiastical institutions changed
and the role of families of the Popolo in the chapter was strengthened. The new
social hegemony in Asti meant a different phase of the competition to dominate
the episcopal resources, and this cut out the old noble families.40 At the beginning
of the fourteenth century this strategy represented a real possibility for internal
social mobility of the aristocrats, as well as a means of social distinction among
the families of the Popolo. Nepotism could make the processes of social mobility
faster, more productive, and more explicit, as it can be seen in Asti.
It is valuable to focus on the life of Baldracco Malabaila, an example that
seems somewhat eccentric.41 He was a member of the family banking company
which also had interests in acquiring castles in the territory of Asti.42 As recorded
in the sources, Baldracco lived as a layman before the family company started
to do business with the papal Curia in Avignon.43 The Malabaila replaced the
Florentine companies as unique money lenders to the pope from 1342 to 1362.44
Baldracco studied as a man of business, operating in 1343 as a merchant in Bruges.
There is a total lack of information about the relationship between Baldracco and
ecclesiastical institutions before 1346 when he obtained a canonry in Lincoln.
Scholars had a hard time describing how Baldracco lived during those years, and
Renato Bordone tried to solve the puzzle supposing that he had ecclesiastical
education in Florence, since evidence of him staying in the Tuscan city is dated to
1341. However, this point needs to be discussed once again, and it is important
to consider that Florence was at that time the most dynamic centre for financial
transactions in western Europe. Baldracco’s career started with the prebend in
England, and at the same time he continued working for the family business in
London. It is relevant to note that his nephew Giovanni was a canon in York in
1346, as well as the fact that Baldracco’s prebend became a bone of contention
in England. The accusation against the new clergyman was that he was nothing
more than a moneylender. In 1349 he was replaced as canon in England, and
although he had only had a short three-year career in the Church, he was elected
in that very same year as Bishop of Asti.
39
Pia, La giustizia del vescovo, pp. 163–65, p. 173.
40
Bordone, ‘Dalle origini comunali alla costruzione dei patriziati’, p. 111.
41
Bordone, ‘Malabaila, Baldracco’.
42
Bordone, ‘Malabaila, Giacomo’. See also Castellani, Gli uomini d’affari astigiani.
43
Bordone, ‘Malabaila, Baldracco’.
44
Chiaudano, ‘Note sui mercanti astigiani’; Renouard, Les Relations des Papes d’Avignon,
pp. 111ff., and p. 16 about Baldracco.
In Asti, the former bishops had basically fled the urban space, installing the
Curia in castle del Bene, at the very centre of the seigneurial episcopal properties.
There Baldracco adopted the role of the great ecclesiastical lord very quickly, even
though he had been living as an international merchant until just a few years
before. He promptly started to administrate the many but in certain cases unclear
feudal relationships of the bishop in the diocese.
In the Curia of Baldracco, his brothers Antonio and Percivalle Malabaila
had several offices. A remarkable episode of privatization of episcopal resources
concerned the episcopal castle of Monticello. Until 1350 the Malabaila controlled
this castle, but they had it just in partial property, and Baldracco directly gave
the castle to the family in the form of an emphyteusis, a type of contract which
made the family rights to the castle ready to become perpetual. However, it seems
that the political forces behind the canonry put enough pressure on the bishop to
reverse this decision, as he actually did in 1352 when he revoked the act.
Thinking of episcopal nepotism in the ‘age of Dante’ means that one has to
admit that there are several questions which remain unanswered, and there is still
research to be done, for instance in the cases of Florence,45 Arezzo,46 Bologna,47
Brescia,48 and Como,49 and the nepotism of the papal legate Gregorio da
Montelongo.50
However, there are two problems to point out here. First, there is more to be
said about what kind of episcopal resource was more often exploited by nepotistic
bishops in central and northern Italy in the fourteenth century. The answer seems
to be castles. It is possible to recognize a trend in the social behaviour of urban
aristocracies, and it shows that the acquisition of the castles of the mensa, when
present, increased the possibility of greater patrimonial inheritance for noble
45
Dameron, Episcopal Power and Florentine Society; Dameron, Florence and its Church
in the Age of Dante; Dameron, ‘Società e devozione nella Firenze medievale’; and the recent
Tanzini, ‘Il vescovo e la città’. An important general model for the Tuscan Church in the late
Middle Ages is Bizzocchi, Chiesa e potere nella Toscana del Quattrocento.
46
Ciccaglioni, ‘Tra unificazione e pluralismo’; Barlucchi, ‘Note sulla signoria aretina del
vescovo Guido Tarlati’; see also Scharf, Potere e società ad Arezzo.
47
Paolini, ‘Storia della Chiesa di Bologna medievale’, pp. lv–lvii; Collavini, ‘I poteri signorili
degli Ubaldini nel contesto della signoria rurale toscana’.
48
Varanini, ‘Maggi, Berardo’; see also Varanini, ‘Maggi, Emanuele’, Varanini, ‘Maggi,
Federico’, Varanini, ‘Maggi, Maffeo’. See also Negro, ‘I signori vescovi’.
49
Canobbio, ‘Tra episcopio e cattedrale’, pp. 260–61.
50
Alberzoni, ‘Gregorio da Montelongo’; Alberzoni, ‘Le armi del legato’; see also Maire
Vigueur, ‘Religione e politica nella propaganda pontificia’, pp. 75ff.; and Tilatti, ‘Legati del papa
e propaganda nel Duecento’.
76 Stefano G. Magni
families. And thanks to this increase, specific groups could dominate the city
and stay inside the general process of urban and rural ‘seignurialisation’ which
is at the centre of a recent Italian research project, started in 2017 and funded
by the Italian government.51 That applies to the cases of the Malavolti and the
Rossi, where a dynamic of vigorous ascending social mobility is more evident
and efficient than in those of the Gabrielli and the Malabaila. Nevertheless, this
assessment of social dynamic was undertaken through a survey of published
sources, which may be insufficient, and in-depth archival research is still to be
done. Episcopal nepotism during the late communal times remains an open
problem to be tackled with further research.
Second, it is possible to reflect about the purpose of episcopal nepotism. It
seems that when the chapter was strictly controlled by the bishop, nepotism
worked as an efficient tool for the families to reach a solid aristocratization or
a clear distinction among the lineages. In some communal cities of Italy in the
fourteenth century, there are parallels to those noted by Roberto Bizzocchi in
his study of the Church of Florence in the fifteenth century. He claimed that
nobles were interested in the simple benefices of the chapter because these
benefices meant short working time and considerable political power, which
aristocrats could reinvest in the grandeur of the family. Vice versa, processes of
social distinction were more complex and aleatory when political and economic
antagonism to the bishop found space inside the chapter. In this scenario,
episcopal nepotism became an ineffective weapon, and it could get excessively
risky to invest in such a social strategy, as the cases of Asti, partially Gubbio, and
Lucca show.52
Some final and general remarks can be provided. On the level of the internal
social dynamic of the pontifical Curia, I am convinced that nepotism was a key
means of promoting papal supremacy over the organization of the Western local
church and to meet the requirements of papal government.53 This propagation
of power clearly showed the limits of papal agency in the period. The pope could
control a political system which was constantly growing in complexity, and he
could carry out the task with substantial use of clientelism and patronage. Beyond
the problems of political organization, I believe that interpretations should be
51
Grant project ‘PRIN 2015’, ‘La signoria rurale nel xiv–xv secolo: per ripensare l’Italia
tardomedievale’, PI Sandro Carocci, with co-investigators from five Italian universities (Turin,
Milan, Pisa, Rome, and Naples).
52
On Lucca, see Osheim, An Italian Lordship, p. 47; cf. Poloni, ‘La mobilità sociale a Lucca
nel Duecento’.
53
See also Carocci, ‘Nepotismi di curia e mobilità sociale fra xiii e xv secolo’.
open even to a structuralist perspective. During the late Middle Ages, a positive
idea of the family as a fundamental element to enable individual social agency
was dominant. These factors, however, should be considered together with other
possible subjective means, which are irreducible to general structural patterns
and at the same time could push the ruling class to promote nepotism both at the
centre of the papal Curia and in communal local contexts.
Just as it happened in the Roman environment of the ‘great nepotism’, in the
local urban churches of the fourteenth century an extraordinary synergy between
laymen and clerics was underway, and nepotism is a useful way to gauge how this
system worked. Nepotism can be thought of as a set of actions that influenced
social change, and it allows analysis of a particular type of aristocratic mentality,
dominated by common feelings of absolute identification, devotion, and personal
dedication to kinship.54
I think that a deep comprehension of the role of ecclesiastical nepotism in
communal Italy will require analytical investigation of the relationship between
the dynamic characteristics of the family in the Italian urban context and the
aspects of local churches.55
54
See also Carocci, ‘Nepotismi di curia e mobilità sociale fra xiii e xv secolo’.
55
In this direction further research should start from Cammarosano, ‘Les Structures
familiales dans les villes de l’Italie communale’ and the recent contribution Varanini, ‘Strategie
familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica’.
78 Stefano G. Magni
Works Cited
Primary Sources
Bonichi, Bindo, Rime (Bologna: Romagnoli, 1867)

‘Chronicon Parmense ab anno MXXXVIII usque ad annum MCCCXXXVIII’, ed. by
Giuliano Bonazzi, Rerum italicarum scriptores, vol. ix.9 (Città di Castello: Lapi, 1902)
Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificium, ed. by Konrad Eubel, vol. i
(Munster: Typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913)
Secondary Sources
Alberzoni, Maria Pia, ‘Le armi del legato: Gregorio da Montelongo nello scontro tra
Papato e Impero’, in La propaganda politica nel basso medioevo: atti del XXXVIII
Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 14–17 ottobre 2001 (Spoleto: Centro italiano
di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2002), pp. 177–237
—— , ‘La chiesa cittadina, i monasteri e gli ordini mendicanti’, in Storia di Parma, vol. iii.1:
Parma medievale: Poteri e istituzioni, ed. by Roberto Greci (Parma: Monte Università
Parma Editore, 2010), pp. 303–12
—— , ‘Gregorio da Montelongo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 59 (2002), <http://
www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/gregorio-da-montelongo_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
Barlucchi, Andrea, ‘Note sulla signoria aretina del vescovo Guido Tarlati (1321–1327)’, in
Le signorie cittadine in Toscana: esperienze di potere e forme di governo personale (secoli
xiii–xv), ed. by Andrea Zorzi (Rome: Viella, 2013), pp. 169–83
Bizzocchi, Roberto, Chiesa e potere nella Toscana del Quattrocento (Bologna: Il Mulino,
1987)
—— , ‘Clero e chiesa nella società italiana alla fine del Medioevo’, in Clero e società
nell’Italia moderna (Rome: Laterza, 1992), pp. 3–44
Bonucci, Bruno, ‘Malavolti, Azzolino’, Dizionario Biografico degli italiani, 68 (2007),
<http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/azzolino-malavolti_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
—— , ‘Malavolti, Donosdeo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 68 (2007), <http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/donosdeo-malavolti_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
—— , ‘Malavolti, Rinaldo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 68 (2007), <http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/rinaldo-malavolti_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
Bordone, Renato, ‘Dalle origini comunali alla costruzione dei patriziati’, in Le aristocrazie
dai signori rurali al patriziato, ed. by Renato Bordone (Rome: Laterza, 2004),
pp. 37–120
—— , ‘Malabaila, Baldracco’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), <http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/baldracco-malabaila_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
—— , ‘Malabaila, Giacomo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), <http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/giacomo-malabaila_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
Bowsky, William, Un comune italiano nel Medioevo: Siena sotto il regime dei Nove
(1287–1355) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1986)
Brentano, Robert, Two Churches: England and Italy in the Thirteenth Century (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968)
—— , ‘Vescovi e collocazione socio-culturale del clero parrocchiale’, in Pievi e parrocchie in
Italia nel Basso Medioevo (sec. xiii–xv): atti del VI Convegno di storia della Chiesa in
Italia (Firenze 21–25 sett. 1981), 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1984), i, 235–56
Cammarosano, Paolo, ‘Il comune di Siena dalla solidarietà imperiale al guelfismo:
celebrazione e propaganda’, in Le forme della propaganda politica nel Due e Trecento
(Rome: École française de Rome, 1994), pp. 455–67
—— , Italia medievale: Struttura e geografia delle fonti scritte (Rome: La Nuova Italia
Scientifica, 1991)
—— , ‘Les Structures familiales dans les villes de l’Italie communale (xiie–xive siècles)’, in
Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiévale, ed. by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff
—— , Tradizione documentaria e storia cittadina: introduzione al ‘Caleffo Vecchio’ del
Comune di Siena (Siena: Accademia senese degli Intronati, 1988)
Canobbio, Elisabetta, ‘Tra episcopio e cattedrale: successo individuale, affermazione
famigliare e istituzioni ecclesiastiche a Como (sec. xiv–prima metà sec. xv)’, in La
mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. ii: Stato e istituzioni (secoli xiv–xv), ed. by
Andrea Gamberini (Rome: Viella, 2017), pp. 257–81
Carbonetti Vendittelli, Cristina, and Marco Vendittelli, eds, La mobilità sociale nel
medioevo italiano, vol. v: Roma e la chiesa (secoli xii–xv) (Rome: Viella, 2017)
Carocci, Sandro, Baroni di Roma: Dominazioni signorili e lignaggi aristocratici nel
Duecento e nel primo Trecento (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il Medioevo, 1993)
—— , ‘Italian Church and Social Mobility (1200–1500)’, in Social Mobility in Medieval
Italy (1100–1500), ed. by Sandro Carocci and Isabella Lazzarini (Rome: Viella,
2018), pp. 121–38
—— , ed., La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo (Rome: École française de Rome, 2010)
—— , ‘Nepotismi di curia e mobilità sociale fra xiii e xv secolo’, in La mobilità sociale nel
Medioevo italiano, vol. iii: Il mondo ecclesiastico (secoli xii–xv), ed. by Sandro Carocci
and Amedeo De Vincentiis (Rome: Viella, 2018), pp. 93–124
—— , Il nepotismo nel medioevo: Papi, cardinali e famiglie nobili (Rome: Viella, 1999)
Carocci, Sandro, and Amedeo De Vincentiis, eds, La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano,
vol. iii: Il mondo ecclesiastico (secoli xii–xv) (Rome: Viella, 2018)
Castellani, Luisa, Gli uomini d’affari astigiani: Politica e denaro fra il Piemonte e l’Europa
(1270–1312) (Turin: Paravia, 1998)
Chiaudano, Mario, ‘Note sui mercanti astigiani: I Malabaila’, Bollettino storicobibliografico
subalpino, 41 (1939), 213–28
Chittolini, Giorgio, ‘L’età pretridentina: Alcuni orientamenti di ricerca’, in ‘Storia della
Chiesa in Italia: Orientamenti e prospettive’, ed. by Maurilio Guasco, special issue,
Humanitas, 59 (2004), 951–62
—— , ‘The Papacy and the Italian States’, in The Italian Renaissance State, ed. by Andrea
Gamberini and Isabella Lazzarini (Rome: Viella, 2014), pp. 467–89
80 Stefano G. Magni
Ciappelli, Giovanni, ‘Gabrielli, Cante’, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 51 (1998),

<http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/cante-gabrielli_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
Ciccaglioni, Giovanni, ‘Tra unificazione e pluralismo: alcune osservazioni sull’esperienza
pastorale e di dominio politico di Guido Tarlati, vescovo e signore di Arezzo
(1312–1327)’, Cristianesimo nella storia, 29 (2008), 345–75
Cipriani, Marianna, ‘Familia ideale e familia reale: il vescovo di Verona Ermolao Barbaro e
i suoi uomini (1453–1471)’, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia, 66 (2012), 389–429
Collavini, Simone Maria, ‘I poteri signorili degli Ubaldini nel contesto della signoria
rurale toscana (1100–1250)’, in Tra Montacciano e Firenze: gli Ubaldini e la città,
ed. by Alessandro Monti and Elisa Pruni (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2016), pp. 16–27
Dal pulpito alla cattedra: I vescovi degli ordini mendicanti nel ’200 e nel primo ’300
(Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2000)
Dameron, George W., Episcopal Power and Florentine Society (1000–1320) (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1991)
—— , Florence and its Church in the Age of Dante (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2005)
—— , ‘Società e devozione nella Firenze medievale: Il caso del capitolo della Cattedrale
(1250–1340)’, Ricerche storiche, 27 (1997), 39–52
Davidsohn, Robert, Storia di Firenze, vol. iv (Florence: Sansoni, 1960)
De Sandre Gasparini, Giuseppina, Antonio Rigon, Francesco G. Trolese, and Gian
Maria Varanini, eds, Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo: atti del
VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987), 2 vols
(Rome: Herder, 1990)
Diacciati, Silvia, Popolani e magnati: Società e politica nella Firenze del Duecento (Spoleto:
Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2011)
Diaz Ibáñez, Jorge, ‘La formación de las élites eclesiásticas: Aportaciones de la historiografía
castellana y portuguesa’, in La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo, ed. by Sandro Carocci
Emich, Birgit, ‘Dalla Chiesa tridentina al mito di Trento: Una rilettura storico-con-
cettuale’, Storica, 63 (2015), 39–66
Franceschi, Franco, and Ilaria Taddei, Le città italiane nel Medioevo (xii–xiv secolo)
(Bologna: Il Mulino, 2012)
Franco, Bradley R., ‘Church and Family: The Tenure of Bishop Donosdeo Malavolti,
1317–1350’, in Honos alit artes: Studi per il settantesimo compleanno di Mario Ascheri,
vol. ii: Gli universi particolari, ed. by Paola Maffei and Gian Maria Varanini (Florence:
Firenze University Press, 2014), pp. 305–14
—— , ‘Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State: Siena’s Bishops and the Government
of the Nine’, Viator, 45 (2014), 255–70
Gamberini, Andrea, ed., La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. ii: Stato e istituzioni
(secoli xiv–xv) (Rome: Viella, 2017)
—— , ‘La nobiltà del pastore: Una nota sui processi di formalizzazione di status nel
Trecento’, in Medioevo dei poteri: Studi in onore di Giorgio Chittolini, ed. by Nadia
Covini, Massimo Della Misericordia, Andrea Gamberini, and Francesco Somaini
(Rome: Viella, 2012), pp. 77–96
Gentile, Marco, ‘La formazione del dominio dei Rossi tra xiv e xv secolo’, in Le signorie
dei Rossi di Parma tra xiv e xvi secolo, ed. by Laura Arcangeli and Marco Gentile
(Florence: Firenze University Press, 2007), pp. 23–56
—— , ‘Giustizia, protezione, amicizia: note sul dominio dei Rossi nel Parmense all’inizio
del Quattrocento’, Reti Medievali Rivista, 5 (2004), <http://www.rm.unina.it/
rmebook/dwnld/poteri/gentile.pdf>
—— , Terra e poteri: Parma e il Parmense nel ducato visconteo all’inizio del Quattrocento
(Milan: Unicopli, 2001)
Greci, Roberto, Parma medievale: Economia e società nel Parmense dal Tre al Quattrocento
(Parma: Battei, 1992)
Guasco, Maurilio, ed., ‘Storia della Chiesa in Italia: Orientamenti e prospettive’, special
issue, Humanitas, 59 (2004), 893–993
Kohl, Benjamin G., ‘Conti, Ildebrandino’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 28 (1983),
<http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ildebrandino-conti_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
Luongo, Alberto, Gubbio nel Trecento: Il comune popolare e la mutazione signorile
(1300–1404) (Rome: Viella, 2016)
Luzzati, Michele, ‘Simone Saltarelli arcivescovo di Pisa (1323–1342) e gli affreschi del
maestro del Trionfo della Morte’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa: Classe
di Lettere e Filosofia, 18 (1988), 1645–64
Maire Vigueur, Jean Claude, Cavaliers et citoyens: Guerre, conflits et société dans l’Italie
communale, xiie–xiiie siècles (Paris: École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2003)
—— , ‘Religione e politica nella propaganda pontificia (Italia comunale, prima metà del
xiii secolo)’, in Le forme della propaganda politica nel Due e Trecento (Rome: École
française de Rome, 1994), pp. 65–83
Menant, François, L’Italie des communes (1100–1350) (Paris: Belin, 2005)
Merli, Sonia, and Sandro Tiberino, Il castello eugubino di Carbonana e i suoi signori (secoli
xii–xviii) (Perugia: Deputazione di Storia Patria per l’Umbria, 2015)
Milani, Giuliano, ‘Uno snodo nella storia dell’esclusione: Urbano IV, la crociata contro
Manfredi e l’avvio di nuove disuguaglianze nell’Italia bassomedievale’, Mélanges de
l’École française de Rome. MoyenAge, 125.2 (2013), <http://mefrm.revues.org/1278>
Mucciarelli, Roberta, ‘Il traghettamento dei mercatores: dal fronte imperiale alla pars
ecclesiae’, in Fedeltà ghibellina, affari guelfi: Saggi e riletture intorno alla storia di Siena
fra Due e Trecento, ed. by Gabriella Piccinni (Pisa: Pacini, 2008), pp. 61–102
Nardi, Paolo, ‘I vescovi di Siena e la curia pontificia dall’ascesa della parte guelfa allo
scoppio dello scisma d’Occidente (1267–1378)’, in Chiesa e vita religiosa a Siena: Dalle
origini al grande giubileo, ed. by Achille Mirizio and Paolo Nardi (Siena: Cantagalli,
2002), pp. 153–78
Negro, Flavia, ‘I signori vescovi: note sul senso di una categoria’, in Signorie cittadine nell’Italia
comunale, ed. by Jean-Claude Maire Vigueur (Rome: Viella, 2013), pp. 263–301
Olivieri, Antonio, ‘I registri vescovili nel Piemonte medievale’, in I registri vescovili
dell’Italia settentrionale (secoli xii–xv), ed. by Attilio Bartoli Langeli and Antonio
Rigon (Rome: Herder, 2003), pp. 1–42
Osheim, Duane J., An Italian Lordship: The Bishopric of Lucca in the Late Middle Ages
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)
82 Stefano G. Magni
Paolini, Lorenzo, ‘Storia della Chiesa di Bologna medievale: un “cantiere” storiografico

aperto’, in Codice diplomatico della Chiesa bolognese: Documenti autentici, interpolati
falsi (iv–xii sec.), ed. by Mario Fanti and Lorenzo Paolini (Rome: Istituto storico
italiano per il medio evo, 2004), pp. liii–cvi
Pellegrini, Michele, Chiesa e città: Uomini, comunità e istituzioni nella società senese del xii
e xiii secolo (Rome: Herder, 2004)
—— , Vescovo e città: Una relazione nel Medioevo italiano (secoli ii–xiv) (Milan: Bruno
Mondadori, 2009)
Petti Balbi, Giovanna, Governare la città: Pratiche sociali e linguaggi politici a Genova in
età medievale (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2007)
Pia, Ezio Claudio, La giustizia del vescovo: Società, economia e Chiesa cittadina ad Asti tra
xiii e xiv secolo (Rome: Viella, 2014)
Pievi e parrocchie in Italia nel Basso Medioevo (sec. xiii–xv): atti del VI Convegno di storia
della Chiesa in Italia (Firenze 21–25 sett. 1981), 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1984)
Poloni, Alma, ‘La mobilità sociale a Lucca nel Duecento: Qualche riflessione sul ruolo delle
istituzioni religiose’, in Il patrimonio documentario della chiesa di Lucca: Prospettive di
ricerca, ed. by Sergio Pagano and Pierantonio Piatti (Florence: SISMEL-Edizioni del
Galluzzo, 2010), pp. 145–55
Prosperi, Adriano, ‘Dominus beneficiorum: Il conferimento dei benefici ecclesiastici fra prassi
curiale e ragioni politiche negli stati italiani tra ’400 e ’500’, in Strutture ecclesiastiche in
Italia e in Germania prima della Riforma (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1984), pp. 51–86
Ragni, Eugenio, ‘Bonichi Bindo’, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 12 (1971), <http://
www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bindo-bonichi_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
Raveggi, Sergio, Massimo Tarassi, Daniela Medici, and Patrizia Parenti, Ghibellini, guelfi
e popolo grasso: I detentori del potere politico a Firenze nella seconda metà del Dugento
(Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1978)
Reinhard, Wolfgang, ‘Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Verbindung von Kirchen mit
Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte’, Spezialforschung und ‘Gesamtgeschichte’: Weiner
Beiträge zur Geschichte der Neuzeit, 8 (1981), 243–78
—— , ‘Nepotismus: Der Funktionswandel einer pastgeschichtlichen Konstanten’, Zeit
schrift für Kirchengeschichte, 86 (1975), 145–85
Renouard, Yves, Les Relations des Papes d’Avignon et des Compagnies commerciales et
bancaires de 1316 à 1378 (Paris: Boccard, 1941)
Rigon, Antonio, and Francesco Veronese, eds, L’età dei processi: Inchieste e condanne tra
politica e ideologia nel ’300 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il medioevo, 2009)
Ronzani, Mauro, ‘“Figli del commune” o fuoriusciti? Gli arcivescovi di Pisa di fronte alla
città-stato tra la fine del Duecento e il 1406’, in Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla
metà del xvi secolo: atti del VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25
settembre 1987), ed. by Giuseppina de Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco G.
Trolese, and Gian Maria Varanini, 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1990), ii, 773–835
—— , ‘Note e osservazioni sui vescovi mendicanti in Italia centrale fino alla metà del
secolo xiv’, in Dal pulpito alla cattedra: I vescovi degli ordini mendicanti nel ’200 e nel
primo ’300 (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2000),
pp. 133–65
—— , ‘Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’, in Storia d’Italia. Annali,

vol. ix: La Chiesa e il potere politico dal Medioevo all’età contemporanea, ed. by Giorgio
Chittolini and Giovanni Miccoli (Turin: Einaudi, 1986), pp. 99–146
Rossi, Maria Clara, Gli uomini del vescovo: Familiae vescovili a Verona (1259–1350)
(Venice: Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie, 2001)
—— , ‘Vescovi nel basso medioevo (1274–1378): Problemi, studi, prospettive’, in Il difficile
mestiere di vescovo (secoli x–xiv) (Verona: Cierre, 2000), pp. 217–54
Sambin, Paolo, ‘La familia di un vescovo italiano del ’300’, Rivista di storia della chiesa in
Italia, 4 (1950), 237–47
Scharf, Gian Paolo G., Potere e società ad Arezzo nel xiii secolo (1214–1312) (Spoleto:
Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2013)
Sergi, Giuseppe, ‘Poteri temporali del vescovo: il problema storiografico’, in Vescovo e città
nell’alto medioevo: quadri generali e realtà toscane (Pistoia: Centro italiano di studi di
storia e d’arte, 2001), pp. 1–16
Tanzini, Lorenzo, ‘Il vescovo e la città: Interessi e conflitti di potere dall’età di Dante a
Sant’Antonino’, Annali di storia di Firenze, 8 (2013), 81–111
Tanzini, Lorenzo, and Sergio Tognetti, eds, La mobilità sociale nel medioevo italiano:
competenze, conoscenze e saperi tra professioni e ruoli sociali (secc. xii–xv) (Rome:
Viella, 2016)
Théry, Julien, ‘Faide nobiliaire et justice inquisitoire de la papauté à Sienne au temps des
Neuf: Les Recollectiones d’une enquête de Benoît XII contre l’évêque Donosdeo
de Malavolti (ASV, Collectoriae 61A et 404A)’, in Als die Welt in die Akten kam:
Prozeßschriftgut im europäischen Mittelalter, ed. by Susanne Lepsius and Thomas
Wetzstein (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2008), pp. 275–348
Tilatti, Andrea, ‘Legati del papa e propaganda nel Duecento’, in La propaganda politica nel
basso medioevo: atti del XXXVIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 14–17 ottobre
2001 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2002), pp. 145–76
Varanini, Gian Maria, ‘Maggi, Berardo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006),
<http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/berardo-maggi_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
—— , ‘Maggi, Emanuele’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), <http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/emanuele-maggi_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
—— , ‘Maggi, Federico’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), <http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/federico-maggi_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
—— , ‘Maggi, Maffeo’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 67 (2006), <http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/maffeo-maggi_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
—— , ‘La ricerca storica sulle chiese locali in Italia fra tradizione erudita e ecclesiologia
conciliare. Alcune considerazioni’, in ‘Storia della Chiesa in Italia: Orientamenti e
prospettive’, ed. by Maurilio Guasco, special issue, Humanitas, 59 (2004), 972–82
—— , ‘Strategie familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica (Italia, sec. xiii–xv)’, in La mobilità
sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. iii: Il mondo ecclesiastico (secoli xii–xv), ed. by
Sandro Carocci and Amedeo De Vincentiis (Rome: Viella, 2018), pp. 361–98
Zorzi, Andrea, La trasformazione di un quadro politico: Ricerche su politica e giustizia a
Firenze dal comune allo Stato territoriale (Florence: Firenze University Press, 2008)
The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510:
From Chapter’s Men to King’s Men
Christine Barralis
T
his essay will focus on the see of Meaux, the closest episcopal see to Paris.
Located in the ecclesiastical province of Sens, it was a small bishopric
with temporal estates which were not wealthy.1 This did not allow the
bishop to be a significant player on the political scene of the French kingdom.
But the geographical location of the see of Meaux in the beginning of the
thirteenth century, on the border between the county of Champagne in the east
and the royal estates in the west, could allow the bishops to have some autonomy
from the princes. Thus it was an ‘average’ bishopric in terms of its wealth,2 and
small as regards its territory and population,3 with some assets, including its
proximity to the growing capital of the realm, but not enough profits to attract
many powerful people. Indeed, pastoral care was not the only task of the bishop.
His responsibilities involved both the management of his church and a role as an
advisor to the prince. But the bishops of Meaux did not perform both these tasks
1
For a larger presentation of the diocese and its bishops, see Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à
la fin du Moyen Âge’. This essay is an updated extract of Chapter 2 of this thesis.
2
The apostolic tax of the diocese was valued at two thousand florins from at least the late
thirteenth century (Gaudemet, Le Gouvernement de l’Église à l’époque classique, p. 70, n. 104,
and Hoberg, Taxæ pro communibus servitiis).
3
The diocese consists of about 220 parishes, which is small for the dioceses of northern
France. In comparison, in the late Middle Ages, the diocese of Rouen had about 1400 parishes,
Amiens 780, Sens more than 700, Reims 465, and Angers 440.
Christine Barralis (christine.barralis@univ-lorraine.fr) is Maître de conférences en histoire du

Moyen Âge, Université de Lorraine.
86 Christine Barralis
at the same level throughout the late Middle Ages. So the question is to what
extent the one or the other aspect is favoured according to the moment, and why
it is so. To determine what were the key aspects, both ecclesiastical and political,
of their episcopal offices, I will first study the origins, training, and careers of
these prelates and then examine the way they were appointed.
Sociology of the Bishops

Between the end of the twelfth century (1197) and the pre-Reformation era of
Guillaume Briçonnet and his master (1510), thirty-two bishops occupied the see
of Meaux.4 We know the rough geographical origins of approximately two thirds
of these prelates.5 It was in the thirteenth century that men of local origin were
most common: among the bishops whose geographical origins we know for this
period, the one who was born farthest from the diocese was a native of the Vexin!6
After the thirteenth century, the situation was more complex, but amongst these
prelates there were few foreigners: the majority hailed from locations in a 200 km
area around Meaux, and almost all of them came through Paris at one moment
or other during their careers. The geographical closeness of the two cities was an
obvious attraction for some of the candidates for the see who were keen to be
able to continue their activities in the capital having obtained the mitre. The fact
remains that a lot of them had no personal connection to the diocese before their
episcopal appointment.
We can identify the social origin of about two thirds of the holders of the
see of Meaux.7 The nobility dominated with sixteen representatives. Only four
belonged to families which we can consider to be relatively powerful at the time
of their entry into the episcopate, although it was recently acquired influence,
4
I exclude the two appointed clerics who did not become bishops: Geoffroi Bouteiller,
provost of Normandy in the cathedral chapter of Chartres, was promoted by Pope Boniface VIII
in 1298 but died before he could accept his appointment (Les Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. by
Digard and others, ii, n° 2748); Étienne de Mornay, Dean of Saint-Martin of Tours, appointed
by Pope John XXII on 28 October 1325, refused the promotion (Città della Vaticano, ASV, Reg.
Vat. 113, fol. 303). In both cases, the pope extended his right of provision to another person. This
was therefore counted as one (and not two) pontifical intervention in the following counts.
5
Three of them were certainly born in the diocese itself and four others probably were
too. Six were from nearby localities (Paris, Nemours, etc.), ten others came from dioceses of
northern France (Amiens, Rouen, Beauvais, Sens, Châlons), and only three were from much
more distant areas (Bas-Berry, Bourbonnais, Quercy).
6
The area just on the other side of Paris.
7
Twenty-two of thirty-two.
The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510 87
primarily through the skills of their relatives. Four others, who lived in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, came from the old and prestigious military
nobility, which could offer them a lot of opportunities. Globally, the bishops of
Meaux thus belonged to the families of minor nobility or wealthy bourgeoisie,
and their promotion to the episcopate appears to be less the result of their
family backgrounds than as that of the exercise of their skills. Moreover, even
for the representatives of the highest nobility, birth was not the only criterion of
promotion to the episcopate: royal service also played its part.
Twenty-nine of these thirty-two bishops were secular clergy. Over time,
they tended to accumulate more and more benefices in various dioceses before
their promotion: while in the thirteenth century, they generally held only a
single benefice before their appointment to the bishopric, the average number
of benefices held by the bishops of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries before
their appointment is more than four. The most common benefices in their pre-
episcopal careers are the dignities of cathedral chapters: only six prelates did not
hold any cathedral dignities.8 Another evolution between the thirteenth and
the fifteenth century deserves to be underlined: the reduction in the number of
bishops of Meaux having previously belonged to the local chapter. Almost three
quarters of the bishops came from the Meaux chapter in the thirteenth century,
against a little more than half in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Only half of those whose level of ordination is known were priests at the time
of their episcopal promotion. That means that the majority of bishops had limited
pastoral experience. So possession of sacred orders does not seem to have been
essential for their promotion to the episcopate, whereas university degrees were an
important element in the training of future prelates. Twenty-one of the thirty-two
bishops had studied at university, and at least twenty of them achieved degrees.9
Most of these academics lived in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: among
the twenty-two bishops of these centuries, only two did not apparently undertake
extensive studies.10 On the other hand, eight of the eleven bishops from the
8
Anseau (c. 1197–1207), who was Dean of Saint-Martin of Tours; Jean de Garlande
(1269–74? we know almost nothing about him); Durand de Saint-Pourçain (1326–34), who
held the chair of theology at the papal Curia and was a papal chaplain before his promotion
to the episcopate; Pierre Fresnel (1390–1409), who was canon of Rouen, member of the
Parliament of Paris, and request master in the king’s household; Pierre de Versailles (1439–46)
and Jean Le Meunier (1447–58), who were Benedictine abbots.
9
There are maybe twenty-two, if we follow Vincent Tabbagh, who thinks that Jean de
Minterole (1298–1305) got the title of master at university (Tabbagh, Les Évêques dans le
royaume de France, p. 96 n. 4).
10
Jean de Meulan (1334–50), born in a family of the old Norman nobility, and Jean Le
thirteenth century — more than two thirds of them — did not.11 This situation
is understandable, on the one hand, by the gradual development of universities,
which welcomed more students, and, on the other hand, by the recruitment of
the bishops in the thirteenth century: a major part of them arose exclusively from
the chapter of Meaux and doubtless came from local families. Two of the three
academics of this first period belonged moreover to the small group of bishops
who were not canons of Meaux before their promotion.
Thus we observe a gradual increase of the level of training of the prelates
between 1300 and 1500, with a clear evolution between the thirteenth and the
fourteenth centuries. At the end of the fifteenth century, the absence of degrees
became the exception, even if it does not prevent the promotion to the episcopate,
if you had some other assets: Jean Le Meunier (1447–58) compensated for his
lack of university education through royal patronage which was the key factor in
his promotion.12 In the fifteenth century, the noble clerics no longer scorned the
acquisition of academic knowledge, which they now believed to be necessary for
the pursuit of a good career.13 Most of the bishops of Meaux who had studied at
university opted for legal training: thirteen of them were jurists, against only five
theologians and two ‘simple’ masters of arts.14 In spite of this predominance of
Meunier (1447–58), a Benedictine abbot. We are not sure that two others achieved degrees.
11
Only Anseau (c. 1197–1207), Geoffroi de Tressi (c. 1207–13), and Jean de Poinci
(1268–69) had surely undertaken intensive studies.
12
After the death of Bishop Pierre de Versailles on 11 November 1446, the king wrote both
to the cathedral chapter, to recommend his counsellor Jean Le Meunier (Abbot of Saint-Maur-
des-Fossés near Paris), and to the pope, to ask him to confirm his election once it was complete
(d’Achery, Spicilegium, pp. 772–73). But the chapter was divided during the election (2 January
1447): Jean Le Meunier received fewer votes than the dean Jean Aguenin, who was a supporter
of the Duke of Burgundy, and so not in favour of the king (Auxerre, AD Yonne, G33, n° 37).
Le Meunier was said to have been elected, probably because the king’s envoy had said to the
electors that Le Meunier would become bishop, whatever they did (Paris, ANF, X/1a/4801,
fol. 301). The king then bid the Archbishop of Sens to submit the confirmation of Le Meunier
to the pope if he thought he could not confirm him (Paris, ANF, X/1a/4801, fol. 300v), and he
wrote to the pope and the cardinal to ask them to confirm the ‘postulation’ of Le Meunier (BnF,
MS lat. 5414A, fol. 98r). The archbishop sent the case to Rome after Aguenin’s and Le Meunier’s
appeals (Auxerre, AD Yonne, G33, n° 37). On 15 May 1447, the pope provided Le Meunier to
the bishopric of Meaux (Città della Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Lat. 435, fols 90v–91). Then, despite
a trial in the Parliament of Paris instigated by Aguenin, of which the issue is unknown (Paris,
ANF, X/1a/4801, fols 282v–283v, 300v–301v, 309r), the king delivered the temporalities of the
bishopric to Le Meunier (BnF, MS NAL 7631, fol. 65r), who remained bishop until his death.
13
Verger, Les Gens de savoir en Europe à la fin du Moyen Âge, ch. 7.
14
We do not know the specialization of Guillaume de Nemours, ‘master’ in Paris at the
jurists, which tallies with the analysis of historians of education on the increasing
importance of law graduates in medieval society, it is difficult to identify a clear
pattern of subject choice by the future bishops of Meaux. Theologians and jurists
alternated in the see until the end of the Middle Ages, and no strong preference for
one subject was ever fully established. At most we can notice the succession of three
royal jurists between 1361 and 1409, at a time of development of state structures.15
So, the cohort of the Meaux bishops was more educated than the average
French bishop: with eighteen bishops of twenty-two having degrees in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries — that is, more than 80 per cent (and more
than 90 per cent for the fourteenth century alone) — the see of Meaux is far above
the average of the French episcopate; according to Vincent Tabbagh, 25 per cent
of the French bishops had a degree in 1302, and a little more than 66 per cent in
1398.16 The possession of university education and intellectual skills obviously
facilitated many careers, allowing men such as Jean de Boiry (1426–35) to reach
the episcopate at the request of the University of Paris. Though in his case, he also
had the support of the queen: at the same time as the university wrote to the pope,
asking him to promote Jean de Boiry to the bishopric of Meaux, a canon of Meaux
wrote to the chapter on behalf of the queen, the regent Bedford, and the royal
council to ask them to elect Jean de Boiry.17 So, university degrees were not an
essential prerequisite for the recruitment of bishops, even in the fifteenth century.
It is interesting to underline that in the thirteenth century, no Bishop of Meaux
belonged to the faithful of the Counts of Champagne, although a major part of the
diocese lay in their territory. During this period, the prelates were more rivals than
servants of these princes. It was only after the integration of the Champagne in the
royal estates that a Bishop of Meaux, Simon Festu (1308–17), was bound to the heirs of
Champagne (the queen Jeanne of Navarre, wife of Philip the Fair, and their elder son).18
beginning of the thirteenth century. One of the two bishops who were only masters in arts was
Philippe de Vitry, one of the greatest musicians of the fourteenth century (Coville, ‘Philippe
de Vitri’).
15
On the importance of law studies in the late Middle Ages, see Verger, Les Gens de savoir
en Europe à la fin du Moyen Âge, pp. 125–33.
16
Tabbagh, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France, p. 95.
17
The University of Paris wrote in the beginning of the year 1426 to Pope Martin V: in this
letter, Boiry was presented as a master in theology, in the university for thirty-six years, already a
canon of Meaux, so reputed that he had instructed the royal children and was the director of
conscience and confessor for the king’s mother, Queen Catherine of France (Denifle and Chatelain,
Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, no. 2268). Letter to the chapter: Melun, AD Seine-et-Marne,
G 40, p. 40.
18
Simon is first a cleric and familiarus of Queen Jeanne, and her executor, and became after
On the other hand, fifteen bishops of Meaux served the kings before their
promotion, so a little less than half of them. But we need to be careful not to
misunderstand this number. Except Pierre de Versailles (1439–46), who was
first loyal to the pope, when these bishops did not serve the king directly in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, they instead served either the heir to the
throne or the fleur-de-lis princes competing for the government of the kingdom
at the time of Charles VI. If sometimes the interests of these princes conflicted
with the rule of the king himself, we cannot say that our clerics were not primarily
royal servants. Moreover, except Pierre de Versailles, the bishops of Meaux
systematically supported their king in the disputes with the pope.
Our bishops are a little more numerous serving kings before than during
their episcopate. This situation is partially due to their age at the time of their
appointment. Indeed, for the majority of them, the bishopric of Meaux was the end
of their careers: only seven of the thirty-two prelates continued their ecclesiastical
career in another place (Table 4.1). These transfers began in the fourteenth century:
no bishop was translated somewhere else between 1197 and 1317, which is not an
unusual situation in the thirteenth century’s dioceses.19 The bishops who pursue
their careers elsewhere were not young, however, when they arrived in Meaux:
Guillaume de Brosse (1318–21) was about forty-five years old, Pierre de Jean
(1321–25) and Jean de Meulan (1334–50) were about sixty, and Tristan de Salazar
(1473–74) was around forty. Twenty-two of the other prelates began and finished
their episcopal reigns in Meaux. Overall, these men are thus rather old upon their
promotion, as shown by the relatively short duration of their episcopates (a little
less than nine years on average): many of them died after just a few years in office.
Their age explains that they were more numerous serving the king before
than during their episcopate: the episcopal see was a well-deserved retreat after
a life of labour in the service of the prince, the pope, or the cathedral chapter.
The episcopate seems to have been for many of them the climax of their career
and marked a transformation of their activities in the service of the king, linked
to their new dignity and thus the normal evolution of their career, and taking
into account their experience. So it is logical that they were present more
frequently at the royal council after their promotion than before: the episcopal
dignity opened doors for them that their skills had not always allowed them
to pass. On the other hand, they were less present within the royal household.
her death a servant of her son, Louis of Champagne (later King Louis X): Rigault, Le Procès de
Guichard évêque de Troyes, p. 23.
19
In England too, the translations were ‘extremely rare’ in the thirteenth century (Harvey,
Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 182–83).
Table 4.1. Translations to and from the see of Meaux
Translation to Meaux Translation from Meaux

Anseau or Anselme (c. 1197–1207)
Geoffroi de Tressi (c. 1207–13)
Guillaume de Nemours (1214–21)
Amaury (1221–22)
Pierre de Cuisy (1223–55)
Aleaume de Cuisy (1255–67)
Jean de Poinci (1268–69)
Jean de Garlande (1269–74?)
Jean de la Grange (1275–c. 1287)
Adam de Vaudoi (1288–98)
Jean de Montrolles (1298–1305)
Nicolas Volé (1305–08)
Simon Festu (1308–17)
Guillaume de Brosse (1318–21) X (Le Puy) X (Bourges – Sens)
Pierre de Jean (1321–25) X (Viviers – Bayeux –
Carcassonne)
Durand de Saint-Pourçain (1326–34) X (Le Puy)
Jean de Meulan (1334–50) X (Noyon – Paris)
Philippe de Vitry (1351–61)
Jean Royer (1361–78)
Guillaume de Dormans (1379–90) X (Sens)
Pierre Fresnel (1390–1409) X (Noyon – Lisieux)
Jean de Sains (1409–18) X (Gap)
Robert de Girême (1418–26)
Jean de Boiry (1426–35)
Pasquier de Vaux (1435–39) X (Evreux – Lisieux)
Pierre de Versailles (1439–46) X (Châlons-en-Champagne, a
few weeks)
Jean Le Meunier (1447–58)
Jean du Drac (1459–73)
Tristan de Salazar (1473–74) X (Sens)
Louis de Melun (1474–83)
Jean L’Huillier (1483–1500)
Jean de Pierrepont (1500–1510)
Additionally, they were more frequently absent on diplomatic missions before

their promotion than afterwards: this kind of activity decreases probably because
of their age and declining physical health. Ten of them were also present in the
royal administration, in particular in the Parliament and Taxation Court.
When it comes to royal service, it is necessary to underline the very clear
split between the thirteenth century, when a single bishop (from eleven) served
the king, and the last two centuries of the Middle Ages, when the majority of
the holders of the see had undertaken royal duties. This evolution was the result
of several factors. The first of them, already noted, is the integration of the
Champagne into the royal estates, as a consequence of the marriage of Philip the
Fair (1285–1314) and the county’s heiress, Jeanne of Navarre. This led the king
to pay closer attention to regional matters. Secondly, at the same time, Philip the
Fair endeavoured to control more firmly the bishops of the French kingdom, to
have them supporting the growing royal authority in the face of papal authority.20
The third factor, which is connected to the first two, was the change in the
recruitment patterns of the bishops. This was not specific to the see of Meaux,
but it was very advanced in this diocese and it finally reinforced the actions of the
king. Let us explain this point.
The Changes in the Appointment of the Bishops

We do not know how three of the thirty-two bishops of Meaux between 1297
and 1510 were appointed, but we can suspect the existence of royal pressure in
one of these cases (Guillaume de Nemours, 1214–21, who belonged to a family
of royal servants).21 During the other twenty-nine vacancies, sixteen elections are
known (Table 4.2). Two additional elections are almost certain, although they
are not attested (in 1221 and 1223).22 The election, which is in theory the regular
20
On the ecclesiastical politics of Philip the Fair, see Digard, Philippe le Bel et le SaintSiège;
Favier, Philippe le Bel; Théry, ‘The Pioneer of Royal Theocracy’.
21
He was the son of Gautier de Villebéon († 1205), lord of Nemours and chamberlain of the
kings Louis VII and Philip August. Two brothers of Guillaume hold royal bishoprics (Étienne, Bishop
of Noyon, 1188–1221, and Pierre, Bishop of Paris, 1208–13), and three other brothers were servants
and chamberlains of the king (Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’, iii, 545–46).
22
Amaury (1221–22) and Pierre de Cuisy (1223–55) were probably elected, because
they were known before their promotion only as members of the cathedral clergy of Meaux.
We have very little information about Amaury who, in a charter, gave thanks to the Church of
Meaux for having fed him for many years before he became bishop (Meaux, Méd. Mun., MS 63,
p. 22). Pierre de Cuisy belonged to a small noble family of the diocese and was Archdeacon of
means of appointment of the bishops, thus intervenes in reality only in a little

more than half of the episcopal vacancies.
Table 4.2. Appointments of the Bishops of Meaux (shading indicates that we have no definite
information about their appointment to the bishopric)
election by the chapter papal provision

Anseau or Anselme (c. 1197–1207) X
Geoffroi de Tressi (c. 1207–13) X (first election broken by the pope)
Guillaume de Nemours (1214–21)
Amaury (1221–22) probably
Pierre de Cuisy (1223–55) probably
Aleaume de Cuisy (1255–67) X
Jean de Poinci (1268–69) X
Jean de Garlande (1269–74?) X
Jean de la Grange (1275–c. 1287) X
Adam de Vaudoi (1288–98) X X
Jean de Montrolles (1298–1305) disputed = > X
Nicolas Volé (1305–08) X
Simon Festu (1308–17) X
Guillaume de Brosse (1318–21) X
Pierre de Jean (1321–25) X
Durand de Saint-Pourçain (1326–34) X
Jean de Meulan (1334–50) X
Philippe de Vitry (1351–61) X
Jean Royer (1361–78) X
Guillaume de Dormans (1379–90) X X
Pierre Fresnel (1390–1409) X
Jean de Sains (1409–18) X
Robert de Girême (1418–26) X X
Meaux before his promotion. Three of his brothers achieved ecclesiastical careers in the diocese:
Aleaume was cantor in the cathedral and succeeded him as bishop (he was elected), Thomas was
Abbot of Saint-Faron of Meaux (one the of biggest and oldest Benedictine monasteries of the
diocese), and Milo was abbot of the Prémontré monastery of Chambrefontaine (situated in the
family’s parish of Cuisy). We have no record for Pierre of university training nor career in the
service of the king or a prince, whether lay or church, before his episcopate (Barralis, ‘Gouverner
l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’, iii, 547–48).
Table 4.2 Contd.
election by the chapter papal provision

Jean de Boiry (1426–35) X
Pasquier de Vaux (1435–39) X disputed X
Pierre de Versailles (1439–46) X
Jean Le Meunier (1447–58) X disputed X
Jean du Drac (1459–73) X X
Tristan de Salazar (1473–74) X
Louis de Melun (1474–83) X
Jean L’Huillier (1483–1500) X X
Jean de Pierrepont (1500–1510) X
The phenomenon is not evenly distributed over the entire period: most of the
recorded elections indeed took place in the first part of our period, until 1308.
The thirteenth century thus appears as a golden age of the chapter’s freedom:
even in the cases of disagreement between the canons, papal intervention was
limited most of the time to ordering a new election if the first one could not
be reconciled.23 The only papal appointment attested for this period was in
1298: the votes having been divided between the dean and a canon, they both
resigned in front of Pope Boniface VIII, who then appointed a new bishop on
his own authority.24 This dominance of elections is also observed in the rest of
the kingdom: the see of Meaux is rather representative of the national average
in the thirteenth century.25 It does not necessarily mean that the canons of the
cathedral chose their minister in total independence. The issue of possible royal
pressures on the voters deserves to be mentioned.26 We have very little written
23
It happened in 1207 (Die Register Innocenz’ III., dir. by Hageneder and Haidacher,
n° 163, pp. 272–73: the pope dissolved the first election, owing to the divisions of the chapter,
and commissioned two delegates to organize a new election) and in 1275 (Les Registres de
Grégoire X, ed. by Guiraud, n° 592: the pope commissioned two delegates to examine the
contested election and confirm the elected or organize a new election; they finally confirmed
the first election: Paris, ANF, J/198A, n° 126).
24
Les Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. by Digard and others, ii, n° 2748.
25
Gaudemet, Le Gouvernement de l’Église à l’époque classique, p. 66. The situation is similar
in England: Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, part I.
26
It has been highlighted for the whole kingdom: Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in
England, p. 194; Baldwin, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement, pp. 234–42; Barralis, ‘Le
Choix des évêques dans le royaume de France’.
evidence of royal pressure, but the simple fact that the king owned the regalia of
the bishopric meant he held influence on the choice of the elected,27 because to
choose a candidate not acceptable to the king could entail great difficulties in the
management of the temporalities of the see, if the king refused their restoration
to the bishop elect.28
In fact, in the thirteenth century few bishops came from the service of the
king or from his entourage: only four of the fourteen elected, and one of the two
appointed by the pope. These bishops connected to the Capetian administration
lived only at the beginning and at the end of the period: between 1221 and
1298, no prelate belonged to this group. A first moment of royal influence is so
situated under Philip Augustus’s reign, nevertheless considered overall as a period
of freedom of the elections, although this must be a little nuanced.29 Two of
his faithfuls took possession of the see of Meaux: master Anselme (or Anseau),
Dean of Saint-Martin of Tours in 1197, and Guillaume de Nemours in 1214.30
Royal influence was again exerted under the reign of Philip the Fair, with the
successive promotions to the see of Meaux of three clerics stemming from the
royal administration or entourage: Jean de Montrolles (appointed by the pope
27
In Meaux, the temporal regalia was, in the thirteenth century, in the hands of the Count
of Champagne, who held it in fief from the king, who was the only one who could initiate the
process of the election and the restoration of the temporalities to the new prelate. This fact is
mentioned by Fulbert of Chartres in the beginning of the eleventh century (Bur, La Formation du
comté de Champagne, pp. 185–88) and is sustained by some charters of the thirteenth century (for
example: BnF, MS lat. 5993A, fol. 190r, 13 November 1223; Paris, ANF, J/344, n° 25, 13 October
1267, and n° 33, 30 October 1269; Paris, ANF, J/198A, n° 126, 19 June 1275). The king
nevertheless held the spiritual regalia (Paris, ANF, X/1a/2, fol. 42v, November 1278 – January
1279). From the end of the thirteenth century, after the marriage between King Philip the Fair
and the Countess of Champagne, the temporal regalia was directly managed by the royal officers
(Inventaire d’anciens comptes royaux, ed. by Langlois, pp. 51–52).
28
Roland, Les Chanoines et les élections épiscopales, pp. 173–76.
29
30
About master Anselme, see Baldwin, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement, pp. 163–64.
Guillaume de Nemours was the son of Gautier ‘the Chamberlain’, a faithful servant of Kings
Louis VII and Philip Augustus. Two of his brothers were king’s chamberlains and two others were
bishops of Noyon and Paris (Baldwin, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement, pp. 60–61). As a symbol
of his devotion to the king, Guillaume de Nemours is buried in the Barbeau abbey, like his father,
who was buried there close to the feet of Louis VII (Baldwin, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement,
pp. 60–61, and Gallia christiana, col. 1623). His election to the bishopric of Meaux was maybe
not only a consequence of royal influence: his uncle, Étienne de la Chapelle, had been a Bishop
of Meaux too, from 1162 to 1172 (Pacaut, Louis VII et les élections épiscopales, p. 66). As he died
almost forty years before Guillaume’s election, it is not certain that this kinship had an impact on it.
in 1298),31 Nicolas Volé or de Châlons (elected in 1305),32 and Simon Festu

(elected in 1308), who was especially close to the queen, Jeanne of Navarre, but
performed financial functions for the king too.33
A long fourteenth century follows, with a single election, which is bound at
a very particular political moment, because it occurred in the first weeks of the
Great Western Schism: the chapter took advantage of the fact that the obedience
of the French clergy was not yet decided to briefly free itself from papal
supervision and to elect a bishop. But Clement VII quickly took back control by
appointing the candidate, thus recategorizing this election as a postulation after a
so-called special reservation.34
This break in the practice of election during the fourteenth century is not a
surprise: the installation of the papacy in Avignon came along with an increasing
centralization of ecclesiastical power to the benefit of the papal Curia, and the
importance of the number of papal provisions was already widely exposed.35
However, the substitution of papal appointment for the capitular election was not
imposed everywhere in the same proportions. With 100 per cent of the bishops
named by the pope during this period, the diocese of Meaux is an extreme case of
this evolution, which meant that the canons no longer had much of a role in the
choice of their bishop.
The practice of election comes back in the fifteenth century, with five elections
(on eleven bishops), but is exercised only in an impeded way. Indeed, the elections
of the fifteenth century took place in specific political contexts, in which the right
of the chapter applies almost only when it is in agreement with the royal choice.
The election of 1418 is the only one which we can consider really to be free:
the canons benefited from the application of the concordat dated 2 May 1418,
which provided for the return to the elective system, keeping only a few rights of
reservation and devolution.36 Afterwards, the king systematically let them know
his preferences concerning the choice of the new bishop. In 1435, Pasquier de
Vaux prevailed over his rival Philippe of Ruilly, Dean of Meaux, thanks to the
31
Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’, iii, 553–55.
32
Guilbert, Fasti ecclesiae Gallicanae, p. 276.
33
Tabbagh, Fasti ecclesiae Gallicanae. 11, p. 463, and supra, note 18.
34
Gallia christiana, col. 1637; Città del Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Aven. 217, fol. 517v.
35
Tabbagh, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France, pp. 45–60.
36
Melun, AD Seine-et-Marne, 10 G 1 (record of the election, November 1418). The pope
confirmed the election on 10 July 1419 (Città del Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Lat. 204, fols 119v–121).
About the concordat, see Valois, Histoire de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges, pp. ii–iii.
support of the government of the Duke of Bedford.37 And both elections of 1447
and 1459 are the result of the application of the Pragmatique Sanction of Bourges
(1438), which officially gave way to the expression of the royal will.38 Yet, at the
end of the civil war, the interest which the king had in the appointment of the
bishops is strengthened by the strategic location of the city of Meaux, a powerful
fortress on the Marne River near Paris, and he thus pressed clearly to impose his
candidates.39
The chapter still did not accept without a fight the removal of their rights.
For example, in 1435 and 1483, the chapter organized an election after the pope
had provided a candidate. It seems plausible that these two elections mark the
assertion of the chapter’s rights in the light of the king’s actions, who was relying
on the pope to approve and provide his candidate, though the elections did not
prevent in the end the appointment of the royal candidate. In 1435, the papal
provision of the royal candidate, Pasquier de Vaux, is dated 23 September,40 the
procurator of Pasquier committed to pay the services to the Apostolic Chamber
on 28 September,41 and the election, which is disputed between Pasquier de
Vaux and the dean of the chapter, is dated 31 October.42 By this election, the
chapter acts both against the regent, whom the canons probably knew would
urge the pope to appoint a faithful, and against Pope Eugene IV, whose general
reservation to the Holy See of all bishoprics exceeding two hundred florins in
value, published in 1431,43 applied to Meaux. In 1483, the king wrote to the
canons on 20 May to warn them that he had written to the pope to ask for the
appointment of his confessor, Jean L’Huillier, and to ask them not to proceed
with an election without telling him.44 The papal bull for L’Huillier is dated
6 June, and the convocation by the chapter of the canons for the election dates
21 June.45 The papal bull has not been backdated to consolidate the rights of
L’Huillier, as sometimes occurs,46 because we have a mention of a king’s letter to
37
Du Plessis, Histoire de l’Église de Meaux, i, 290.
38
Valois, Histoire de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges, p. lxxxiv.
39
See supra, note 12, for the election of 1447. For that of 1459, see Gallia christiana, col. 1641.
40
Città del Vaticano, ASV, Obl. et Sol. 66, fol. 45v.
41
Città del Vaticano, ASV, Obl. et Sol. 70, fol. 150v.
42
See supra, note 37.
43
Valois, Histoire de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges, p. lxxiii n. 2.
44
Meaux, BDGB, Phelippeaux, Antiqua Ecclesiae Meldensis monumenta, pp. 292–93.
45
Città del Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Lat. 827, fol. 332r–333v; Melun, AD Seine-et-Marne, G 40, p. 41.
46
Hayez, Mathieu, and Yvan, ‘De la supplique à la lettre’, pp. 181–82.
the chapter, pointing out that he was informed of some ‘illicit alliances’ (illicitas
pactiones) to elect another one to the bishopric of Meaux, and enjoining the
canons to approve the papal appointment. After the royal envoys left the chapter,
the canons deliberated and agreed the king’s will on 4 July.47
So, de facto the canonical procedure of free election by the chapter and
confirmation by the archbishop did not exist anymore in Meaux in the fifteenth
century. For we have to underline that, besides the royal intervention, the
bishops elected without dispute needed de facto a papal provision so that their
appointment became real. The direct confirmation by the Holy See was not a
completely new procedure: we already find some records of it in the thirteenth
century.48 But its systematic character in the fifteenth century breaks with the
previous practices. This evolution is not specific to Meaux: it is observed in the
whole French kingdom at the end of the fifteenth century.49
However, the pope did not have complete freedom to choose the prelates.
For royal influence was not only exerted on the elections: several appointments
were made in line with the Crown’s wishes, even before the expression of it
is officially set out by the Pragmatique Sanction of Bourges of 1438 or by the
concordat of 1472. Indeed, the bishops appointed by the pope in the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries were almost all former members of the papal Curia or
faithful servants of the Crown. Of the fourteen bishops of this period who
were provided only by the pope, ten were the king’s servants or men close to
the king,50 and three were close friends or faithful servants of the Holy See.51
This represents a much higher proportion than for the whole kingdom: among
the bishops in charge in the fourteenth century, the proportion of previous
servants of the pope is less than a third; the one of previous king’s servants
is 35.8 per cent at the most, at the end of the century.52 The last one of these
fourteen bishops, Louis de Melun, was appointed to Meaux in 1474 to allow a
47
Meaux, BDGB, Phelippeaux, Antiqua Ecclesiae Meldensis monumenta, p. 293.
48
Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesitzungen in der Zeit von Gregor IX bis Boniface VIII, p. 40.
49
Véronique Julerot studied thirty-nine trials for bishoprics during the reign of Charles VIII
(1483–98). Thirty-seven cases oppose a chapter’s candidate and a candidate appointed by
the pope. Of the thirty-five bishops who won their lawsuit during this reign, thirty-one were
appointed by the pope or needed papal approval ( Julerot, ‘Y a ung grant désordre’).
50
Guillaume de Brosse (1318), Jean de Meulan (1334), Philippe de Vitry (1351), Jean
Royer (1361), Pierre Fresnel (1390), Jean de Sains (1409), Jean de Boiry (1426), Tristan de
Salazar (1473), Jean L’Huillier (1483), and Jean de Pierrepont (1500).
51
Pierre de Jean (1321), Durand de Saint-Pourçain (1326), and Pierre de Versailles (1439).
52
Tabbagh, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France, p. 119.
royal candidate (the former Bishop of Meaux, Tristan de Salazar) to obtain the
archiepiscopal see of Sens, where Louis de Melun should have succeeded his
uncle after his resignation.53 In the end, more or less three quarters of the papal
appointments to Meaux in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries result from a
mark of favour from the pope to the king.
Besides, royal support is sometimes coupled with internal negotiations into
the Gallican clergy. Indeed, we observe, at least during the reign of Charles VI,
some kinds of organized ‘successions’ between members of the royal court. So,
in 1390 Pierre Fresnel and Guillaume de Dormans organize, with the support of
the king, the translation of Dormans from Meaux to the archbishopric of Sens
and the promotion of Fresnel at Meaux.54 Papal intervention thus only appears
as a simple validation of an arrangement concluded within the royal court.55
The same scenario was repeated about twenty years later in 1409, when Jean de
Sains, former secretary of Charles VI, was appointed in Meaux to replace Pierre
Fresnel, translated to the bishopric of Noyon, where he replaced another member
of the royal court, Philippe de Moulins, former notary and secretary of the king,
ambassador then member of the king’s council.56
Conclusion
From the end of the twelfth century to the beginning of the sixteenth century,
the evolution of the appointment patterns of the bishops of Meaux is particularly
clear. We cross from a majority of elections in the thirteenth century to an
exclusive system of papal appointments during the period of the Avignon papacy
and the Great Schism, before seeing in the fifteenth century some limited
capitular elections. But by that time election by the chapter was no longer the
determining factor in the choice of bishop. Even when capitular election took
53
Bouvier, Histoire de l’Église et de l’ancien archidiocèse de Sens, ii, 430. The two appoint-
ments are determined by the pope on the same day, 26 September (Città del Vaticano, ASV,
Obl. et Sol. 82, fol. 85v).
54
Kaminsky, ‘The Early Career of Simon de Cramaud’, p. 526, and Kaminsky, Simon de
Cramaud and the Great Schism, pp. 102–03.
55
The two papal letters of provision are dated on the same day, 17 October (Kaminsky,
‘The Early Career of Simon de Cramaud’, p. 526, and Città del Vaticano, ASV, Reg. Aven. 261,
fol. 102).
56
Millet, ‘Biographie d’un rescapé de la méthode prosopographique’, p. 202. Pierre Fresnel
and Philippe de Moulins had worked side by side many times: they were together in the Court of
Aids in 1386–87 (Paris, ANF, Z/1a/1, fols Vr–VIv) and in the King’s Council (many references
in Autrand, Naissance d’un grand corps de l’État).
place in the fifteenth century, it was secondary to the selection of the approved
royal candidate who was to get the stamp of papal acceptance.
An essential factor of the appointments from 1298 was the intervention of
the king, who influenced almost all the later ones. In the twelfth century, the
royal interventions in the selection of bishops seem very limited, and in spite of a
first attempt of seizure by Philip Augustus, it indeed seems that during the main
part of the thirteenth century the kings had hardly any influence on the choice of
the bishops.
The situation began to change from the end of the thirteenth century, with the
conjunction of several factors. Firstly, the integration of the Champagne into the
royal estates, then the centralization of the Church, and finally the strengthening
of the royal power. These evolutions transformed the status of the bishopric of
Meaux: from an ‘average’ bishopric, not very attractive to external clerics, it became
a sought-after position for ambitious members of the royal administration, while
its wealth and the number of its ecclesiastical benefices tended to drop because
of the economic crises of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. So, the case of
the bishopric of Meaux reveals that the attractiveness of an episcopal see did not
only depend on its wealth or the size of its territory and population: the political
location is also fundamental. Change it, and the sociology and the activities of its
bishops — and so, the status of the bishopric — will change. All these political
factors had indeed much impact on the bishopric of Meaux: they decreased the role
of the local chapter in choosing the bishop, and the influence of the Crown on this
choice then became not only obvious but dominant. This brought about two linked
developments: the chapter gradually broke away from the bishop until it received
a full exemption in 1383,57 and the bishops ceased to be mainly recruited from
within the cathedral chapter and the local minor nobility. The service of the king
and their intellectual skills and training then became the dominant criteria: from
1298, the bishops of Meaux were no longer the chapter’s men, but the king’s men.
57
Barralis, ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge’, ii, 271–83. The exemption was
cancelled by the council of Constance in 1418, like all the ones granted during the Schism
(sessio LXIII, c. De exemptionibus).
Works Cited
Manuscripts and Archival Sources

Auxerre, Archives départementales de l’Yonne, G33, n° 37
Città della Vaticano, Archivio Segreto [ASV]
Obligationes et Solutiones 66, 70, 82
Registra Avenionensia 217, 261
Registra Lateranensia 204, 435, 827
Registra Vaticana 113
Meaux, Bibliothèque diocésaine Guillaume Briçonnet, Phelippeaux, Antiqua Ecclesiae
Meldensis monumenta (MS Trésor T 30 1720)
Meaux, Médiathèque municipale, MS 63
Melun, Archives départementales de Seine-et-Marne
10 G 1
G 40
Paris, Archives nationales de France
J/344
J/198A
X/1a/2
X/1a/4801
Z/1a/1
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France [BnF]
MS fonds latin 5414A
MS fonds latin 5993A
MS fonds nouvelles acquisitions latines 7631
Primary Sources
Achery, Luc d’, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum, new updated edn by
Louis-François-Joseph De la Barre, vol. iii (Paris: François Montalant, 1723)
Denifle, Henri, and Émile Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, vol. iv
(Paris: Delalain frères, 1897)
Hoberg, Hermann, Taxæ pro communibus servitiis, ex libris Obligationum ab anno 1295
ad annum 1455 confectis (Città del Vaticano: Bibliotheca apostolica vaticana, 1947)
Inventaire d’anciens comptes royaux dressé par Robert Mignon sous le règne de Philippe de
Valois, ed. by Charles-Victor Langlois, Recueil des historiens de la France. Instruments
financiers, 1 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1899)
Die Register Innocenz’ III., dir. by Othmar Hageneder and Anton Haidacher, vol. x:
Pontifikatsjahr 1207–1208, Texte und Indices, ed. by Rainer Murauer and Andrea
Sommerlechner, Publikationen des Historischen Instituts beim Österreischischen Kultur
Institut in Rom, Abt. 2 – Quellen (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2007)
Les Registres de Boniface VIII: Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après
les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. by Georges Digard and others,
Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 2nd série, 4, 4 vols (Paris:
De Boccard-Fontemoing, 1904–39)
Les Registres de Grégoire X, ed. by Jean Guiraud, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises
d’Athènes et de Rome, 2nd serie, 12 (Paris: Thorin, 1892)
Secondary Sources
Autrand, Françoise, Naissance d’un grand corps de l’État: Les Gens du Parlement de Paris
(1345–1454) (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1981)
Baldwin, John, Philippe Auguste et son Gouvernement (Paris: Fayard, 1991; trans. from the
first edn, Berkeley, 1986)
Barralis, Christine, ‘Le Choix des évêques dans le royaume de France à l’époque de Grégoire IX
(1227–1241)’, in La France religieuse du jeune Louis IX, ed. by Catherine Vincent and Pascal
Montaubin, Religion et société (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, forthcoming)
—— , ‘Gouverner l’Église à la fin du Moyen Âge: Évêques et évêché de Meaux (1197–1510)’
(unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2004)
Bouvier, Henri, Histoire de l’Église et de l’ancien archidiocèse de Sens, 3 vols (Amiens: Yvert
et Tellier, 1911)
Bur, Michel, La Formation du comté de Champagne (v. 950–v. 1150), Mémoires des
Annales de l’est, 54 (Nancy: Publications de l’Université de Nancy II, 1977)
Coville, Alfred, ‘Philippe de Vitri: Notes biographiques’, Romania, 59 (1933), 520–47
Digard, Georges, Philippe le Bel et le SaintSiège de 1285 à 1304, 2 vols (Paris: Sirey, 1936)
Du Plessis, dom Toussaints, Histoire de l’Église de Meaux, 2 vols (Paris: Julien-Michel
Gandouin and Pierre-François Giffart, 1731)
Favier, Jean, Philippe le Bel (Paris: Fayard, 1978)
Gallia christiana nova in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, vol. viii (Paris: Typographia
Regia, 1744)
Ganzer, Klaus, Papsttum und Bistumsbesitzungen in der Zeit von Gregor IX. bis Boniface
VIII.: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Reservationen, Forschungen zu
kirchlichen Rechtsgeschichte und zum Kirchenrecht, 9 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1968)
Gaudemet, Jean, Le Gouvernement de l’Église à l’époque classique, vol. ii: Le Gouvernement
local, Histoire du droit et des institutions de l’Église en Occident, 8.2 (Paris: Éd.
Cujas, 1979)
Guilbert, Sylvette, Fasti ecclesiae Gallicanae, vol. xiv: Diocèse de ChâlonsenChampagne
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2015)
Hayez, Anne-Marie, Janine Mathieu, and Marie-France Yvan, ‘De la supplique à la
lettre: Le Parcours des grâces en cour de Rome sous Urbain V (1362–1366)’, in Le
Fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon, Actes de la table ronde EFR
CNRS (Avignon, 23–24 janvier 1988), Collection de l’École française de Rome, 138
Julerot, Véronique, ‘Y a ung grant désordre’: Élections épiscopales et schismes diocésains en

France sous Charles VIII (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2006)
Kaminsky, Howard, ‘The Early Career of Simon de Cramaud’, Speculum, 49 (1974),
499–534
—— , Simon de Cramaud and the Great Schism (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press,
1983)
Millet, Hélène, ‘Biographie d’un rescapé de la méthode prosopographique: Jean de Sains,
officier des ducs d’Anjou et secrétaire de Charles VI’, in Penser le pouvoir au Moyen Âge
(viiie–xve siècles): Études offertes à Françoise Autrand, ed. by Dominique Boutet and
Jacques Verger (Paris: Éditions Rue d’Ulm, 2000), pp. 181–209
Pacaut, Marcel, Louis VII et les élections épiscopales dans le royaume de France (Paris:
J. Vrin, 1957)
Rigault, Abel, Le Procès de Guichard évêque de Troyes (1308–1313), Mémoires et
documents publiés par la Société de l’École des Chartes, 1 (Paris: Picard, 1896)
Roland, Emmanuel, Les Chanoines et les élections épiscopales du xie au xive siècle (Aurillac:
Imprimerie moderne, 1909)
Tabbagh, Vincent, Les Évêques dans le royaume de France au xive siècle (Dijon: Éditions
universitaires de Dijon, 2015)
—— , Fasti ecclesiae Gallicanae, vol. xi: Diocèse de Sens (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009)
Théry, Julien, ‘The Pioneer of Royal Theocracy: Guillaume de Nogaret and the Conflicts
between Philip the Fair and the Papacy’, in The Capetian Century, 1214–1314, ed. by
William Chester Jordan and Jenna Rebecca Phillips (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017),
pp. 219–59
Valois, Noël, Histoire de la Pragmatique Sanction de Bourges sous Charles VII (Paris:
Picard, 1906)
Verger, Jacques, Les Gens de savoir en Europe à la fin du Moyen Âge (Paris: Presses universi-
taires de France, 1997)
Part II
Episcopal Networks
Premeditation and Determination on
the Way to the Polish Episcopacy in the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries
Jacek Maciejewski
E
cclesiastical careers of the higher clergy were to a significant extent
determined by chance and fortune since the Church very seldom
deposed its prelates, who usually exercised their offices lifelong. It meant
that an opportunity to gain a bishop’s position appeared sometimes suddenly
and generally due to the death or very serious illness of a hitherto existing
diocesan pastor. In my essay I focus on noble families’ policy towards bishops’
appointments to show the importance of familial connections in supporting and
preparing kinsmen for episcopal promotion. I will also ask if it was possible to
become a bishop without such backing, thanks only to royal or papal support
and personal determination. The chronological framework of my paper includes
almost two centuries: from the beginning of the thirteenth century when the
Polish Church obtained the right of capitular election until the 1370s when
the combined factors of the reign of King Louis the Hungarian (1370–82),
the Jagiellonian dynasty (from 1386), and the Western Schism (1378–1417)
significantly influenced the appointment of Polish bishops, even more than the
introduction of papal provisions in the fourteenth century.
Jacek Maciejewski (jmac@ukw.edu.pl) is a full professor at Kazimierz Wielki University,

Bydgoszcz, Poland. He has published extensively on the medieval episcopacy in Polish and
English. He is the author of three monographs, including Adventus episcopi (UKW, 2013) and
co-editor of dozens of volumes, including Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval
Clergy in Cultural Perspective (Brill, 2018). He is currently undertaking research on the military
activity of medieval clergy and episcopal appointments in medieval Poland.
108 Jacek Maciejewski
In the late fourteenth-century chronicle written shortly after the death of

King Kazimierz the Great (1370) by Janek of Czarnków there are several entries
about contemporary episcopal appointments. Two of them concern the same
election held in Poznań in 1375 resulting in the choice of Nicholas of Kórnik,
a collector of many benefices and once royal chancellor of Kazimierz the Great.
The chronicler shows us how the new elect outwitted the chapter, the majority
of which was against him, using the form of election by way of compromise. The
compromisers were picked unanimously because some of Nicholas’s followers
pretended they supported his opponent, and by this trick he won 4:3. Janek,
who for political reasons greatly disliked the new bishop, was doing his best to
present these events as a betrayal or fraud which resulted in the election of a man
full of criminality and without any virtues.1 However, he admitted that finally
all the compromisers had agreed to the choice of Nicholas. This agreement is
confirmed in the papal bull issued for Nicholas on 7 May 1375 which does not
mention any protest or appeal in this case.2 Having cheated the chapter, the new
elect — according to the chronicler — was to go to Avignon without the king’s or
metropolitan’s permission.
The narrative does not seem to be a very credible source, but it is instructive
because it shows what the roles of the king and metropolitan were in the bishop-
making procedure and how individuals might use the election per compromisum
to overcome the majority in the chapter. In respect of this 1375 election, there is
no doubt that there was a clash between the two mighty clans, the Łodzia and
Pałuki. Both of these kindreds had previously had their representatives on the
episcopal throne in Poznań, and such familial rivalry here and in other Polish
bishoprics already had a long tradition.3
It is especially characteristic that the first example of familial plotting and the
selection of an individual for a bishopric is to be found in the very first Polish
canonical election held in Cracow at the turn of 1207. The electoral freedom
was a newly gained right of the local chapter which must be seen in the broader
context as a part of a programme of Polish Church reform.4 The election itself
1
Kronika Jana z Czarnkowa, ed. by Szlachtowski, pp. 665–66, 706–09; Kłoczowski,
‘Biskupi i kapituły’, pp. 205, 210; Jurek, Biskupstwo poznańskie w wiekach średnich, pp. 313–14.
2
Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, n. 971, p. 721: ‘per viam
compromissi concorditer elegerunt’.
3
Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 34–35.
4
See lately Baran-Kozłowski, Arcybiskup gnieźnieński Henryk Kietlicz, pp. 103–11, 119–85;
Skwierczyński, Recepcja idei gregoriańskich w Polsce, passim.
premeditation and determination 109
was carried out by way of scrutiny, and the majority of the canons chose their
former provost, then Bishop of Płock, Gedko. It meant that the bishop-making
process was not yet complete, and the chapter had to make a postulation because
the translation of bishops required papal approval.5 Although the canons of
Cracow were far from unanimous the majority of the chapter agreed, just in
case, to the appointment of master Vincentius, who was supported by another
party.6 Later on, the case was settled in favour of the latter, but the person we are
most interested in here is the winner of the Cracovian vote, Gedko. His origins
and ecclesiastical career seem to be clear evidence of the kindred’s policy aim to
obtain the Cracow episcopate and with a very ambitious clergyman, determined
to achieve the appointed goal.
Gedko came from the one of the most powerful families in twelfth-century
Poland, and he probably began his Church career in Cracow under the watchful
eye of his close relative (in the third degree according to the Church computation)
Bishop Gedko of Cracow (1166–85) who was one of the most influential members
of the Cracovian social and political elite of his time.7 The reasons why our Gedko
did not become a bishop after the death of his namesake are obscure. One can
only speculate that there were serious objections on the grounds of Church law.
Alternatively, and more likely, he simply could not compete with a member of
another aristocratic family, since the next bishop, Pełka (Fulco, 1186–1207) was
the brother of the comes palatinus and a very active political player.8 Consequently
our Gedko waited for around twenty years for his chance, but Bishop Pełka had a
quite long pontificate. Therefore when in 1206 Bishop Wit of Płock died, Gedko
decided to ascend the episcopal throne in Mazovia (in mid-north-eastern Poland,
where the frontier see of Płock suffered much from pagan neighbours). Since
Gedko’s kindred was very influential not only in Cracow but also in Mazovia, both
5
This election is well documented by the papal bull issued by Innocent III on 28 March
1208, Kodeks dyplomatyczny katedry krakowskiej św. Wacława, ed. by Piekosiński, p. 1, n. 7. For
further references, see Baran-Kozłowski, Arcybiskup gnieźnieński Henryk Kietlicz, p. 123, nn.
286–88.
6
Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 49, 60, 101; Maciejewski, ‘Vincentius’s
Background and Family Origins’, pp. 29–32.
7
Semkowicz, ‘Ród Powałów’; Bieniak, ‘Heraldyka polska przed Długoszem’, pp. 176–80;
Bieniak, ‘Polska elita polityczna xii wieku’, pp. 19–20; Bieniak, ‘Kościelna Wieś i jej dzidzice
w średniowieczu’, pp. 54f. and table 1; Śliwiński, Pogranicze kujawskopomorskie w xii–xiii w.,
pp. 15–16, 121–23; Szymaniak, Biskup płocki Gedko, pp. 113–30.
8
Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, p. 231; Maciejewski, ‘A Bishop Defends
his City’; Bartos, ‘Post-Gregorian Episcopal Authority’, esp. pp. 19–27.
lands were under the rule of the same ducal lineage, we can assume that his family’s
very good relations with the ducal court and very strong position of his kin in
Mazovia were decisive factors for his appointment.9
Only one year later Gedko must have regretted his decision, because after
Bishop Pełka’s death the gate to the Cracovian cathedral seemed to have been
opened. His efforts to come back to Cracow cannot be regarded as strange if we
consider the role that this city played as the main Polish ducal and then royal
centre. In addition, local bishops struggled for second place after the Archbishop
of Gniezno within the Polish episcopacy since the turn of the twelfth century.10
And it so happened that Cracovian prelates even refused to be translated to the
metropolitan see, which could not compete with Cracow in terms of political
significance between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries.11
Gedko’s example shows very well how important family networks were for
episcopal appointments in Poland. They became even stronger in the age of
canonical election and did not lose their importance as a result of increased papal
involvement in the fourteenth century. What I want to say is that the numbers of
locally born bishops or bishops with prior connections to the diocese to which
they were appointed were always in the majority throughout the period under
consideration.12 It is true that since the beginning of the thirteenth century,
thanks to the rise of clerical celibacy, there were no longer sons inheriting sees
from their fathers, but other relations were still very important factors assisting
promotion to episcopal office. For example, uncles from both sides of the family
might help their nephews. However, the thirteenth century can be described as a
time of struggles between the mighty and lower ranked knights’ families and as
a period of competition between clerics representing many different clans. One
can agree that the nobility monopolized access to the episcopal sees in Poland
very quickly, and it also had the effect of making nepotism within the Church
very common. Cathedral chapters were dominated by members of the nobility,
and such prelates and canons elected bishops of the same rank and mostly from
their own cathedral milieu. The bishops in turn did not forget their relatives
9
Szymaniak, Biskup płocki Gedko, pp. 150–55.
10
Maciejewski, ‘Precedencja biskupów polskich’.
11
In 1220 Iwo Odrowąż, Bishop of Cracow (1218–29), refused to be translated to
Gniezno, Umiński, ‘Arcybiskup Wincenty z Niałka’, pp. 142–43. Two centuries later Bishop
Zbigniew Oleśnicki (1423–55) did the same, Koczerska, Zbigniew Oleśnicki i Kościół krakowski,
pp. 260–61. See also Gąsiorowski, ‘Gniezno monarsze i Gniezno biskupie’.
12
Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 71–82; Maciejewski, ‘Which Way to
Bishopric?’, pp. 210–11; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, p. 28.
who were granted ecclesiastical benefices and became members of the chapters.
But all of this did not result initially in the domination by the powerful clans
of the Church structures and the creation of sui generis hereditary bishoprics.
Episcopal dynasties were a common phenomenon in Poland but, as far as we
know, not before the fourteenth century. Earlier it was only once that the see
was transferred from one close relative almost immediately to another. I mean
the Bishop of Wrocław Tomasz II who enjoyed long-lasting protection from the
side of his cognate uncle Tomasz I. Both of them, representing one of the most
noble and important family circles in Silesia, held that see for nearly sixty years
(1232–92).13 This powerful kin did not limit their ‘episcopal’ policy to only one
bishopric. Another of Tomasz I’s cognate and Tomasz II’s agnate in the third
degree of Church computation, Wilhelm I of Nysa, became bishop in Lebus
(1252–73),14 and it is interesting to notice how the order of rank affected that
kinship policy. Whereas Wilhelm, who originated from a rather poor family who
served the bishops of Wrocław as secular knights and officials, was endowed with
a bishopric of lower rank, Tomasz II hailed from a family who were the duke’s
officials or dignitaries and became a bishop of a far richer diocese.
The family of Tomasz I also paid special attention to the metropolitan see
in Gniezno. The origins of the Archbishop of Gniezno, Vincentius Niałek
(1220–32), are not certain; he may have been, according to some historians,
a member of the clan Jeleńczycy just like Tomasz I. Konrad, the first cousin of
Tomasz I, and the chancellor of the bishopric of Wrocław, was almost elected
Archbishop of Gniezno in 1271/72. However, the election was divided, and
Konrad died before the dispute was resolved by the papacy.15
It is believed that the procedure of canonical election delayed the moment of
the subordination of the respective Polish bishoprics by only one powerful clan
because it created the possibility of competition due to many ecclesiastical and
secular factors.16 It is worth noting that the making of a strong faction within a
cathedral chapter was usually a long drawn-out process, so many bishops did not
13
With a short interregnum of around two years when the bishopric of Wrocław was
administered by Duke Władysław, Archbishop of Salzburg, Jurek, ‘Slesie stirps nobilissima’;
Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 72, 268–69.
14
Maciejewski, ‘Pochodzenie i kariera Wilhelma I’, pp. 85–90; Maciejewski, Episkopat
Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 72–73, 240.
15
Umiński, ‘Arcybiskup Wincenty z Niałka’, pp. 146–49; Karasiewicz, Jakób II Świnka,
p. 3; Silnicki and Gołąb, Arcybiskup Jakub Świnka i jego epoka, pp. 19–20; Jurek, ‘Slesie stirps
nobilissima’, pp. 34f.; Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 72–73, 225.
16
Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 77–78.
have enough time to secure their sees for their kinsmen. That is probably why
the results of such processes are more apparent in the fourteenth century. It is
also possible that richer sources, providing us with much more detail, help us to
recognize the networks of family relations in the fourteenth century.
The most impressive kinship network in relation to episcopal appointments
was created in the fourteenth century by the Bishop of Włocławek Gerward
of Ostrowo (1300–1323).17 It produced four or even five more bishops in
Włocławek, Poznań, and Cracow, and at least two would-be pastors of dioceses of
Włocławek and Poznań. Gerward was a very close follower and diplomat of Duke
Władysław the Elbow, and it was he who negotiated with the pope in Avignon on
the issue of the duke’s coronation.18 But Gerward was first of all amator suorum.
He introduced to the Kujavian chapters several of his kinsmen,19 including his own
brother Stanisław and his cognate nephew Maciej of Gołańcz and other relatives
of the latter belonging to the clan of Pałuki. In the late 1340s three out of the five
bishoprics within the borders of the Polish realm (Włocławek, Poznań, Kraków)
were in hands of prelates whose ecclesiastical careers had begun in Kujavia thanks
to Bishop Gerward. Two of them represented the Pałuki clan. The latter kindred
held the see of Włocławek, after twenty-three years of Gerward’s pontificate, for
a further sixty years, and another member of this family was brought up in the
episcopal courts of his agnate uncles, to be the next bishop there.20
A very interesting example of kinship policies in respect of ecclesiastical
affairs and personal determination en route to obtaining the highest ecclesiastical
positions possible is Bodzęta of Września, who was also supported in his youth
by Bishop Gerward, his consanguineus on the distaff side. By the time he was
provided bishop by the pope, his clerical career had lasted for thirty-five years.21
Bishop Gerward was still alive when Bodzęta was promoted to the highest
position in the Cracovian cathedral chapter becoming dean shortly before
17
Maciejewski, Działalność kościelna Gerwarda z Ostrowa, pp. 71–80.
18
There are many secondary sources for this issue. For further references, see the general
account of his political activity in Bieniak, ‘Gerward z Ostrowa’.
19
The diocese of Włocławek consists of two main territories: Kujavia and Eastern
Pomerania. The see of the bishopric as well as the seats of the two cathedral chapters in
Włocławek and Kruszwica were situated in the Kujavian part of the bishopric. Cf. Kumor,
‘Granice metropolii i diecezji polskich’, pp. 330–31; Kriedte, Die Herrschaft der Bischöfe von
Włocławek, pp. 19–31 and a map.
20
Kłoczowski, ‘Biskupi i kapituły’, p. 208; Bieniak, ‘Fragment 1333–1341’, p. 27, Bieniak,
‘Krąg rodzinny biskupa kujawskiego Macieja Pałuki’, pp. 91–97; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i
drogi awansu’, pp. 25–26.
21
Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, pp. 225–29; Kowalski, Prałaci i kanonicy, p. 132.
October 1320. Then he was a supporter of the next two Cracovian bishops, not
forgetting however his very close relations with the Bishop of Włocławek. It
is worth noting that during his long service — twenty-eight years — as dean,
some financial affairs were entrusted to him by different bishops, papal Peter’s
Pence collectors, and other clergymen.22 When the bishopric of Cracow fell
vacant in 1347 and the chapter chose a new pastor in spite of a papal reservation,
Bodzęta was sent by the chapter with the new elect Piotr Szyrzyk, a royal vice-
chancellor, to the Apostolic See. In that very moment Bodzęta must have been
in his late fifties at least and could not have expected any further ecclesiastical
promotion. But fortune was on his side. Having got his papal provision as the
elect of the Cracovian chapter, Piotr died in Avignon on 6 June 1348. Only
one week afterwards, a new provision was given to Bodzęta who was already
known in the Camera Apostolica and was well connected in the papal court.23
The rapidity and efficacy of the action undertaken by the dean of the Cracovian
chapter may surprise and generate respect for his determination and abilities. All
this happened without any consultation with the chapter and the Polish king of
course and caused rather cold relations between the new Bishop of Cracow and
the royal court.24 However, I do not share the opinion that the Cracovian chapter
was also against its new pastor for several years.25 On the contrary, the Catalogi
episcoporum Cracoviensium says that Bodzęta was elected in Avignon by two
canons who accompanied him there.26 This idea, ridiculous from a legal point of
view, seems to be an attempt in hindsight to express support for the new Bishop
of Cracow from the chapter or to defend the chapter’s electoral rights against the
increasing use of papal provisions.
One may say that Bodzęta became a bishop in Cracow only by coincidence.
But it is good to remember that he met all requirements set by the cathedral
milieu with regard to candidates for diocesan bishops (for instance: noble
origin, strong connections with the cathedral chapter and future diocese and/
or the ruler’s court).27 Besides, Piotr Szyrzyk and Bodzęta were relatives through
22
Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, pp. 228–29.
23
Katalogi biskupów krakowskich, ed. by Szymański, pp. 103, 115, 194; Kalendarz katedry
krakowskiej, ed. by Kozłowska-Budkowa, p. 151; Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed.
by Theiner, i, n. 677.
24
Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, pp. 230–37.
25
Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, p. 236.
26
Katalogi biskupów krakowskich, ed. by Szymański, pp. 67, 103, 115, 195.
27
Cf. Maciejewski, Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 70–86, 217–18; Maciejewski,
‘Which Way to Bishopric?’, pp. 210–11; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 32–33.
the latter’s mother who came from the Doliwa clan just like Piotr. In the future
he would not forget them, and thanks to his support Jan Doliwa of Lutogniew
became Bishop of Poznań in 1356.28
The procedure of Bodzęta’s promotion was not unusual in itself, and his
appointment could have been controversial only because it was so unexpected
and had not been agreed by the Polish participants in the electoral process.
After all, the vast majority of Polish bishops in the fourteenth century formally
owed their positions to papal provisions. However, endeavours to gain such a
provision usually resulted from decisions made by the local electoral body as
an outcome of canonical election or sometimes by means of negotiations with
the king and other prominent ecclesiastics trying to secure a bishop’s position
for royal servants or prelates’ relatives. In such a way, for instance, Archbishop
Jarosław Bogoria (1342–74) tried to secure the sees of Włocławek and Gniezno
for his nephews.29
The impression of domination by these noble family networks seems to be
very impressive. What about other ambitious individuals who did not belong to
this noble circle? Could they seek their chance by getting royal support or a papal
provision? The response must be rather negative. The impact of the cathedral
chapters’ links with the noble clans was so strong that no papal nominee could
take over a Polish diocese during the reign of Kazimierz the Great (1333–70) if he
was not a formal capitular elect. The best example is Andrzej of Wiślica who was
designated by the pope for the bishopric of Poznań. He did not come from Great
Poland but was a provost of the Poznań chapter and a supporter of the former
bishop. He probably owed his dignity in the chapter thanks to his own activity
in Avignon and royal protection, as he was chaplain and diplomat of both kings
Władysław and Kazimierz.30 Therefore the lack of support from the royal court
could not have been an obstacle for his episcopal promotion in 1347.31 But then
he probably acted on his own, and neither the king nor the chapter knew anything
about that. His own chapter, meanwhile, had another candidate who came from
28
Niwiński, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta’, p. 235; Bieniak, ‘Heraldyka polska przed
Długoszem’, p. 175; Radzimiński, Duchowieństwo kapituł katedralnych, pp. 248–49;
Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 23–24.
29
Kronika Jana z Czarnkowa, ed. by Szlachtowski, pp. 652–54; Vetera monumenta Poloniae
et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, nn. 944–45; Tęgowski, ‘Krąg rodzinny Jarosława Bogorii’,
pp. 124, 128, 132–33; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 29–30.
30
Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, n. 315; Szczur, ‘Dyplomaci
Kazimierza Wielkiego’, pp. 51–52; Jurek, Biskupstwo poznańskie w wiekach średnich, p. 310.
31
Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, p. 24.
the powerful Pałuki clan and was elected without waiting for a papal decision.
Pope Clement VI was helpless, and after a short dispute lasting only one year, he
decided to translate Andrzej from Poznań to Schwerin (in the modern German
state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), and the former see was granted to the elect
of the Poznań canons.32 The decisive factor in Andrzej’s rejection was the absence
of any backing from an important social group or faction caused by his origins
from a German or Teutonized knights’ family settled in Silesia in the thirteenth
century.33 It is worth recalling here the events after the Poznań election in 1265,
when the Archbishop of Gniezno, after the rejection of the chapter’s elect, gave
a provision to the bishopric to his dean Falenta (Valentine). In response to that
the canons of Poznań appealed to Rome against his nomination on the grounds
that Bishop Falenta was for them a completely alien person. They claimed that
‘nobody in Poland had known his place of birth or family background’.34 His high
rank within the Church of Gniezno was a result of his close relations with the
ducal court, but it did not help him to secure his position and his nomination was
quashed by the pope.
But the question arises why the popes, who altered in 1344 a formal procedure
of episcopal appointments, agreed so easily to this public theatre and without
almost any difficulties and so willingly gave their confirmations to capitular elects.
This issue still requires further investigation and is a rather complex phenomenon,
but because of the above-presented results of episcopal ordinations of Bodzęta of
Września and Andrzej of Wiślica I would dare to hypothesize that the one of
main reasons was noble families’ policy towards bishoprics. It could be supported
by observation that Polish noble clans have not allowed foreigners or even aliens
to achieve a position of a diocesan bishop in Poland since the beginning of the
thirteenth century.35
Papal provisions at that time also did not bother the Polish King Kazimierz the
Great as he was a very skilled diplomat and he understood the art of compromise.
That is why in respect of episcopal appointments he gave chapters a free hand and
32
Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, nn. 653–55, 670–71;
Kaczmarczyk, Monarchia Kazimierza Wielkiego, pp. 136–37.
33
Jurek, Obce rycerstwo na Śląsku do połowy xiv wieku, p. 219; Jurek, Biskupstwo poznańskie
w wiekach średnich, p. 310.
34
Chronicon Maioris Poloniae, ed. by Kürbis, p. 119: ‘de cuius conditione et natalibus tota
Polonia ignorant’; Maciejewski, ‘Jak pozbyć się niechcianego biskupa?’.
35
Cf. Radzimiński, Duchowieństwo kapituł katedralnych, pp. 239–60; Maciejewski,
Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej, pp. 70–82; Maciejewski, ‘Which Way to Bishopric?’,
pp. 210–11; Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 28–29, 33.
remained tough only when he thought the Polish realm or his own interests were
threatened as was the case in 1357 when the pope translated a certain Bernard,
the son of an outcast, from Milcov to Płock. Besides, the king acted in line with
the local cathedral chapter which also wanted to reject a person from outside
its circle.36 Generally speaking, only three out of ten Polish bishops from the
time of the aforementioned king were former curial officials, and the monarch
was especially interested only in appointments to two bishoprics: Cracow and
metropolitan Gniezno. In my opinion King Kazimierz, following the example of
the powerful clans, also used the form of election per compromisum for securing
a victory for his candidates. It is clearly visible in the case of the election of the
Archbishop of Gniezno in 1342 when among the five compromisers all were the
king’s followers.37
Finally, I would like to focus once more on the issue of how individuals used
personal determination and premeditated action to gain episcopal office. We
have already observed that episcopal appointments in medieval Poland were to
a large extent controlled by different groups like the cathedral chapters and the
noble clans. In spite of this, however, personal abilities and fast and sophisticated
actions on one’s own could sometimes play an important or even decisive role
on the way to a bishopric. In this respect one should pay attention to the most
spectacular example that I have intentionally omitted so far, because here we
have an exception. This can be applied to the well-documented, successful,
and premeditated action en route to the episcopacy by Jan Muscata, Bishop of
Cracow (1294–1320, exiled for a long time).38 He came from a burgher family of
Wrocław, was promoted during the reign of Czech King Vaclav II (1291–1305),
and owed his long ecclesiastical career principally to his cleverness and
determination. His election by the Cracovian chapter is an absolutely outstanding
example of carefully planned action where threats, bribes, and promises played a
crucial role. By these means he was able to win over the royal governor in Cracow
and secure his position amongst the Cracovian canons to such an extent that it
resulted in his appointment as bishop, although he was not even a member of the
aforementioned chapter.39
36
Maciejewski, ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu’, pp. 27–28; Maciejewski, ‘Zabiegi króla
Kazimierza III Wielkiego’, pp. 147, 149.
37
Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, ed. by Theiner, i, n. 576. Bieniak, Wielkopolska,
Kujawy, ziemia łęczycka i sieradzka, p. 153.
38
The most comprehensive biography is the book by Pietras, Krwawy wilk z pastorałem.
39
For further information about the course of events during his election, see Maciejewski,
‘Czas i okoliczności objęcia rządów przez biskupa krakowskiego Jana Muskatę’.
My remarks can be concluded in this way that generally speaking the individual
endeavouring to become a bishop needed very strong support from his noble
kinsmen, especially influential ecclesiastics of higher rank: a bishop to prepare
a suitable candidate in advance and cathedral chapter members to give support
to their relative at the right moment. In the fourteenth century royal protection
was sometimes also of significant importance, but the papal provision despite its
formal domination was only one important stage during the process of episcopal
appointment which can be compared to metropolitan confirmation in earlier
times. Polish chapters were so effective in electing one of their own that one can
claim the golden age of electoral freedom lasted in Poland until the 1370s.
Works Cited
Primary Sources
Chronicon Maioris Poloniae, ed. by Brygida Kürbis, Monumenta Poloniae Historica series
nova, vol. viii (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970)
Kalendarz katedry krakowskiej, ed. by Zofia Kozłowska-Budkowa, Monumenta Poloniae
Historica series nova, vol. v (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978),
pp. 109–213
Katalogi biskupów krakowskich, ed. by Józef Szymański, Monumenta Poloniae Historica
series nova, vol. x (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1974)
Kodeks dyplomatyczny katedry krakowskiej św. Wacława, ed. by Franciszek Piekosiński
(Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, 1874)
Kronika Jana z Czarnkowa, ed. by Jan Szlachtowski, Monumenta Poloniae Historica,
vol. ii (Lwów, 1872)
Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, vols i–ii, ed. by Augustino Theiner (Rome,
1860–61)
Secondary Sources
Baran-Kozłowski, Wojciech, Arcybiskup gnieźnieński Henryk Kietlicz (1199–1219):
Działalność kościelna i polityczna (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2005)
Bartos, Sebastian P., ‘Post-Gregorian Episcopal Authority and the Struggle for Ducal
Kraków, 1177–1210’, Polish Review, 58.3 (2013), 3–33
Bieniak, Janusz, ‘Fragment 1333–1341 w twórczości dziejopisarskiej Janka z Czarnkowa,
1’, Zapiski Historyczne, 48.4 (1983), 5–29
—— , ‘Gerward z Ostrowa’, in Słownik biograficzny Pomorza Nadwiślańskiego, vol. ii
(Gdańsk: Gdańskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1994), pp. 37–40
—— , ‘Heraldyka polska przed Długoszem’, in Sztuka i ideologia xv wieku: Materiały

sympozjum Komitetu Nauk o Sztuce PAN Warszawa 1–4 grudnia 1976, ed. by Piotr
Skubiszewski (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1978), pp. 165–210
—— , ‘Kościelna Wieś i jej dzidzice w średniowieczu’, in Kościelna Wieś na Kujawach:
Studium osadnicze, ed. by Leszek Kajzer (Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Łódzkiego, 1994), pp. 41–106
—— , ‘Krąg rodzinny biskupa kujawskiego Macieja Pałuki (Korekta do Rodu Pałuków
Władysława Semkowicza)’, Zapiski Historyczne, 50.3 (1985), 85–117
—— , ‘Polska elita polityczna xii wieku, 2: Wróżda i zgoda’, in Społeczeństwo Polski
średniowiecznej, vol. iii, ed. by. Stefan K. Kuczyński (Warszawa: Państwowe
Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1985), pp. 13–74
—— , Wielkopolska, Kujawy, ziemia łęczycka i sieradzka wobec problemu zjednoczenia
państwowego w latach 1300–1306, 2nd edn (Wodzisław Śląski: Wydawnictwo
Templum, 2011)
Gąsiorowski, Antoni, ‘Gniezno monarsze i Gniezno biskupie w średniowieczu: Problem
rezydowania’, in 1000 lat Archidiecezji Gnieźnieńskiej, ed. by Jerzy Strzelczyk and Janusz
Górny (Gniezno: Prymasowskie Wydawnictwo Gaudentinum, 2000), pp. 143–63
Jurek, Tomasz, Biskupstwo poznańskie w wiekach średnich (Poznań: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe UAM, 2018)
—— , Obce rycerstwo na Śląsku do połowy xiv wieku (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskiego
Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1996)
—— , ‘Slesie stirps nobilissima. Jeleńczycy – ród biskupa wrocławskiego Tomasza I’,
Roczniki Historyczne, 58 (1992), 23–58
Kaczmarczyk, Zdzisław, Monarchia Kazimierza Wielkiego: Organizacja Kościoła, sztuka i
nauka (Poznań: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1946)
Karasiewicz, Władysław, Jakób II Świnka, arcybiskup gnieźnieński 1283–1314, Prace
Komisji Teologicznej Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk, 3.3 (Poznań:
Nakładem Poznańskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk, 1948)
Kłoczowski, Jerzy, ‘Biskupi i kapituły w dziele Janka z Czarnkowa’, in Mente et litteris:
O kulturze i społeczeństwie wieków średnich, ed. by Helena Chłopocka and Brygida Kürbis
(Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1984), pp. 205–12
Koczerska, Maria, Zbigniew Oleśnicki i Kościół krakowski w czasach jego pontyfikatu
(1423–1455) (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2004)
Kowalski, Marek D., Prałaci i kanonicy krakowskiej kapituły katedralnej od pontyfikatu
biskupa Nankera do śmierci biskupa Zawiszy z Kurozwęk 1320–1382 (Kraków:
Towarzystwo Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa, 1996)
Kriedte, Peter, Die Herrschaft der Bischöfe von Włocławek in Pomerellen von den Anfängen
bis zum Jahre 1409 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974)
Kumor, Bolesław, ‘Granice metropolii i diecezji polskich (966–1939)’, Archiwa, Biblioteki
i Muzea Kościelne, 18 (1969), 289–352
Maciejewski, Jacek, ‘A Bishop Defends his City, or Master Vincentius Troubles with the
Military Activity of his Superior’, in Between Sword and Prayer: Warfare and Medieval
Clergy in Cultural Perspective, ed. by Radosław Kotecki, Jacek Maciejewski, and
John S. Ott (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 341–68
—— , ‘Czas i okoliczności objęcia rządów przez biskupa krakowskiego Jana Muskatę’,

Studia Historyczne, 43.2 (2000), 315–26
—— , Działalność kościelna Gerwarda z Ostrowa, biskupa włocławskiego w latach
1300–1323 (Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane WSP w Bydgoszczy, 1996)
—— , Episkopat Polski doby dzielnicowej 1180–1320 (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa
Naukowego Vistulana, 2003)
—— , ‘Jak pozbyć się niechcianego biskupa? Rywalizacja o katedrę poznańską w latach
1265–1267’, in Historia narrat: Studia mediewistyczne ofiarowane Profesorowi Jackowi
Banaszkiewiczowi, ed. by Andrzej Pleszczyński and others (Lublin: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2012), pp. 253–62
—— , ‘Model kariery i drogi awansu duchowieństwa prowincji gnieźnieńskiej a obsada stolic
biskupich w czasach Kazimierza Wielkiego’, Rocznik Niepołomicki, 2 (2010), 13–35
—— , ‘Pochodzenie i kariera Wilhelma I z Nysy, biskupa lubuskiego w latach 1252–1275’,
Roczniki Historyczne, 68 (2002), 85–95
—— , ‘Precedencja biskupów polskich w Polsce piastowskiej’, Nasza Przeszłość, 99 (2003),
5–25
—— , ‘Vincentius’s Background and Family Origins: The Evidence and Hypotheses’, in
Writing History in Medieval Poland, ed. by Darius von Güttner-Sporzyński (Turnhout:
Brepols, 2017), pp. 19–42
—— , ‘Which Way to Bishopric?’, in Carreiras Eclesiasticas no Ocidente Cristao (sec. xii–
xiv) / Ecclesiastical Careers in Western Christianity (12th–14th c.) (Lisbon: Centro de
Estudos de História Religiosa, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 2007) pp. 209–17
—— , ‘Zabiegi króla Kazimierza III Wielkiego o obsadę stolic biskupich’, in Kazimierz
Wielki i jego państwo: W siedemsetną rocznicę śmierci ostatniego Piasta na tronie polskim,
ed. by Jacek Maciejewski and Tomasz Nowakowski (Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego, 2011), pp. 139–49
Niwiński, Mieczysław, ‘Biskup krakowski Bodzanta i Kazimierz Wielki’, Collectanea
Theologica, 17.1–2 (1936), 225–62
Pietras, Tomasz, Krwawy wilk z pastorałem: Biskup krakowski Jan zwany Muskatą
(Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2001)
Radzimiński, Andrzej, Duchowieństwo kapituł katedralnych w Polsce xiv i xv w. na tle
porównawczym: Studium nad rekrutacją i drogami awansu (Toruń: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1995)
Semkowicz, Władysław, ‘Ród Powałów’, Sprawozdania z Czynności I Posiedzeń Akademii
Umiejętności w Krakowie WHF, 19.3 (1914), 19–20
Silnicki, Tadeusz, and Kazimierz Gołąb, Arcybiskup Jakub Świnka i jego epoka (Warszawa:
PAX, 1956)
Skwierczyński, Krzysztof, Recepcja idei gregoriańskich w Polsce do początku xiii wieku
(Wrocław: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki w Polsce, 2005)
Szczur, Stanisław, ‘Dyplomaci Kazimierza Wielkiego w Awinionie’, Nasza Przeszłość, 66
(1986), 43–106
Szymaniak, Marek, Biskup płocki Gedko (1206–1223): Działalność kościelnopolityczna na
tle procesu emancypacji Kościoła polskiego spod władzy książęcej (Toruń: Wydawnictwo
Adam Marszałek, 2007)
Śliwiński, Błażej, Pogranicze kujawskopomorskie w xii–xiii w.: Z dziejów Bydgoskiego i

Wyszogrodzkiego w latach 1113–1296, Prace Wydziału Nauk Humanistycznych BTN,
Seria C, 32 (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1989)
Tęgowski, Jan, ‘Krąg rodzinny Jarosława Bogorii’, in Genealogia – polska elita polityczna w
wiekach średnich na tle porównawczym, ed. by Jan Wroniszewski (Toruń: Wydawnictwo
Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 1993), pp. 123–37
Umiński, Józef, ‘Arcybiskup Wincenty z Niałka, następca Henryka, zw. Kietliczem’, in
Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Władysława Abrahama, vol. ii (Lwów: Gabrynowicz i Syn,
1931), pp. 137–66
Bishop, Chapter, and Social
Networks in Castile:
The Cathedral Chapter at Sigüenza
(Fourteenth – Fifteenth Centuries)
Aída Portilla González
T
his essay is based on results obtained in the course of the doctoral thesis
that I am completing. My case study aims to clarify the relationship
between power, society, and culture through the study of a particular
social group: the cathedral clergy at Sigüenza Cathedral. To be precise, the study
aims to analyse the role of bishops, kings, pontiffs, and cardinals in the provision
of benefices, while concentrating particularly on the bishops. We shall also assess
the importance of clientelism networks and kinship in obtaining benefices.
Clientelism, from Latin clientelus, relates to links between a boss or person
that held some kind of power, frequently a member of the high ecclesiastical
hierarchy, and a servant or protected that has the support by the previous to hold
posts, as we will see next.
The medieval town of Sigüenza is located on the eastern side of the Province
of Guadalajara, between Aragon and Castile (see Map 6.1). Its episcopal see
suffered the ups and downs of the reconquest of the lands under Muslim rule
after the eighth century, until King Alfonso VII of Castile (1126–57) completed
the definitive conquest and restored the bishopric. Following the policy of
Aída Portilla González (aportillag03@educantabria.es) is a Doctor in Geography and History

at Cantabria University. Her Development Plan is ‘Culture, Power and Social Networks in
Medieval Castile: The Clergy of the Dioceses of Burgos and Sigüenza during the Late Middle
Ages. Culture, Power and Social Networks in Medieval Castile’, reference HAR2016-79265-P,
funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Innovation, the State research agency.
122 Aída Portilla González
alliance with the Order of Cluny started by Alfonso VI (1073–1109) and put
into practice by the metropolitan see in Toledo, its first two bishops in the
twelfth century were Cluniacs from Aquitaine (Bernardo de Agén occupied
the bishopric until 1124 and Pedro de Leucata until 1156).1 The jurisdictional
lordship of the cathedral chapter at Sigüenza was approved by Rome in 1150.2
Political and military instability in the lands where the bishoprics in Castile and
Leon were situated meant that many of them opted to work together after their
restoration. At Sigüenza, as it was a frontier town, the single body formed by
the bishop and cathedral clergy, professing the Rule of St Augustine, lasted two
centuries. Only when all Muslim threat had disappeared did they obtain from
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303) the secularization of the corporation in 1300,
and regular life was abandoned.3
As will be seen below, social and clientelism networks existed within the
cathedral chapter. Many of these were linked to prelates and cardinals, who
also maintained frequent contacts with the chapter, as their intervention in the
possession of benefices was significant.
The sources used to determine the networks of power and kinship have been
mostly the minutes of the cathedral chapter at Sigüenza. These are in total eight
books or tomes covering the period between 1416 and 1512,4 as unfortunately
the minutes from the fourteenth century have not been conserved. One
important source to envisage kinship and clientelism networks has been the wills
of the cathedral clergy,5 which also shed light on aspects related to religiousness,
mentality, patrimony, and inheritance of the properties of the cathedral clergy.
Other less important sources that have also helped to determine networks have
been letters of sales and possessions,6 litigation,7 and benefice charters.8
1
Muñoz Párraga, La catedral de Sigüenza, pp. 21–41.
2
With a bull issued by Pope Eugene III (1145–53), later confirmed by Alexander III
(1159–81). Cf. Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, i, 487.
3
Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, i, 360.
4
These eight books are in the Capitulars Archive of Sigüenza (ACS). These minutes are not
published.
5
ACS, Leg. 65, Testamentos.
6
ACS, LD., Sign. 88, Cartas de ventas y posesiones.
7
ACS, Leg. 129, Litigios.
8
ACS, Leg. 98, Beneficios.
Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile 123
Power Relationship in the Chapter at Sigüenza

Social relationships seem to have been a key factor in obtaining a position in the
cathedral. Intervention in naming positions of the different institutions is clearly
indicative of the dispute of interests between popes, cardinals, kings, bishops, and
the chapter itself. These all fought to designate people who were close to them
in the chapter, either to acquire more authority than the rest or to assist their
own position by placing someone loyal to them in the cathedrals, which were
forceful centres of power in the Middle Ages. From the early Middle Ages to the
thirteenth century, according to council decrees and regulations, the provision of
benefices was the exclusive right of the pope. However, in the thirteenth century,
the pontiff was not the only one who held that power. The rise of the monarchy
and the institutional strength of bishops and the chapter itself resulted in the
pope beginning to share that right with those other institutions.9
Table 6.1 (in the appendix below) presents objective data about the type of
designations in Sigüenza Cathedral in the period from 1416 to 1520. A total of
three hundred provisions have been documented, of which 141 were through
the mediation of the bishop. However, this essay will only take into account
interventions involving the bishop alone or in the company of the chapter. These
interventions, added to kinship and relationships of the episcopal personalities,
gave rise to the social networks studied in the second part of the paper.
Episcopal Interventions in the Benefice System at Sigüenza

Alfonso X ‘El Sabio’ (1221–1284) in the Partidas established the customary law
in every church.10 This law grants each church the authority to decide who was
permitted to make the collations: the bishop or the chapter. Between the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries the bishops were obliged to rely on various members
of the chapter to make the choice. The proceeding changes, along with the
secularization of the chapter and the creation of the capitulars table, as already
mentioned,11 apart from the episcopal one, shows that the capitular corporations
start to take control of their fate and were gaining strength against the other
9
V. de Reina wrote an essential work about the benefices system. His work offers a splendid
global vision about origins and development of the benefices system in the Church. De Reina, El
sistema beneficial. Also, we can remark on others’ works: Fliche and Martín, Historia de la Iglesia;
and Mansilla, Iglesia castellanoleonesa y curia romana en tiempos del rey San Fernando, p. 218.
10
Las Siete Partidas del Rey D. Alfonso El Sabio.
11
See note 3, above.
Map 6.1. Diocesan Hispanic Geography, 1250–1500. Source: Mansilla Reoyo, D., Geografía
eclesiástica de España: estudio históricogeográfico de las diocesis, ii
(Iglesia Nacional Española, 1994), p. 1005.
powers. According to Mansilla’s research, the chapters attempted to provide

benefices exclusively to people from the diocese and to avoid, as far as possible,
people from outside the ecclesiastical jurisdiction.12
The most obvious is that the Cathedral of Sigüenza would have followed
guidance from the metropolitan see whose chapters from the fourteenth century
12
Mansilla analysed the statutes of the Cathedrals of Zamora, Ávila, Burgos, Calahorra,
Salamanca, Lugo, Segovia, and León. Mansilla, Iglesia castellanoleonesa y curia romana en
tiempos del rey San Fernando, pp. 215–46.
we do conserve.13 Archbishop Blas Fernández determined in 1357 that the chapter

should chose its own prelate, and in conjunction with this they must provide the
canonries and rations. Furthermore, he defends that the vacant canonries, which
are without taking, must be given to the rations, whereas the dignitaries must be
elected by the canons, except the dean who had to be approved by the archbishop.14
During the fourteenth century the chapter and the diocesan clergy appear to emerge
as the cathedrals’ leading figures, but during the fifteenth century things change.
The chapter records that indicate to us how the provisions were made during
the fifteenth century are missing, but we do have information obtained from the
capitular archive. In Sigüenza, during the fifteenth century the bishop’s power
grew to the detriment of the power of the chapter.
As can be seen in Table 6.1, the chapter together with the bishop is the
most repeated formula as they made eighty-nine designations (29.67%). To be
more exact, in reality the chapter only ratified the bishop’s provision. The pope
intervened directly in fifty-eight provisions (19.33%), without counting the other
twenty-four (8%) designated with the confirmation of the chapter. In third place,
the prelate without the chapter made forty-three collations (14.33%). It can
further be seen that Rome intervened, either with other institutions or alone, in
96 collations (32%) and the bishop in 141 (47%). The prelates included Cardinal
Pedro González de Mendoza (1428–1495) and Bernardino López de Carvajal
(1456–1523). Both institutions, the pope and the bishops, clearly prevailed in
the introduction of benefice holders in the chapter at Sigüenza.
The bishops formed the second institution with the most power when placing
men they trusted in cathedral posts. The collations made in this way differed
from the others because the candidate, or his representative, appeared before the
chapter with a letter-provision direct from the prelate, and the chapter had no
option to refuse the collation. Thus 15 per cent of the provisions were made in
this way and 30 per cent in a ‘joint’ action with the chapter, even though most
of the time the chapter was only obeying the prelate. It should be noted that
some of the bishops at Sigüenza, like Alonso Carrillo de Acuña (1410–1482)15
and Pedro González de Mendoza,16 enjoyed the good fortune of attaining the
13
Lop Otí, El Cabildo Catedralicio de Toledo en el siglo xv, pp. 208–09.
14
Mansilla, Iglesia castellanoleonesa y curia romana en tiempos del rey San Fernando,
pp. 208–09.
15
Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 132–42;
Mirecki, ‘Apuntes genealógicos y biográficos de don Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña’, pp. 55–76. See
the Appendix to find out more about these bishops.
16
Albors y Albors, La Inquisición y el cardenal de España; Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de
archbishopric of Toledo at the same time as they were bishops at Sigüenza. The
Sigüenza bishopric was also a springboard to reach Rome because various bishops
obtained the cardinalate. In fact, two bishops became cardinals: Pedro González
de Mendoza and Bernardino López de Carvajal. Both of these played a major role
within the chapter, as we will see next.
Table 6.2 shows the 43 provisions in which the prelates acted alone, of the
141 in which they took part (see Table 6.1). Of these, eleven were dignitaries: five
archdeacons, two deans, two precentors, one treasurer, and a teacher. Eight of these
were named by Cardinal Mendoza, the prelate who made most provisions, a total of
twenty-two, without counting the twenty-nine he made together with the chapter.
In these, the cardinal took care of his family and his chamberlain Bartolomé
de Medina, who received a ration or stipend. One important designation, on
10 October 1480, as vicar general of the bishopric, was Gonzalo Jiménez de Cisneros,
the future cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo. Cardinal Mendoza was his protector.
The next prelate, Bernardino López de Carvajal (1495–1511), was the bishop
who intervened in the second most numerous designations of prebends: seventeen
alone and thirty-seven with the chapter. He named two people from his circle
to hold the posts of dignitaries: Francisco de Carvajal, his relation, his nephew
possibly, was made precentor,17 and the archdeaconry of Molina was given to his
servant Andrés de Arenas.18 Of the four canonries he named, three went to relatives:
Vasco de Carvajal (27 April 1500),19 Rodrigo de Carvajal (12 March 1505),20 and,
again, Francisco de Carvajal (20 April 1506).21 The only half ration in which he
intervened also went to a relative, Diego de Peñaranda (28 June 1506).22
It has been seen that of the joint bishop-chapter provisions, eighty-nine
collations (29.67%) were made by the bishops and accepted obediently by the
chapter. Although this is a large number, only seven of these were dignitaries,
and most were canonries and half rations. Again Cardinal Mendoza and Cardinal
la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 169–95; Huarte y Echenique, El Gran Cardenal de
España; Justi, Don Pedro de Mendoza; Lampérez y Romea, Los Mendoza del siglo xv y el Castillo
del Real de Manzanares; Yaben, El cardenal Mendoza; Layna Serrano, El cardenal Mendoza como
político y consejero de los Reyes Católicos; Villalba Ruiz de Toledo, El Cardenal Mendoza; Layna
Serrano, Historia de Guadalajara y sus Mendozas; Layna Serrano, Castillos de Guadalajara.
17
ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 102r.
18
ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 251v–252r.
19
ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fols 104v, 107v–108r.
20
ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fol. 174r–v.
21
ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 252r–253v.
22
ACS, Lib. Reg. 7, fols 264r–265r.
López de Carvajal intervened the most: thirty-seven appointments were named

by the latter and twenty-nine by the former (see Table 6.3). The figure of Fernando
López de Luján (1449–65) also stands out,23 with twenty-one appointments,
mostly to the López de Madrid family.
Pedro González de Mendoza, who was bishop, archbishop, and cardinal,
intervened in fifty-one appointments. The provisions ratified by the chapter
included people close to his circle of friendships. Again, his chamberlain and
relative Bartolomé de Medina received several prebends including a ration,24 a
canonry,25 and the archdeaconry of Almazán.26 Similarly, his servant Velasco de
Barrionuevo received two half rations27 and a canonry,28 while another relative,
Suero de Humaña, obtained a canonry.29 The prebends for the Torres family
should also be mentioned.30
His successor, Bernardino López de Carvajal, intervened similarly. As stated
above, he named seventeen appointments alone and thirty-seven together with the
chapter, totalling the considerable figure of fifty-four designations. Of the thirty-
seven he made with the chapter, the cardinal’s relatives again appear, like Francisco
and Cristóbal de Carvajal. Francisco de Carvajal became precentor at Sigüenza,
while Francisco and Cristóbal de Carvajal received canonries.31 His relative
Hernán López de Buendía32 and the nephew of his relative Sancho de Antezana,
Diego de Antezana,33 also received stipends from Cardinal López de Carvajal.
The importance of the two bishops-cardinals, Mendoza and López de
Carvajal, is seen in the interventions in favour of provisions. The number of
provisions mediated by them, 105, corroborates the power of the two cardinals
to introduce their family and friends in the chapter corporation. They both used
23
Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 150–62.
24
25
26
27
ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 68r–v; Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 35v.
28
29
30
Canonry from Luis de Torres to his brother, Rodrigo de Torres, in which the cardinal
intervened: ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 1r; Juan de Torres obtained the archdeaconry of Sigüenza
thanks to the intervention of Cardinal Mendoza: ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fols 69v–70r ; Causa
permutationis between Rodrigo de Torres and Luis de Torres: ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 27r–v.
31
32
33
ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 56r; Lib. Reg. 7, fols 131–132v.
their privileged position to reward their relations. The all-embracing power of

Mendoza was not circumscribed exclusively to Sigüenza. In Toledo, according
to Lop Otí, ‘his arrival collapsed all the provisions causing the Toledan chapter
to protest’.34
Social Networks around the Bishops: Nepotism and Episcopal

Clientelism
To comprehend the diagrams on social networks it is essential to revise and reflect
on the aim of this new analysis of social networks that has become part of the
historiography of recent decades. This new research paradigm (or methodology)
only began to be used recently. And its development, made through diagrams and
computer programs, is only recent.35 The first step to forming a social network
is to compile the sources and from there to link the connections between them,
retracing the interactions and studying its dynamics.36 Clearly, the analysis of
social networks exceeds the prosopography and becomes an indispensable tool of
research in the history of power.
In medieval history, the social networks show the dynamics of power among
the social elites of the Middle Ages.37 Isabel de Val was one of the historians
who opened the debate on the necessity of studying and analysing the kinship
networks between members of a society, not just amongst them but with other
statements of power outside their city.38 From there on Spanish researchers
began to apply the social networks analysis to medieval history.39 During
34
Lop Otí, El Cabildo Catedralicio de Toledo en el siglo xv, p. 213.
35
The essential ideas about social networks analysis are in the work of Imizcoz, ‘Las redes
sociales de las élites’.
36
Levi, La herencia inmaterial; Levi, ‘Sobre microhistoria’.
37
Asenjo González and Rodriguez, Oligarchy and Patronage in Late Medieval Spanish
Urban Society.
38
Del Val Valdivieso, ‘Élites urbanas en la Castilla del siglo xv’, p. 76.
39
Martín Romera, ‘Redes medievales’; Carvajal de la Vega, ‘Redes socioeconómicas y
mercaderes castellanos’; Ortega Rico, ‘Financieros y redes financieras en tiempos de Juan II’;
Sales i Favà, ‘Crédito y redes urbanas’; Miranda, ‘Portugal y las redes mercantiles en la Europa
Atlántica’; Añibarro Rodríguez, ‘Las redes portuarias en las Cuatro Villas de la Costa de la
Mar durante la Baja Edad Media’; Quinteros Cortés, ‘Redes socioeconómicas al servicio del
mercado negro bajomedieval’; Martínez Araque, ‘Las diversas relaciones sociales y las estrategias
familiares’; Vitores Casado, ‘Compañías vascas en torno al arrendamiento y recaudación de la
renta de los diezmos de la mar de Castilla a fines de la Edad Media’.
the nineties of the last century F. Padgett and Christopher Ansell studied
Florence in the times of the Médici and the network they constructed around
themselves.40 Recently, Scandinavian history has begun to be analysed from
the perspective of social networks and friendship ties in a work edited by Jon
Vidar Sigurdsson and Thomas Smäberg.41 Whereas in the field of the medieval
Iberian peninsula there have also been studies on friendship ties but without
undertaking social network analysis.42
The analysis of social networks reveals the extent of nepotism within the
ecclesiastical spheres. Nepotism developed within the ecclesiastical institutions
with the firm purpose of securing high powers to members of the family that
otherwise would be impossible to achieve. But, who were considered relatives at
different times in history?43 In the study by Christian Ghasarian on family ties
he includes not only the persons linked by blood but also people connected by
interactions of mutual help between individuals to gain power or to profit.44 So,
in the family relations are included not only the ones related by blood but also
patron–client relations.
Both types of relations mentioned we have found in the present study of the
chapter of Sigüenza. There is no doubt that these family related members used
to help one another whether they were connected by blood or just by a patron–
client relation. The clerical establishment has been formed to integrate both types
of relations, especially in what concerns the high clergy. Nepotism was a key
aspect to give stability to the ecclesiastical institution, particularly from the end
of the thirteenth century. But this phenomenon is not only found among popes
but also with cardinals, bishops, and members of cathedrals’ chapters.45
One of the most direct ways to enter the chapter corporation consisted of
possessing relatives close to the elites holding power. Family favouritism and
nepotism surrounding the bishops was a hard problem to solve. The prelates
40
Padgett and Ansell, ‘Robust Action and the Rise of the Médici’.
41
Sigurdsson and Smäberg, Friendship and Social Networks in Scandinavia. This book is
essential to increase the knowledge about social networks in medieval Scandinavia and Europe.
It shows how the social networks, family and social ties, aid in obtaining power and improving
social positions. In conclusion, the personal ties are necessary tools to get power.
42
Liuzzo Scorpo, Friendship in Medieval Iberia.
43
There is quite a historiography of the family and its size in the Middle Ages: Herlihy, ‘The
Making of the Medieval Family’.
44
Ghasarian, Introducçao ao Estudo do Parentesco.
45
Important works to know on nepotism in the Church in the Middle Ages are Carocci, Il
nepotismo nel medioevo; Prodi, Lo sviluppo dell’assolutismo; and Reinhard, ‘Nepotismus’, p. 166.
tended to introduce their close relations and kin in the chapter and assist their
promotion in their ecclesiastic career.
Table 6.4 shows the names of the prelates at Sigüenza who were related to
members of the chapter institution. The family members who entered the chapter
during the prelacy of their bishop relatives have been differentiated from those
who entered before or after, in order to discern the traffic of influences in the
diocese more clearly.
Of all the men, in total twenty-six, who wore the episcopal mitre in the
diocese of Sigüenza after 1300, ten had relatives within the chapter (see Table
6.4). However, this number may be misleading as the prelates whose relatives
held important posts before or after their government should be subtracted.
This is the case of Simón Girón de Cisneros (1300–1326), whose descendants
formed a major part of the cathedral clergy in the fourteenth century. One
example is Gonzalo or Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (1436–1517), who became
Archbishop of Toledo and was named cardinal.46 Before, he obtained a less
privileged post as chaplain in Sigüenza Cathedral.47 The case of the relatives of
Bishop Juan Serrano (1390–1402) is similar, as in later years at least nine of them
formed part of the chapter at Sigüenza.
Two consecutive prelates were related, as they were uncle and nephew. Alonso
Carrillo de Albornoz (1422–34),48 whose bishopric occupied the late fourteenth
century and early fifteenth, was able to ensure that his nephew, Alonso Carrillo
de Acuña,49 succeeded him in the Sigüenza diocese (1436–46) before becoming
Archbishop of Toledo (1446–82). Carrillo de Acuña also helped his kin to
form part of the Sigüenza chapter. He named López Carrillo vicar general of his
bishopric in 1439,50 and possibly influenced in the provision of the archdeaconry
of Almazán received by Pedro Carrillo,51 who was equally his relative. In a letter
of payment dated in 1446 the companion of Sigüenza, Gonzalo Carrillo, another
relative of the bishop, was included in the witness list.52 Finally, his vicar, Alfonso
46
More information about Cardinal Cisneros is in García Oro, Cisneros.
47
On 27 March 1480, Jiménez de Cisneros appears as chaplain at Cathedral of Sigüenza.
Cf. ACS, Lib. Reg. 3, fol. 88r–v.
48
Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 125–32;
Chacón, ‘Essai de liste générale des cardinaux’, p. 156.
49
Esteve Barba, Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña; Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de
Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 132–42.
50
ACS, Leg. 98, Beneficios, fol. 1r–v.
51
ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fol. 21r. Here he appears as Archdeacon of Almazán on 21 March 1448.
52
ACS, Leg. 98, Beneficios, fol. 1r–v.
Gutiérrez de Sigüenza,53 has also been included in his social-family network.

Although the documents of provisions are not available, the importance of ties
of blood can be intuited in the designations of high positions of power, such as
vicariate and archdeaconry.
During his brief bishopric, Gonzalo de Santa María (1446–48)54 introduced
an important relative, Rodrigo de Luna, who received a canonry before being
appointed Archbishop of Santiago.55 The latter’s servant, Pedro Alfonso Serrano,
was awarded such advantageous prebends as a canonry56 and the archdeaconry of
Molina (1448),57 as seen in the Serrano family.
Gonzalo’s successor, Fernando de Luján (1449–65), 58 intervened in the
provision of a canonry in favour of his relative Pedro López de Madrid in 1453.59
The surname López de Madrid was frequently found within the Sigüenza chapter.
In fact, Diego López de Madrid was the next to wear the mitre (1465–66), or
rather to usurp it, as he was considered an ‘intruder’ and was forced to leave.60
Another relative, Fernando López de Madrid, Pedro’s brother,61 held the posts
of treasurer62 and archdeacon at Medina63 in the 1450s, as well as possessing a
canonry.64 Fernando may be the brother of the ‘intruder’ bishop.65 Juan López de
Madrid received a ration from Bishop Fernando de Luján in 1454.66 In sum, the
López de Madrid family used their links with the circles of power to attain high
positions in the ecclesiastic hierarchy. Thus, the four relatives of Diego López de
Madrid did not enter the chapter through his influence but through that of other
53
ACS, Leg. 65, Testamentos, fols 1–10v.
54
55
ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fol. 51v.
56
ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fols 4–5v. In this document he figures as canon on 14 January 1448.
57
ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fol. 21r. In this document he appears as Archdeacon of Molina on
21 March 1448.
58
See note 21, above.
59
ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fols 62v–63v.
60
61
ACS, Lib. Reg. 2, fols 62v–63v.
62
63
64
65
Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, 160.
66
prelates to whom they were related, such as Fernando de Luján, who seems to
have introduced this family into the Sigüenza cathedral clergy.
Six of Cardinal Mendoza’s relatives have been identified in the twenty-eight
years that his bishopric lasted (see Table 6.5). Diego de Mendoza was a canon at
Sigüenza;67 Juan de Medina, a relative, received a ration;68 Fernando de Valencia,
a relative, was canon at Sigüenza;69 Martín de Algora, a relative, was awarded a
canonry through Mendoza;70 Suero de Humaña, a relative, obtained a canonry,71
as did Gabriel de Mendoza.72
However, as well as ties of blood, patron–client relationships were estab-
lished. The prelate attempted to promote his allies, not only his kin but also his
servants. Two of Cardinal Mendoza’s servants prospered in Sigüenza Cathedral.
One of them, Velasco de Barrionuevo, rapidly climbed in his ecclesiastic career.
In 1479, Mendoza intervened in his favour to obtain a half ration,73 and later,
in 1490, when the servant was Archpriest of Buitrago, he was awarded a
canonry in Sigüenza Cathedral, again thanks to Mendoza’s help.74 The second
servant, Bartolomé de Medina, received his first ration in 1482,75 thanks to his
patron’s mediation. Curiously, this prebend belonged to Juan de Cuenca, the
cardinal’s chaplain, and was transferred to Bartolomé de Medina when he was
still Mendoza’s servant and chamberlain. In 1488, through the intervention
of Pope Innocent VIII, he became Archdeacon of Almazán,76 a post which
smoothed his path towards further prebends. Thus, in 1490, Mendoza gave him
a canonry,77 and in 1492 the pontifical Curia awarded him another canonry.78
Despite being neither clients nor servants, Juan de Cuenca, Mendoza’s
chaplain, Diego de Muros, his secretary, and Alfonso Díaz, his receiver, enjoyed
Mendoza’s favours when he was awarding benefices. Juan de Cuenca appears as
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
possessing a ration in a document dated 23 November 1482,79 while Diego de

Muros possessed a half ration in Sigüenza Cathedral in 1480.80 His rise in the
institution was unstoppable. In 1485, Pope Innocent VIII intervened in his
appointment as head chaplain in the cathedral, a post that was then regarded as
a dignitary.81 The first time he appears in documents as Mendoza’s secretary is
in 1489.82 Probably by this time he held the post of teacher, as in 1493 this was
exchanged together with a ration in favour of Fernando Gómez.83 The last man
linked to Cardinal Mendoza is Alfonso Díaz, canon from 1477.84 On 10 October
1480 he was regarded as the cardinal’s receiver in the sentence in which it is
demonstrated that the ‘town of Moratilla was always incorporated in this town
at the head of the royal requests at the chests’.85 This shows that he was trusted by
the great cardinal.
The next prelate, named cardinal in 1493, Bernardino López de Carvajal, also
manoeuvred in favour of his family so that they could join Sigüenza chapter. Nine
close relations of this bishop have been identified among the cathedral clergy
(see Table 6.6). In 1500, Francisco de Carvajal became precentor in a provision
mediated directly by his relative the cardinal.86 Five years later, he intervened
in awarding a canonry to Rodrigo de Carvajal, who in 1508 was elevated to
Archdeacon of Medina,87 also thanks to his important relative, although we do
not know degree of kinship. Cristóbal de Carvajal enjoyed the same fortune, as
he became canon in 1507,88 with the approval of chapter and cardinal. Another
relation, Alonso de Carvajal, was appointed Archdeacon in Sigüenza89 through
pontifical bulls, behind which Cardinal López de Carvajal’s advice was surely
concealed. Diego de Peñaranda and Hernán López de Buendia, both catalogued
79
80
81
82
Minguella y Arnedo, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, ii, Cd. 167, p. 57.
83
ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 100r–v; Lib. Reg. 5, fols 141v–142r.
84
85
ACS, Leg. 129, Litigios, fols 1r–3r.
86
ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 102r. According to the official chronicler of Cáceres, Santos Benítez
Floriano, ‘D. Francisco de Carvajal y Sande, Mecenas Cacereño’, the cardinal Bernardino López
de Carvajal was Francisco’s uncle.
87
88
89
Diagram 6.1. Mendoza’s Social Network
as relatives, also enjoyed the cardinal’s favours as they obtained a ration in 150590
and a half ration in 1506,91 respectively. However, the person who most benefited
from the favours of the generous cardinal was Sancho de Antezana. The cardinal
awarded him a half ration in 1496,92 a year later he intervened to make him
precentor,93 and in 1499 he finally became archdeacon.94
The other influences of Cardinal Bernardino López de Carvajal, apart from
his family, affected not only his servant, but also his vicar general and judicial
vicars, as they formed part of his circle of power. His servant,95 Andrés de Arenas,
became Archdeacon of Molina96 after the invaluable mediation of his patron. He
later accumulated other benefices in such different places as Poveda, Castejón,
and Salamanca.97 Curiously, the vicar general and judicial vicars were related to
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
ACS, Leg. 65, Testamentos, fols 1r–10r.
one another as they belonged to the ‘López de Frías’ family. The first to form part
of the cardinal’s circle was Juan de Frías. According to the minutes consulted, in
1496 he acted as judicial vicar for Bishop López de Carvajal when a half ration
was awarded to Sancho de Antezana,98 the latter’s relative. He appears in later
documents as the ‘cardinal’s prebendary’, the post with which he received his
canonry in 1497.99 The next ecclesiastic, Clemente López de Frías, appears in the
minutes as apostolic protonotary from 1504, the year in which he became dean
in Sigüenza.100 Later, in 1506 Pope Julius II intervened in transferring a ration,
in which the protonotary received it and Fernando Carrión exchanged it.101 In
addition, in the ratification of the statute on divine worship and the choir in
1509, Clemente López de Frías appears as ‘apostolic protonotary, church dean,
official judicial vicar, and vicar general of Sigüenza bishopric’.102 The last of the
Frías family, Luis López de Frías, was indexed in the post of judicial vicar when
Diego de Peñaranda, cited above as the cardinal’s relative, took possession of a
half ration.103
All these individuals are clear examples of the importance of maintaining
clientelism links with the elite of power. The data show that in the late Middle
Ages it was more efficacious to be in the orbit of powerful men than to acquire
full academic training.104
98
99
100
101
102
ACS, Leg. 98, Beneficios, leg. 12, fols 1–5r.
103
104
In Girón de Cisneros’s social network appears the future cardinal Francisco Jiménez
de Cisneros, who studied Law at Salamanca University (Suárez Fernández, ‘Francisco Jiménez
de Cisneros’). From Serrano’s social network we know that Martín Serrano studied singing
in Sigüenza (ACS, Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 17v); Alonso González Serrano was bachelor (ACS, Lib.
Reg. 2, fol. 8v); and Juan Serrano was licentiated in Law in Avignon (Rius Serra, ‘Estudiants
espanyols a Avinyo al segle xiv’). From Mendoza’s social network, we know that Diego Hurtado
de Mendoza studied in Salamanca University (Sanz Serrano, ‘El legado del cardinal Hurtado de
Mendoza a la Catedral de Sevilla’); Martín de Algora studied singing in Sigüenza in 1498 (ACS,
Lib. Reg. 6, fol. 17v); and Diego de Muros was professor (ACS, Leg. 129, Litigios. fol. 1r–7r) and
licentiate in Theology (ACS, Lib. Reg. 5, fol. 186v). From Bernardino López de Carvajal’s social
network, we know only that Francisco de Carvajal studied Theology at Salamanca University,
thanks to Benítez Floriano (see note 87).
Diagram 6.2. Bernardino López de Carvajal’s Social Network
Conclusion
To reconstruct the sociability networks in the surroundings of the cathedral
and to determine the model of ecclesiastic career that prevailed among the
clergy in the diocese and cathedral at Sigüenza, it has proved very useful to
take as a parameter the regulations and practice in the provision of ecclesiastic
benefices. Only through the analysis of these provisions is it possible to assess the
importance of Sigüenza cathedral chapter in the cursus honorum of the Castilian
clergy and the role played by pontiffs, kings, archbishops, bishops, cardinals, and
the chapter itself in the provision of canonries and dignitaries. A total of three
hundred provisions of different types of prebends have been documented, and
the authority or institution that promoted the candidates who received those
prebends has been recorded from 1416 to 1520. The study shows that the chapter
together with the bishop was the most frequent (29.67%), whereas the chapter
acted alone in fewer than 10 per cent of the provisions (8.67%). However, even
this low figure is higher than in the case of the chapters at Toledo, Murcia, and
Santiago, while it is lower than at Burgos, for example. At Sigüenza, the chapter
made most of those provisions when the episcopal see was vacant (1448–49) or
they were provisions of two very specific canonries created in the late fifteenth
century for a theologian and a jurist.
The second most frequent situation was intervention by the pope, in fifty-eight
provisions (19.33%), without counting the other twenty-four (8%) designated
accompanied by the chapter. In third place, the prelate without the chapter made
forty-three collations (14.33%). It can further be seen that Rome intervened,
either with other institutions or alone, in 96 collations (32%) and the bishop in
141 (47%). Both institutions, the pope and the bishops, clearly prevailed in the
introduction of benefice holders in the chapter at Sigüenza.
The influence of monarchs is only seen in nine provisions. It is well known that
ecclesiastics in the royal court, bishops and cardinals, influenced the provisions
recommended by the monarch and acted on the monarch’s behalf. However,
the opposite might also occur. Thus, for example, the cardinal and bishop Pedro
González de Mendoza, who played a key role in the Castilian court as a diplomat
and main counsellor of Queen Isabella I (1474–1504), must have taken the
queen’s preferences into account in the provision of prebends in Sigüenza chapter.
It is no coincidence that four bishops of Sigüenza in the fifteenth century were
made cardinals, or that another two became archbishops of Toledo. This chapter
clearly illustrates the interactions between monarchy, pontiff, and episcopal
sees. The paradigm of these interactions may be the designations promoted by
Cardinal Mendoza and Cardinal López de Carvajal, both of them bishops at
Sigüenza in the late fifteenth century. There is no doubt that the two institutions
dominated the benefice system in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when
they eclipsed the authority of the chapter. However, it should be noted that of
those 138 provisions with pontifical influence, only thirty-four occurred in the
fourteenth century.
In the course of the fifteenth century the chapter lost power to the prelates
linked to the archbishopric of Toledo, who liaised between the pontifical court and
the Castilian monarchs. This double channel intensified during the pontificates
of Sixtus IV (1471–84) and Alexander VI (1492–1503) with the two cardinals
mentioned above: Mendoza and López de Carvajal. The networks identified in
the network diagrams show that these two prelates simply continued in a strategy
developed by their predecessors in the fourteenth century: the introduction of
relatives and servants in the chapter. In the centre of these networks were the ones
formed by Bishop Simón Girón de Cisneros (1300–1327), with five relatives in
the cathedral; by the Archbishop of Toledo and Bishop of Sigüenza, Alfonso
Carrillo de Acuña (1422–34) who had seven, including his uncle, Bishop of
Sigüenza; by the Archbishop of Santiago (1451–60), Rodrigo de Luna, who was
related to the Bishop of Sigüenza, Gonzalo de Santa María (1446–48) and also
canon in Sigüenza; the network of Bishop Fernando de Luján (1449–65), who
introduced the López de Madrid family into the cathedral; by the cardinal and
bishop Pedro González de Mendoza, with eleven men from his circle among
relatives and servants, who included Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Archbishop
of Seville (1486–1502); and, finally, by the cardinal and bishop non-resident in
Sigüenza, Bernardino López de Carvajal (1495–1511), with thirteen chapter
members related to him either by kinship or artificial kinship and service.
The practice of nepotism seems to contradict the model of promotions
established in the chapter statutes. These forbade promotion to canon without
having been a portionary or half portionary previously. However, Sigüenza
chapter agreed to appoint canonries and dignitaries without the need for an
ecclesiastic career in the same cathedral. The men who obtained promotion
were closely related to the prelates, such as Sancho de Antezana (precentor
and dean) and Diego de Muros (Chancellor of Sigüenza and Bishop of Ciudad
Rodrigo, Mondoñedo, and Oviedo) in the late fifteenth century. In this way,
it can be deduced that dignitaries and canonries were designated directly by
prelates and pontiffs.
In short, the final portrait drawn by the contributions of the research
summarized here is one of a cathedral chapter that shared with other Castilian
chapters that have been studied many of the social, institutional, and cultural
elements of episcopal sees. However, the reconstruction of the sociability
networks woven by its clergy and the practice of nepotism have brought to light
a clear differentiating trait in its social composition: the presence of men close
to the centres of power, the archbishop see of Toledo (primate see of Castile),
the royal court, and the pontificate. In its social dimension, Sigüenza chapter
was filled by individuals close to the centres of power in medieval Castile.
By consulting the sources, it is known that the cathedral clergy in Sigüenza
was associated with authorities in high levels of ecclesiastic hierarchy, such as
Cardinal Mendoza and his successor Bernardino López de Carvajal, who were
fully integrated in the royal court and the pontifical Curia. The sources also show
the existence of kinship and clientelism links between the bishops at Sigüenza
and the chapter clergy. In this way, Sigüenza cathedral chapter participated in
the centres of power and their social networks in medieval Castile, as occurred
correspondingly at other Spanish and European cathedrals.
Appendix
Bishops: Interventions and Relatives

Table 6.1. Types of Appointment
140
a
Juan Gallego (6 February 1496); Juan de Bordalva (1496, on 8 December 1497 and on 11 May 1500 too);
Juan de Ambrosio (2 February 1502); Juan Martínez de Sigüenza (15 February 1480): he was made succentor
and given a half ration.
b
Martín López (3 February 1448): they take the opportunity to name him in a vacant see.
c
Juan Martínez de Sigüenza (21 March 1448); Pedro González de Illescas (3 February 1448), canonry and
then another half-ration; Pedro de Palazuelos (11 August 1449); Miguel López de Esteras (6 October 1452);
Francisco de Herrera (26 September 1479); Pedro de Ciruelo (19 March 1502), canonry and later professorship
of philosophy; Diego de Muros (22 February 1488), canonry of theology, one year later the professorship.
d
Ration awarded to the doorman in name of the choir, Martín de Mosquera (5 August 1500). Doorman
with ration to Miguel Sánchez. Miguel de Sigüenza (4 December 1479).
e
Juan Martínez (26 March 1448), carpenter; Lope González, Mozo (3 February 1448); Juan de Morón (21
February 1477), ‘the gentlemen voted to give him a half ration’; Diego Fernández de Poveda (25 January 1479);
Juan Fernández de Poyatos (15 February 1480): he was awarded a half ration when he was named procurator;
Pedro Martínez de S. (15 August 1486); Pedro González de Illescas (2 March 1448): he was Archdeacon of
Trujillo and was awarded a half ration, vacant see; Alonso López de Calatayud (Prior) (20 May 1502): the prior
added a half ration to the dignitary.
f
Antón López (teacher) (6 May 1448): he was awarded the benefice of Morón, Ferrería, and Barahona.
g
Luis de Torres (28 September 1453), together with a pension.
h
Theology: Diego de Muros (2 April 1489); Philosophy: Pedro de Ciruelo (19 March 1502).
i
A half ration was given as a pardon.
j
In the Bishops Table, chaplains are included in the dignitaries, as it was regarded as such in the late
fifteenth century.
Table 6.2. Interventions by the Bishops
142
a
Juan Ibáñez (10 September 1407).
b
López Carrillo (1439); Diego Gutiérrez de Villaycan (24 December 1443).
c
Lope Martínez (30 November 1448).
d
Fernando Alfonso de Guadalupe (15 September 1472).
e
Gonzalo de Dena (11 July 1482); Gonzalo de Dena (3 September 1491).
f
Alfonso Yáñez (22 June 1482).
g
Almazán: Fernando de Montemayor (30 December 1493); Medina: Juan de Torres (23 December 1485)
and Fernando López de Madrid (23 December 1485); Sigüenza: Juan de Torres (23 December 1485): he was
awarded Medina but he himself changed it for Sigüenza.
h
Fernando Gómez (7 November 1493).
i
Ochoa Pérez González de Sigüenza (30 September 1474); García de Silva (14 September 1485).
j
Bartolomé de Medina (23 November 1482); García de Salvatierra (1 June 1479), nephew of Abbot Ochoa
Pérez, who was also his procurator; Antón de Orellana (17 October 1489), son of Luis de Hurtado, who was also
his procurator; Pedro Gutiérrez (3 December 1485).
k
Juan Gutiérrez de Brihuega (14 September 1493); Rodrigo de Avendeta (9 July 1482); Juan Sauca el Mozo
(23 October 1492).
l
Fernando de Montemayor (13 September 1493).
m
Gonzalo Jiménez de Cisneros (10 October 1480).
n
The ration left by Pedro de Algesilla went to the cantor on the cardinal’s orders, 11 May 1480; Juan
Fernández de Madrid (1482).
o
Andrés de Arenas (17 April 1506).
p
Francisco de Carvajal (5 April 1500) and again in 1506.
q
Luis de Montealegre (14 December 1499); Vasco de Carvajal (27 April 1500); Rodrigo de Carvajal (12
March 1505); Francisco de Carvajal (20 April 1506): he was precentor and was given a canonry.
r
Andrés de Arenas (16 January 1501).
s
Diego de Peñaranda (28 June 1506).
t
In Sigüenza: Esteban Fernández (7 July 1505); Diego López de Anguciana (29 December 1505); Antonio
Gutiérrez de Herrera (12 February 1508); Diego de Peñaranda (diocese de Osma) (28 June 1506* perhaps not
included): he is from Osma.
u
Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro (15 July 1497); Francisco de Valdivieso (28 March 1505).
v
Juan Álvarez (15 July 1497); Fernando López de Madrid (14 February 1504).
w
Diocese of Calahorra: Juan de Aberasturi* (he may not be included because he is not from Sigüenza, 1
April 1512).
Table 6.3. Joint Bishop and Chapter Intervention
144
a
Alfonso Lezerro (22 March 1443).
b
Pedro Martínez de Villacadina.
c
Fernando López de Madrid (30 April 1453); Juan Fernández de Medina (26 November 1453).
d
Juan Ruiz (27 October 1449) given a canonry in Doc. 203, and on 1 February 1453 he was given another
ration; Pedro López de Madrid (5 January 1453); Pedro Sánchez Ochoa (29 May 1453); Toribio Fernández
(8 April 1454); Nuño González (31 December 1454); Lope González de Medina (27 October 1453): the
chapter was given the power for him to receive a canonry causa permutationis; Gabriel Martínez (23 November
1453): he received a canonry together with the chapter, after making a complaint; Lope A., nephew of Juan de
Cuevasrubias (25 December 1453): he arbitrated in an exchange.
e
Fortunato de Uceda (30 August 1449); Diego López de Madrid (30 August 1449); Juan Ruiz (1 February
1453); Nuño González (13 April 1453); Juan López de Madrid (31 December 1454).
f
Alfonso de Madrid (3 October 1449): Bishop Fernando de Luján authorized Pedro Serrano to award in
his name a half ration to Alfonso de Madrid; Juan Pérez (17 December 1449): Fernando de Luján and Pedro
Carrillo provided Juan Pérez with a half ration.
g
Sancho de Frías (19 December 1449); Luis Fernández (29 May 1453); Lope Gonzalez de Medina (27
October 1453), companion.
h
Sacristan of El Punto: Diego González de Cuenca (12 August 1449).
i
Pedro González de Mendoza held, almost simultaneously, the posts of Bishop of Sigüenza and cardinal. He
was named Bishop of Sigüenza in 1467 and cardinal in 1473. The provisions and appointments to posts indexed
in the database begin in 1479, and therefore in the table, the two posts have been joined together to avoid
doubts. On 13 November 1482 he became Archbishop of Toledo and held three positions: bishop, archbishop,
and cardinal.
j
Archdeacon of Molina: Luis Juárez (15 February 1480).
k
Gómez de Orellana (29 June 1474).
l
Rodrigo de Cañizares (28 February 1480); Alfonso de Boadilla (21 March 1480); Fernando Gallego (20
September 1482); Alfonso de Sigüenza (28 March 1480), ratified by the chapter; Bernardino López (27 October
1477), ratified by the chapter.
m
Álvaro Rodríguez de Alcalá (27 December 1479).
n
Miguel de Sigüenza, doorman and singing-teacher (15 September 1479); Diego Fernández (29 June
1474), appointed by the judicial vicar, Juan Lope de Medina, the Archdeacon of Almazán, and ratified by the
chapter; Velasco de Barrionuevo (10 October 1479).
o
Pedro de Castrejón (8 September 1486); Rodrigo de Torres (28 August 1488); Fernando de Montemayor
(2 December 1489); Diego Fernández de Poveda (7 September 1486); Bartolomé de Medina, who was
already Archdeacon of Almazán (5 January 1490): designated by the cardinal and the chapter confirmed the
appointment; Velasco de Barrionuevo (4 June 1490); Alfonso Yáñez (27 June 1492), ratified by the chapter;
Suero de Humaña, a relative of the cardinal (2 July 1490).
p
Bartolomé de Medina (23 November 1482); Martín de Algora (30 April 1490); Luis Álvarez (27 October
1489); Gil de Concha (25 October 1485).
q
Velasco de Barrionuevo (8 March 1483); Fernando de Espinosa, chamberlain of Juan de León (16
November 1489): ‘collation of our reverend cardinal’ and ratified by the chapter; Fernando Tierno (5 October
1486 and 24 January 1487), ratified by the chapter; Fernando López de Trijueque (22 December 1494), by
‘ordinary authority’, later ratified by the chapter; Gonzalo Rodríguez de Torres (17 October 1485).
r
Archpriest of Buitrago: Gonzalo A. de Trujillo (5 January 1487).
s
Francisco de Carvajal (6 December 1504), by ordinary authority (first appointed by the bishop and then
confirmed by the chapter); Sancho de Antezana (6 December 1497), designated by the judicial vicar Diego
Rodríguez de San Isidro in the bishop’s name; the chapter obeys.
t
(The chaplain was a dignitary in 1496.) Juan Martínez de Villel (23 January 1496), appointed by ‘ordinary
authority’ and later confirmed by the gentlemen of the chapter.
u
Miguel de Párraces (6 October 1495) was awarded the canonry corresponding to the professorship of theology;
Francisco López de Paones (3 December 1496): Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro, judicial vicar of the bishopric,
awarded him a canonry and the chapter was ‘disposed to comply’; Fray García Bayón, Bishop of Laodicea (11
March 1505): ‘told the gentlemen that he was appointed by the ordinary authority […] on the orders of the
Reverend Cardinal Bernardino López de Carvajal’, then the gentlemen of the chapter read the designation and,
‘nemine discrepante’, said that they acquiesced; Diego de Arriaga (31 December 1505), ‘ordinary authority’,
‘alternating’; Ignacio de Collantes (27 June 1506), ‘presented the collation of His A. Or.’ and after reading it the
gentlemen said they ‘were disposed to comply’; Bachiller Antonio (28 June 1506): ‘He told the gentlemen that
his worship […] had presented said appointment to said canonry’, presumably from the prelate; Dr. de Ágreda
(18 May 1507), ‘by ordinary authority’; Cristóbal de Carvajal (30 September 1507), ‘ordinary authority’; Juan
de Barreda (23 February 1508): ‘collation made to him’, he says no more, but presumably by the prelate BLC;
Martín de Algora (7 July 1497): he was awarded by the judicial vicar of the bishopric Diego Rodríguez de San
Isidro and the chapter obeys; Rodrigo de Torres (11 March 1499), by ordinary authority and confirmed by the
chapter; Luis Juárez (16 October 1501), by judicial vicar Don Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro, and therefore the
bishop BLC; Juan Álvarez (9 October 1504), cardinal and then ratified ‘nemine discrepante’ by the gentlemen of
the chapter; Francisco de Pelegrina (13 September 1505), by ‘ordinary authority’ and confirmed by the chapter.
v
Diego de Antezana (28 June 1504), nephew of the dean Sancho de Antezana: ‘The gentlemen when the
appointment had been read said that they would acquiesce and they acquiesced’; Rodrigo de Soria (9 March
1510), ‘designated by ordinary authority’; Hernán López de Buendía (2 September 1506), relative of BLC,
designated by the bishop and confirmed by the chapter; Pedro de Gamboa (5 January 1496): he delivers the
designation made by the judicial vicar of the bishopric, Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro; Pedro de Llama (2 May
1495), ordinary authority; Juan Vallejo (26 July 1497), judicial vicar Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro; Diego
Serrano (17 November 1505), ordinary authority and ratification by the chapter; Miguel de Villel (8 January
1504), ordinary authority, the chapter ratifies.
w
Juan Gutiérrez de Brihuega (2 December 1495), relative of Pedro Gutiérrez, treasurer: the judicial vicar
of the bishopric, Diego Rodríguez de San Isidro, delivered the designation to the gentlemen of the chapter, and
three days later they accepted ‘nemine discrepante’ ‘with the prelate’ who at that time was Bernardino López
de Carvajal; Gerónimo Zapata (6 February 1496): the gentlemen of the chapter confirm the designation that
was likely made by the bishop; Rodrigo Zapata (23 May 1496): he was awarded ‘auctoritas ordinaria’, a half
ration that belonged to his brother Gerónimo, who renounced it; the chapter accepted ‘nemine discrepante’;
Pedro Fernández (11 September 1505): ‘he was appointed by ordinary authority’ ‘and then the gentlemen said
that his worship has seen the appointment and acquiesced’; Antonio González (20 April 1506), ‘was appointed
by ordinary authority […] and asked to be given the possession’; Gerónimo de Enciso (19 July 1506): he was
designated by Don Clemente López de Frías, apostolic protonotary and judicial vicar of the bishop Bernardino
López de Carvajal; the chapter ratified the designation; Sancho de Antezana (24 November 1496): the
gentlemen of the chapter are obedient; Juan del Muro (7 August 1498), judicial vicar; Francisco de Carvajal (19
May 1500): he obtained the half ration that the dean held, ‘auctoritas ordinaria’; Sancho de Morales (14 July
1505), ordinary authority and ratification by the chapter; García de Sigüenza (6 November 1505); Alonso Pérez
de Calatayud (24 March 1504).
Table 6.4. Bishops and Relatives in the Chapter
Bishop Relatives Relatives in Approx. Average

bishopric duration per year
Simón Girón de Cisneros (1300–1326)a 5 0 26 0
Juan Serrano (1390–1402) 9b 0 12 0
Alonso Carrillo de Albornoz (1422–34) 1 c
1 12 0.75
Alonso Carrillo de Acuñad (1436–46) 3 3 10 0.3
Gonzalo de Santa María (1446–48) 1 e
1 2 0.5
Fernando de Luján (1449–65) 2f 2 16 0.12
Diego López de Madrid (1465–66) 4g 0 1 0
Pedro González de Mendoza (1467–95) 8 h
7 28 0.25
Bernardino López de Carvajal (1495–1511) 8i 8 18 0.5
TOTAL 41 22 123 2.42
a
Ancestor of Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, future Archbishop of Toledo and cardinal. I have also included
him among his family, although he is later than his bishopric, like Gonzalo Jiménez de Cisneros, the chaplain.
b
All nine later than him.
c
His nephew Alonso Carrillo de Acuña succeeded him in the bishopric. We have decided to place his family
in his nephew’s square because of the proximity in time. However, they could equally have been placed together.
d
Named Archbishop of Toledo (1446–82). Nephew of the previous one. He named López Carrillo his vicar
general in a letter of authority in which he is a witness in 1439. His relative Pedro Carrillo was Archdeacon of
Almazán (he appears for the first time as witness of a provision in 1448), and another relative, Gonzalo Carrillo,
is catalogued as companion of Sigüenza in Doc. 543. In 1446 he is a witness in a letter of payment.
e
Rodrigo de Luna was awarded a canonry by his relative, Bishop Gonzalo de Santa María, in 1448. One year
later, he appears as Archbishop of Santiago.
f
Diego de Luján appears as a canon in a legal action in which he was the defendant in 1472. It is not certain
whether he entered the chapter thanks to Bishop Fernando de Luján. Pedro López de Madrid was awarded a
canonry in 1453 in which Bishop Fernando de Luján, his relative, intervened. Pedro López de Madrid was the
uncle of the next bishop, Diego López de Madrid.
g
An intruder, Diego López de Madrid was deposed forcibly. Fernando López de Madrid (Pedro López de
Madrid’s brother, a relative of Fernando de Luján), uncle or father of Diego López de Madrid. In the 1450s
he acted as treasurer, canon, and archdeacon in Medina. Juan López de Madrid received stipends from Bishop
Fernando de Luján in 1454. Twenty years later, he appears as a canon. His nephew, Bernardino López received
his first canonry in Sigüenza in 1477 from Cardinal Mendoza. We can therefore see that Diego López de
Madrid’s family were not in the chapter during his brief and conflictive bishopric.
h
The eight relatives of Cardinal Mendoza include Sancho de Mendoza, who appears as royal notary in 1340,
and therefore the cardinal cannot have influenced in his privileged position. Instead, his identification confirms
that the Mendoza family was always close to the circles of power. The other relatives and kin probably rose in
their positions in the chapter thanks to their relationship with the cardinal. Thus, Diego de Mendoza appears in
the database as a canon in 1489, when he abandoned his canonry in favour of Fernando González de Gracián;
Juan de Medina, the cardinal’s relative, received his stipend in 1489; Martín de Algora obtained a ration thanks
to the cardinal’s intervention in 1490; Fernando de Valencia, a relative, was already a canon in Sigüenza in 1479;
Suero de Humaña, also a relative, was appointed canon in 1490 through the cardinal’s intervention; and Gabriel
de Mendoza, a close relative, obtained a canonry in 1494 after the chapter read the pontifical bulls.
i
Francisco de Carvajal was appointed precentor through the direct intervention of Cardinal Bernardino
López de Carvajal in 1500; Vasco de Carvajal obtained his canonry thanks to Cardinal López de Carvajal’s
Table 6.5. Mendoza's Social Network: Ties of blood/Artificial Kinship
Ties of blood Artificial kinship

Diego de Mendoza (canonry) Velasco de Barrionuevo (half ration and canonry)
Juan de Medina (ration) Bartolomé de Medina (ration and canonry)
Fernando de Valencia (canonry) Juan de Cuenca (ration)
Martín de Algora (ration) Diego de Muros (head chaplain)
Suero de Humaña (canonry) Alfonso Díaz (canonry)
Gabriel de Mendoza (canonry)
Table 6.6. Bernardino López de Carvajal's Social Network: Ties of blood/Artificial Kinship
Ties of blood Artificial kinship

Francisco de Carvajal (precentor) Andrés de Arenas (archdeaconry)
Rodrigo de Carvajal (canonry) Juan de Frías (canonry)
Cristóbal de Carvajal (canonry) Clemente López de Frías (deaconry)
Juan de Carvajal (ration) Luis López de Frías (judicial vicar)
Alonso de Carvajal (archdeaconry)
Diego de Peñaranda (half ration)
Hernán López de Buendía (ration)
Sancho de Antezana (precentor, dean, and archdeacon)
Vasco de Carvajal (canon)
intervention also in 1500; Cristóbal de Carvajal was designated canon in 1507 through the bishop and chapter;
Rodrigo de Carvajal was made canon in 1505 and archdeacon in Medina in 1508, in both cases through the
cardinal’s intervention; Alonso de Carvajal was made archdeacon in Sigüenza thanks to the intervention of
Rome in 1504; Hernán López de Buendia was awarded a ration in 1506, in which Bernardino López de Carvajal
intervened; Diego de Peñaranda received a ration through the cardinal’s intervention in 1506; Sancho de
Antezana clearly enjoyed Cardinal López de Carvajal’s favours as he was awarded a half ration in Sigüenza in
1496, made precentor a year later, and dean in 1499.
Works Cited

Capitulars Archive of Sigüenza [ACS]
LD., Sign. 88, Cartas de ventas y posesiones
Leg. 65, Testamentos
Leg. 98, Beneficios
Leg. 129, Litigios
Chapter minutes (documents without symbols)
Tomo i: 1416–1425: Lib. Reg. 1
Tomo ii: 1448–1454: Lib. Reg. 2
Tomo iii: 1474–1483: Lib. Reg. 3
Tomo iv: 1485–1486: Lib. Reg. 4
Tomo v: 1486–1495: Lib. Reg. 5
Tomo vi: 1496–1502: Lib. Reg. 6
Tomo vii: 1502–1508: Lib. Reg. 7
Tomo viii: 1508–1512: Lib. Reg. 8
Primary Sources
Minguella y Arnedo, Toribio, Historia de la Diócesis de Sigüenza y de sus obispos, 2 vols
(Madrid, 1901–1913)
Las Siete Partidas del Rey D. Alfonso El Sabio: Glossadas por el Sr. D. Gregorio López del
Consejo Real de las India, Partida I, título XVI, ley II, (Valencia: en la imprenta de
Benito Monfort, 1767)
Secondary Sources
Albors y Albors, C., La Inquisición y el cardenal de España (Valencia, 1896)
Añibarro Rodríguez, J., ‘Las redes portuarias en las Cuatro Villas de la Costa de la Mar
durante la Baja Edad Media: avances de su estudio’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el
mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 177–95
Asenjo González, M., and A. M. Rodriguez, eds, Oligarchy and Patronage in Late Medieval
Spanish Urban Society (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009)
Benítez Floriano, S., ‘D. Francisco de Carvajal y Sande, Mecenas Cacereño’, El blog del Cronista,
2017, <https://cacereshistorica.caceres.es/5archivohistorico/blogdelcronista/santos/
SantosBen%C3%ADtezN%C2%BA117.pdf>
Carocci, Sandro, Il nepotismo nel medioevo: Papi, cardinali e famiglie nobili (Rome: Viella,
1999)
Carvajal de la Vega, D., ‘Redes socioeconómicas y mercaderes castellanos a fines de la Edad
Media e inicios de la Moderna’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval
(Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 79–102
Chacón, Alfonso, ‘Essai de liste générale des cardinaux. VI. Les cardinaux du Grand
Schisme (1378–1417)’, in Annuaire Pontifical Catholique (Paris: Maison de la Bonne
Presse, 1931), p. 156
Del Val Valdivieso, Mª I., ‘Élites urbanas en la Castilla del siglo xv (oligarquía y común)’,
in Elites e redes clientelares na Idade Média, ed. by F. T. Barata (Lisboa: Universidade
de Évora, 2001), pp. 71–89
De Reina, V., El sistema beneficial (Pamplona: EUNSA, 1965)
Esteve Barba, F., Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña: Autor de la unidad de España (Barcelona: Ed
Amaltea, 1943)
Fliche, A., and V. Martín, Historia de la Iglesia, vol. xii (Valencia: EDICEP, 1976)
García Oro, José, Cisneros: un cardenal reformista en el trono de España (1436–1517)
(Madrid: Esfera de los Libros, 2005)
Ghasarian, C., Introducçao ao Estudo do Parentesco (Lisboa: Terramar, 1999)
Herlihy, D., ‘The Making of the Medieval Family: Symmetry, Structure, and Sentiment’,
Journal of Family History, 8 (1983), 116–30
Huarte y Echenique, A., El Gran Cardenal de España, Don Pedro González de Mendoza
(Madrid, 1912)
Imizcoz, J. M., ‘Las redes sociales de las élites: Conceptos, fuentes y aplicaciones’, in Las élites en la
época moderna: la monarquía española, vol. i, Nuevas perspectivas, ed. by E. Soria Emsa, J. J. Bravo
Caro, and J. M. Delgado Barrado (Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba, 2009), pp. 77–111
Justi, C., Don Pedro de Mendoza, Gran Cardenal de España (Madrid, 1913)
Lampérez y Romea, V., Los Mendoza del siglo xv y el Castillo del Real de Manzanares
(Madrid, 1916)
Layna Serrano, F., El cardenal Mendoza como político y consejero de los Reyes Católicos
(Madrid, 1968)
—— , Castillos de Guadalajara: Descripción e Historia de los mismos y noticias de sus señores
(Guadalajara: Aache, 1996)
—— , Historia de Guadalajara y sus Mendozas en los siglos xv y xvi, vol. ii (Guadalajara:
Aache, 1994)
Levi, G., La herencia inmaterial (Madrid: Nerea, 1990)
—— , ‘Sobre microhistoria’, in Formas de hacer historia, ed. by P. Burke (Madrid: Alianza,
1993), pp. 119–43
Liuzzo Scorpo, A., Friendship in Medieval Iberia: Historical, Legal and Literary Perspectives
(Farnham: Ashgate, 2014)
Lop Otí, Mª José, El Cabildo Catedralicio de Toledo en el siglo xv: Aspectos institucionales y
sociológicos (Madrid: Fundación Ramón Areces, 2003)
Mansilla, Demetrio, Iglesia castellanoleonesa y curia romana en tiempos del rey San
Fernando (Madrid, 1945)
Martín Romera, Mª A., ‘Redes medievales: oligarquías del siglo xv y análisis de redes
sociales’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla
Ediciones, 2011), pp. 55–78
Martínez Araque, I., ‘Las diversas relaciones sociales y las estrategias familiares del
artesanado valenciano en el siglo xv’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo
bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 217–40
Miranda, F., ‘Portugal y las redes mercantiles en la Europa Atlántica a finales de la Edad
Media’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla
Ediciones, 2011), pp. 155–75
Mirecki, G., ‘Apuntes genealógicos y biográficos de don Alfonso Carrillo de Acuña,
arzobispo de Toledo’, in Anales Toledanos, vol. xxviii (Toledo: Instituto de Estudios
Toledanos, 1991), pp. 55–76
Muñoz Párraga, Mª Carmen, La catedral de Sigüenza (las fábricas romana y gótica)
(Guadalajara: [n.pub.], 1987)
Ortega Rico, P., ‘Financieros y redes financieras en tiempos de Juan II: posibilidades de
estudio del libro de “Recepta” de 1440’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo
Padgett, J. F., and C. K. Ansell, ‘Robust Action and the Rise of the Médici, 1400–1434’,
American Journal of Sociology, 98 (1993), 1259–1319
Prodi, P., Lo sviluppo dell’assolutismo, vol. i (Bologna: Ed. Patron, 1968)
Quinteros Cortés, J., ‘Redes socioeconómicas al servicio del mercado negro bajomedieval:
el clan rey de Murcia y los Reyes Católicos’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo
Reinhard, Wolfgang, ‘Nepotismus: Der Funtionswandel einer papstgescichtlichen Kon-
stanten’, Zeitschrift für Kirchendgeschichte, 86 (1975), 145–85
Rius Serra, J., ‘Estudiants espanyols a Avinyo al segle xiv’, Analecta Sacra Tarraconensis,
23 (1950), 75–81
Sales i Favà, L., ‘Crédito y redes urbanas: el caso de Girona y las pequeñas ciudades de
su entorno en el siglo xiv’, in Redes sociales y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval
(Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011), pp. 133–54
Sanz Serrano, M. J., ‘El legado del cardinal Hurtado de Mendoza a la Catedral de Sevilla’,
Laboratoria del arte, 17.93 (2004), 93–116
Sigurdsson, J. V., and T. Smäberg, eds, Friendship and Social Networks in Scandinavia
(c. 1000–1800) (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013)
Suárez Fernández, L., ‘Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros’, in Diccionario de Historia de España
(Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1952), i, 655–56
Villalba Ruiz de Toledo, F. J., El Cardenal Mendoza (1428–1495) (Madrid: Rialp, 1988)
Vitores Casado, I., ‘Compañías vascas en torno al arrendamiento y recaudación de la
renta de los diezmos de la mar de Castilla a fines de la Edad Media’, in Redes sociales
y económicas en el mundo bajomedieval (Valladolid: Castilla Ediciones, 2011),
pp. 241–58
Yaben, H., El cardenal Mendoza: Su gobierno del señorío de Sigüenza (Madrid, 1934)
The Nidaros Church and the
Insular Parts of its Province:
Metropolitan Authority and
Relations with their Suffragans
Steinar Imsen
T
his article is mainly about metropolitan authority in the insular parts
of the Nidaros Province (Provincia Nidrosiensis). The archbishops’ role
in the appointment of suffragan bishops will be a matter of particular
interest since it was crucial for the execution and maintenance of their
authority as leaders of the Nidaros Church (Ecclesia Nidrosiensis). Probably
most people, Norwegians included, have no idea about the former Church
organization covering all Norse countries from Norway to the Irish Sea, which
lasted for more than three centuries, at least in principle. At the end of the
Middle Ages the insular dioceses together with the royal Norwegian dominions
overseas vanished from Norwegian history, and since then Protestant and
national historiography has found no place for it.1 However, the history of
these suffragan dioceses and their relations with Norway, especially Nidaros
(Trondheim), is important for the understanding of cultural and social
development in West Scandinavia in the centuries succeeding the Viking age.
1
Imsen, Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537, pp. 23–34.
Steinar Imsen (steinar.imsen@ntnu.no) is Professor Emeritus at Norwegian University of

Science and Technology (NTNU).
154 Steinar Imsen
The Province
One of the most significant events in Norwegian history during the Middle Ages
was the establishment of an archbishop’s see in Nidaros in 1152 or 1153. Since
1103 the Norwegian dioceses as well as the insular bishoprics, except Man and
the Suðreyjar (the Hebrides), had been part of the Church of Lund in Scania
(then part of Denmark, today southern Sweden); and before that the archbishops
of Hamburg-Bremen had claimed obedience from the churches of Scandinavia
and the Norse world.
In 1154, Pope Anastasius confirmed the authority of the new metropolitan.
In the foundation bull, he states that
Et ne de cætero provinciæ Norvegiæ metrpolitani possit cura deesse, commissam
gubernationi tuæ urbem Thrudensem ejusdem provinciæ perpetuam metropolim
ordinavit et ei Asloensem, Hammarcopiensem, Bergensem, Stawangeriensem,
Insulas Orcades, Suthraie Insulas, Insulas Islandensium et Grenlandie episcopatus
tamquam suæ metropoli perpetuis temporibus constituit subjacere, et earum
episcopatus sicut metroplitanis suis tibi tuisqve successoribus obedire.
[to avoid that the province of Norway should lack the care of a metropolitan, he
[Pope Anastasius] made Trondheim the perpetual metropolis for this province,
and ordained that the dioceses of Oslo, Hamar, Bergen, Stavanger, Orkney,
Sodor, Iceland, and Greenland forever should obey you [the new archbishop, Jon
Birgisson] and your successors as metropolitans.]2
That the Faeroes, a diocese of its own for some decades, is omitted from the
papal list is probably due to an oversight.3 Nor is Shetland mentioned since that
archipelago was part of the diocese of Orkney. The Norwegian historian Edvard
Bull held that the ecclesiastical connection between Shetland and Orkney was
rather new in the early twelfth century, and that Shetland in the eleventh century
had been part of the bishopric of Bjørgvin (Bergen). Until 1170, the bishops in
Western Norway had resided on Selje outside Stadt, the holy St Sunniva’s island.
The Shetlanders still paid an annual due, called ‘sunnivamel’, to the Bishop of
Bergen in the fourteenth century.4 However, this is pure guesswork. The Faeroes
may have been part of the diocese of Bergen too, until it got its own bishop in
2
Diplomatarium Danicum, p. 211.
3
The editors of Diplomatarium Danicum (p. 209) suggest that the Faeroes were included in
Iceland in 1154, since they are not mentioned among the other dioceses of the Nidaros province
until 1206, when Innocent III confirmed Anastasius’s bull (Diplomatarium Norvegicum, vii,
no. 6).
4
Bull, Det norske folks liv og historie g jennom tidene, p. 134.
The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province 155
Map 7.1. The eleven dioceses of the Nidaros province consisted of c. 1900 parish-churches in 1300,
a minimum number, and forty-four monasteries. There were c. 1300 parishes in Norway, in Orkney
and Shetland probably 65, in Iceland 330, in Greenland 17, in the Faeroes 50, and in the diocese of
Sodor 69. Chapels are not included. There were thirty-one monasteries in Norway, ten in Iceland,
two in Greenland, and one in Orkney.
Note on the map’s Norwegian captions: Erkebispesete = archbishopric; bispesete = bishopric; Man og
Sudrøyene = Sodor; Shetland og Orknøyene = Orkney.
Map from Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie,
ed. by S. Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk 2003), p. 16).
the early twelfth century. The cathedral chapter of Bergen’s claim of the right to
elect the bishops of Kirkjubøur in the thirteenth century may be indicative of the
diocesan origins.
Until the second half of the fifteenth century, Nidaros remained the centre
of a church-province stretching from the Kola Peninsula and Greenland in the
north to the Isle of Man and the River Göta in the south, at least in principle.
The distances between the metropolitan see and its suffragan bishoprics overseas,
especially the North Atlantic dioceses, were huge, and communications slow, not
least because of the seasonal sailing pattern.
The history of the Nidaros church and its province ended when in 1536 and
1537 Duke Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (later King Christian III of Denmark
and Norway) abolished first the Danish and then the Norwegian Church and
156 Steinar Imsen
replaced them with his own Lutheran Church organization. By this time, Orkney
and Sodor had long been part of the archbishopric of St Andrews.
When it comes to the Isle of Man and the Hebrides, the breach with Nidaros
was a fact already in 1349, when Pope Clement VI gave the bishops of Sodor
an exemption from their obligation to visit Nidaros once during their terms
of office. Sarah Thomas says that ‘surviving sources present an impression
that contact (between Nidaros and Sodor) was minimal at best’ after 1320,
and that the authority of the Archbishop of Trondheim from the end of the
fourteenth century was ‘superseded by the centralisation of the late medieval
Church’.5 Except for the 1150s, the connection between Nidaros and Sodor
had been rather weak. Right up until 1210, Furness Abbey in Cumbria and the
archbishops of York claimed obedience from the bishops of Sodor. From that
date, however, the metropolitan authority of Nidaros over the diocese of Sodor
was uncontested.
In the Greenlandic bishopric of Gardar, which according to the Norwegian
Church-historian Oluf Kolsrud got its first bishop in 1112 or 1113, there had
not been a bishop since the beginning of the fifteenth century.6 At the end of the
fifteenth century, there were probably no Norse people left in Greenland.
There were five bishoprics in Norway: Oslo, Nidaros, Bergen, Stavanger, and
Hamar. Hamar, in interior Eastern Norway, was brand new in 1152. We should
add that except the bishopric of Orkney, and different from the Norwegian
dioceses, none of the insular churches developed cathedral chapters.
Nidaros was a natural choice as metropolis for the new church province,
because the body of St Olav was enshrined in that city’s Christ Church. Olav
was the most popular saint in Scandinavia, and his cult spread all over the
Norse world. According to the German chronicler Adam of Bremen, there
were already by c. 1070 substantial pilgrimages to the tomb of the saintly king,
and Nidaros (Trondheim) had become a spiritual centre for all Norwegians
(Nortmanni), which in Adam’s opinion included people of Norse descent west
over the sea.7
Thomas, ‘The Diocese of Sodor and its Connection to Nidaros and the Curia after 1266’,
5
p. 143.
6
Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, p. 281 and p. 284.
7
Adam von Bremen, Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte, ed. by Schmeidler, p. 267.
The Foundation of Metropolitan Authority

Hierarchical discipline was the binding force in the Latin Church. In 1154,
Pope Anastasius had ordered the suffragans in the new church province to obey
the Archbishop of Nidaros, who by then again stood under papal command.
Metropolitan mandate to rule rested on papal consecration. The pallium, which
the archbishop received from the pope on this occasion, symbolized metropolitan
authority and dignity. Probably as early as 1169, Pope Alexander III introduced
a so-called subsidium pallii to help the archbishop elect to finance his travel to
Rome for consecration. All suffragans were ordered to contribute, and they still
paid it in the 1450s. This contribution to the Nidaros metropolitan was unique
in the Roman Church.8 Many Nidaros archbishops were papal legates, that is,
nominally representatives of the pope, as well. The first one to wear the title of
papal legate was Øystein Erlendsson (1161–88). In other words, consecration
was a crucial element in the hierarchical order, and the archbishop’s right to
ordain his suffragans was the foundation upon which his metropolitan authority,
at least nominally, rested.
The transfer of the two Icelandic dioceses from the obedience of Lund to that
of Nidaros, 1152/53, was unproblematic. When the first vacancies occurred in
Hólar and Skálholt after the erection of the new church province, the bishops
elect went to Trondheim for consecration.9 However, all Icelandic bishops until
1238 were native Icelanders who belonged to or were dependant on the ruling
class of chiefs, the so-called goðar (pl.). Except Þorlákur Þórhallson in Skálholt
(1178–93) and Guðmundur Arason in Hólar (1203–37), the Icelandic bishops
were rather unwilling to support the archbishop’s endeavours for reform. Even
Þorlákur had to give in when in 1188 Archbishop Øystein died. The Icelandic
Church had, since its inception in c. 1000, been part of the chieftains’ power
base. Some of them had combined the positions of goði (sing.) and priest, or
even bishop, or they had placed relatives and loyal friends in ecclesiastical offices.
The goðar also owned churches and church-land. In other words, the church in
Iceland was a typical proprietorial church that had been common in Norway and
Orkney-Shetland as well prior to 1152/53. Barbara Crawford has shown that the
8
Johnsen, ‘Subsidium pallii’, cols 410–19.
9
The bishops of Skálholt were elected by the Alþingi (the General Assembly of Iceland)
while the bishops of Hólar probably were elected by a mixed lay and clerical assembly from the
northern quarter of Iceland. Archbishop Absalon in Lund consecrated Páll Jónsson in Skálholt
in 1195 during Archbishop Eirik Ivarsson’s exile. Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og
Biskoper, pp. 261–634, pp. 271f.
158 Steinar Imsen
legal status of St Magnus Cathedral in the late fifteenth century is reminiscent of

the old proprietorial church system in the earldom.10
The year 1238 marks a shift. From then until the end of the fourteenth century,
the archbishops controlled all appointments of bishops in Iceland. The shift was
partly due to an extraordinary situation: both Icelandic bishoprics were vacant in
1237, which gave Archbishop Sigurd in Nidaros an opportunity to interfere. He
rejected the two Icelandic bishops elect — both closely connected to the goðar
— and appointed two Norwegians instead. According to Heidi Anett Beistad,
Sigurd considered ‘that the time was ripe to act upon the ideals of the universal
church and to take on the Icelandic goðachurch’.11
The reform process, which was the main concern of the archbishops, had, in
spite of a positive start in Iceland during Øystein Erlendsson’s archiepiscopacy,
been brought to a halt when in 1181 Øystein was forced into exile in England.
Moreover, the political situation in Norway prevented the archbishops from
interfering in Iceland until around 1240, when archbishop and king combined
forces to bring the Icelanders under royal and archiepiscopal control. Moreover,
since 1236 Iceland had been in turmoil, which created difficulties for the two
Norwegian bishops of Skálholt and Hólar in carrying out the reform project.
There has been speculation about whether King Håkon Håkonsson was
involved in Archbishop Sigurd’s coup in 1238. He was probably not, at least not
directly, but he was certainly positive about Sigurd’s actions, which could have
helped him make Iceland a royal Norwegian skattland (tributary country). Some
few years later, Håkon launched his own campaign to make Iceland part of his
realm. He even obtained papal support when he addressed the Icelanders in
1247. According to Sturla Þorðarson, who wrote Håkon’s saga, Cardinal William
of Sabina advised the king in this matter and said that it was ‘improper that a
country did not serve a king like all other countries in the world’.12 In supporting
the reform project in Iceland, the king probably expected some political gain: a
royal takeover might have been eased by the weakening of the chieftains’ position.
In contrast to the situation at the beginning of the twelfth century, when
the Archbishop of York contested the appointment of William (I) the Old as
Bishop of Orkney and appointed his own nominee, the transfer of Orkney from
10
Crawford, ‘St. Magnus Cathedral’.
11
Beistad, ‘Election and Rejection’, p. 226.
12
‘Þá var ok sú skipan ger til Íslands með ráði kardinála at sú þjóð er þar byggði þjónaði
til Hákonar konungs, þvi at hann kallaði þat ósannligt at land þat þjónaði eigi undir einhvern
konung sem öll önnur í veröldinni’. Hákonar saga, ii, ed. by Sverrir Jakobsson and Þorleifur
Hauksson, p. 136.
the obedience of Lund to that of Nidaros was unproblematic. According to Oluf

Kolsrud, King Sigurd Magnusson appointed William the Old as Bishop of Orkney
in 1112.13 True enough, we do not know anything about William’s consecration,
but it probably happened in Lund. Likewise we must assume that Bishop
William II received his consecration in Nidaros in 1168, and when Orkneyinga
saga tells that his successor, the famous Bjarne Kolbeinsson, was consecrated,
that probably happened in Nidaros or by the Archbishop of Nidaros in 1188.
Until 1223, all the Orkney bishops were close to the earls. Bjarne Kolbeinsson
belonged to the local aristocracy, and he may have been a relative of the earl.
In 1195, Bjarne followed Earl Harald Maddadson to Norway to help him in
the difficult negotiations with King Sverre after the defeat of the so-called
‘eyarskjeggjar’ at the battle of Florvåg in 1194. Fifteen years later Bjarne once
again helped Harald’s two sons in their conflict with King Inge when they sent
him to Norway to negotiate with Norwegian authorities, and finally, in 1223, he
visited Bergen together with Earl Jon Haraldsson, to attend a national meeting.
Bjarne Kolbeinsson died during his last stay in Norway. Jofrey, a præpositus (ON
prófastr) in Tønsberg, succeeded him. His nationality is uncertain; his name,
however, indicates that he might have been a Scot or an Englishman. According
to Barbara Crawford, the king appointed him, which is not likely. Probably the
king promoted his candidacy; royal promotion of bishops happened many times
during King Håkon IV Håkonsson’s reign (1217–63). Archbishop Guttorm
certainly consecrated Jofrey, and relations to the metropolitan see now became
closer. The establishment of a cathedral chapter in Kirkwall also strengthened the
local church. The chapter is mentioned only in a document dated 1247, but was
certainly older, since Heinrek, who was postulated as bishop by the chapter that
year, had been a canon in Kirkwall for some years.14 Barbara Crawford holds that
the thirteenth century was a period when the bishopric was firmly tied into the
Norwegian Church structure.15
In relation to the earls as well, the Orkney Church appears as a more inde-
pendent institution than earlier. According to Per Sveaas Andersen, prebends
13
Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, p. 297. According to Barbara
Crawford, William the Old, the first ‘firmly resident’ bishop in Orkney and a Norwegian
nominee, was possibly appointed by King Magnus Olavsson (not Haraldsson) ‘barfót’ in 1102.
However, this is not likely since William then would have stayed sixty-six years in office. William
was certainly old, but not that old. Crawford, ‘The Bishopric of Orkney’, pp. 144f.
14
Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, p. 298. Heinrek received his
consecration in Viken (the Oslo fiord area) in the autumn of 1248 while Archbishop Sigurd
stayed there together with King Håkon.
15
Crawford, ‘The Bishopric of Orkney’, p. 148.
160 Steinar Imsen
were a constituent element of the cathedral’s economy, at the latest in 1327–28,

but probably much earlier. A so-called appropriation-system, imported from
Scotland, made the canonries wealthy, Andersen says. He refers to it as a ‘feudali-
zation’ of the Orcadian Church, which is a rather unclear statement. Moreover,
this appropriation-system corresponds to the annexation of rich parishes in
the countryside to the cathedral chapters in Norway in the second half of the
thirteenth century, so-called praebendae parochiales.16 We do not know the
exact number of prebends at the chapter in Kirkwall; Andersen suggests as
many as fourteen, Crawford twelve.17 In 1309, an archdeaconry of Orkney was
established, which probably meant a further strengthening of the chapter, but the
Archdeacon of Shetland (from 1215) was still senior officer of the chapter.
That Shetland, which Harald Maddadson had forfeited in 1195, should
have remained as part of the diocese of Orkney may have helped strengthen
the position of the Church in Orkney as well. After the final defeat of Harald
Maddadson’s sons in 1210, who had tried to take back Shetland, the Orkney
Church was the only common institution for the Norse part of the old earldom.
As already mentioned, the Archdeacon of Shetland was the most prominent
member of the cathedral chapter: some of them even attained the position of
bishops in Kirkwall, and one, Gilbert, was appointed bishop in Hamar in Eastern
Norway. He had been a royal chaplain.
Jofrey seems to have been the one and only ‘Norwegian’ bishop in Orkney
after 1223. There has been a belief among historians that the chapter and the
bishops in Kirkwall functioned as a kind of bridgehead for Scottish influence
in the Northern Isles. I will not deny the fact that we find many Scots among
the canons in Orkney; even some of the bishops were Scots by birth. However,
like Brian Smith, I think there is no good reason to stress such a nationalistic
approach, which tends to be a bit anachronistic.18 The Scots who moved to
Orkney and Shetland to start an ecclesiastical career became native Orcadians
and Shetlanders as time went by, and may have looked upon themselves as native
islanders as well. This is well documented, for instance in a letter from 1369
where a representative group of Orcadians and Shetlanders, many of whom bear
Scottish names, refer to themselves as native islanders.19 Likewise, documents
16
Hamre, ‘Kannikgjeld’, cols 227–30.
17
Andersen, ‘The Orkney Church in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, pp. 11–15;
18
Smith, ‘The Nidaros Church and “Norgesveldet”’.
19
Diplomatarium Norvegicum, i, no. 404.
from the early fifteenth century tell us that Orcadians with Scottish ancestry
regarded incoming Scots as foreigners.20
Until the end of the fourteenth century, almost all bishops in Orkney had
been canons in Kirkwall and elected by the chapter. The only exception might
have been Dolgfinn, whom Bishop Andres of Oslo elected and consecrated in
1286, according to the Icelandic annals. However, Peter Andreas Munch did
not believe in this election, and he was probably right.21 On the other hand, it
was natural that a local Norwegian bishop should have consecrated the Orkney
bishop elect at a time when the metropolitan see in Nidaros was vacant. The last
Orkney bishop before the Scottish takeover of the isles in 1468–69, William
Tulloch, a Scot, had also been a canon in Kirkwall. The chapter may still have
had a say in the appointment of bishops in the fifteenth century, even though
the pope more or less took over the role of the metropolitan as consecrator and
provided candidates, frequently put forward by the Scandinavian union-kings,
to the episcopal seat. We should add that even though the Avignonese popes
during the Schism of 1378–1417 continued to provide bishops to Orkney, none
of them took up residence in Kirkwall. Queen Margrete and King Erik succeeded
in guarding the Orkney Church from Avignon’s attempt to annex its obedience.22
Heinrek, who succeeded Jofrey in 1248 and who had been a canon in
Kirkwall, stayed at King Håkon’s side during the war against Scotland in 1263
together with Bishop Gilbert of Hamar. Gilbert was probably a relative of Earl
Magnus Gilbertsson. ‘These two prelates no doubt accompanied the expedition
for their usefulness in any negotiations which might ensue between Scotland and
Norway’, Barbara Crawford says.23 Altogether the bishops of Orkney as well as
the Archdeacons of Shetland were often sent on missions abroad by the king, and
then most often to the royal courts of Scotland and England.
Being Church leaders of a border diocese meant that the bishops of Orkney
had an exposed political position. They received and accounted for the annual fee
that the Kings of Scotland, agreed in the Treaty of Perth of 1266, were obliged to
render in return for the Kingdom of Man and the Isles. One hundred and sixty
years later, the treaty was renewed, and the bishops in Kirkwall went on collecting
‘the Annual’. Bishop Thomas Tulloch (1418–61) took part in the negotiations
20
Diplomatarium Norvegicum, ii, no. 691.
21
Munch, Det norske Folks Historie, p. 60 n. 1.
22
Haug, ‘The Nidaros Church as a Political Actor in the Norwegian Commonwealth’,
p. 126.
23
162 Steinar Imsen
with the Scots in Bergen, as an ex officio member of the Norwegian Council

of the Realm. His successor as Bishop of Orkney, William Tulloch (1461–77)
played a similar role in the negotiations between the Kings of Norway and
Scotland, which in 1468 led to the marriage-treaty between the two kingdoms
and the pledging of the Northern Isles. For a short while after the death of Earl
Henry Sinclair II, Thomas Tulloch, in the early 1420s, was the king’s governor of
Orkney as well, a role he shared with some of his episcopal colleagues in Iceland
and Greenland.
Even though the bishops of Orkney most of the time proved to be loyal
servants of archbishop and king, the relationship was not always unproblematic
and harmonious. The reign of Håkon VI Magnusson (1355–80) was a period of
conflict between the bishop, William IV, and the king.24 However, Johannes, a
rector from Fetlar in Shetland, who was nominated by the chapter and provided
to the episcopal see by the Roman pope after Bishop William’s death, would
become a faithful servant of Queen Margaret. According to Troels Dahlrup,
Johannes soon after his appointment went to Copenhagen, and in 1389, he
was in the diocese of Cammin in Pomerania. Dahlrup suggests that he was
negotiating on behalf of Queen Margaret to make Bugislav, son of the Duke of
Pomerania and the daughter of Margaret’s sister, King of Norway. At a meeting
in Helsingborg later that year the Norwegian Council of the Realm accepted
Bugislav, now named Erik, as hereditary King of Norway. From there he
travelled to Trondheim for his formal acclamation as hereditary king. Johannes
never returned to Orkney, and he stayed as a suffragan bishop in Cammin for
the rest of his life.25
When it comes to Sodor, the role of the archbishops in the process of
appointment seems more nominal than real, and archiepiscopal consecrations
of bishops to the Hebrides and Man mostly happened during the reign of
Håkon Håkonsson and Magnus Håkonsson. There might have been a couple
of ordinations by the Norwegian metropolitan in the 1320s, but this is very
uncertain. The only Norwegian to become a Bishop of Sodor, Ragnvald, received
consecration from Cardinal Nicolaus Brekespeare at the same meeting which
established Nidaros as a metropolis of its own. The period from 1152 to c. 1350,
then, appears as a Norse interlude in the ecclesiastical history of Man and the
Hebrides. Thereafter the Curia took over. Unlike the bishopric of Orkney, the
church of Man and the Hebrides followed their patron, the King of Scots, into
24
William was killed in 1382 or 1383. Grohse, ‘Defending Country and Realm’, p. 170.
25
Dahlrup, ‘Orkney Bishops and Suffragans in the Scandinavian-Baltic Area’, pp. 42–46.
the obedience of Avignon after 1378, which widened the gap between Nidaros
and Sodor.26
The Faeroes too were firmly under the control of Nidaros after 1152/53. All
ordinations but one were at the metropolitan see. However, there is a difference
between the Faeroes and the other insular bishoprics, since the bishop and chapter
in Bergen throughout the thirteenth century elected bishops to Kirkjubøur. The
Nidaros chapter opposed this practice and claimed to have the sole right to elect
bishops to all dioceses overseas without a cathedral chapter of their own. The
conflict ended when in the settlement of Tautra in 1297 the claims of Nidaros
were accepted.27 There were also close contacts between the bishop’s see in Bergen
and Gardar. In the couple of decades around 1350, for instance, the canon Ivar
Bårdsson in Bergen stayed at Gardar to take care of the bishopric during the
bishop’s absence. Bishop Håkon of Bergen (1332–42) may have commissioned
Ivar to administer the bishopric in the bishop’s absence; at least he equipped him
with a passport. However, nobody questioned the metropolitan’s right to elect and
consecrate bishops of Gardar. Like the situation in the other insular bishoprics,
the Curia took over the right to appoint and consecrate bishops in Greenland
and the Faeroes in the second half of the fourteenth century. However, in those
cases there were no threats to Roman obedience during the Schism. There were
no resident bishops in Greenland in the fifteenth century.28
Like the bishops of Orkney, the bishops in the Faeroes, Greenland, and
Iceland rendered important services to the king as governors, tax collectors, and
as councillors in matters of legislation. Bishop Erlend in Kirkjubøur, for instance,
was in 1298, together with Sigurd, the royal judge of Shetland, appointed by
Duke Håkon Magnusson in Oslo to help him amend parts of the law-code.29
Seemingly, the Archbishop of Nidaros was uncontested consecrator of his
suffragan bishops from the start, or at the latest when subordinated dioceses
became vacant after 1152/53. Sodor was the only exception, in spite of the
positive start. The ascendancy of a cathedral chapter in Orkney in the first half of
the thirteenth century indicates that the local clergy had gained control over the
initial step of the appointment process, which they kept for the next centuries. As
to the nomination of bishops of Sodor, this is a complicated matter, into which I
do not dare to delve.
26
Woolf, ‘The Diocese of Sudreyar’, pp. 178–81.
27
Hamre, ‘Striden mellom erkebiskop Jørund og domkapitlet i Nidaros’, pp. 208f.
28
Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper, pp. 280–92.
29
Norges gamle love, iii, 33–39.
164 Steinar Imsen
In some respects, metropolitan authority to control appointments and

consecrate bishops to the insular dioceses was dependant on royal backing,
though not direct royal involvement. The right balance between royal power
and metropolitan authority was all the time a crucial question. In 1277, King
Magnus Håkonsson the Lawmender and Archbishop Jon the Red reached a
mutual understanding of the problem. Their settlement at Tønsberg that year, the
so-called Sættargerð in Old Norse or Compositio in Latin (§ 4), states that neither
royal nor princely power should have a say, nor should any secular authority
intervene in the election of bishops or abbots in the Nidaros province. However,
before consecration, the electors should inform the king about the bishop elect.30
Until the second half of the fourteenth century, the kings mostly respected
this rule. After that much changed with regard to the appointment system, and
that signalled a dissolution of the original Nidaros province. The papal takeover
of the appointment system, often in cooperation with the Scandinavian union-
kings, proved a heavy blow to metropolitan authority. In the end, it paved the
way for the transfer of the Norse-British dioceses into the kingdoms of England
and Scotland, and the new archbishopric of St Andrews.
The reconstruction of metropolitan authority and the Nidaros province when
in 1428 Aslak Bolt entered office started with a renewal of the archbishop’s role in
the appointment-system. In 1436 Aslak obtained a resolution from the Council
of Basle that the archbishop, together with the cathedral chapter of Nidaros,
should have the right to appoint and consecrate bishops in all insular churches.31
Aslak and his successors as Norwegian archbishops succeeded to some degree
in restoring metropolitan control over the appointment of bishops in Iceland
and the Faeroes.32 However, in a different way from the high Middle Ages, local
institutions and natives from the 1460s onwards played a more central part in the
appointment process in Iceland than it had done in the century after 1238, and
at the end of the period the king outmanoeuvred the archbishop when it came to
appointing bishops in the Faeroes. The 1436 resolution, however, probably had
no effect at all with regard to Orkney and Sodor.
30
Norske middelalderdokumenter, ed. by Bagge, Smedsdal, and Helle, pp. 142f.
31
Norges gamle love (2nd ser.), i, 537–39.
32
Haug, ‘The Council of Basle, the Rise against King Erik of Pomerania and the Last
Provincial Statute of Norway’.
The Inner Circle, Identities, and Networks, c. 1230–1370

From the early thirteenth century until the middle of the fourteenth, the
archbishops’ right to ordain insular suffragans was uncontested. Exceptions
occur, but they were occasional, for instance when in 1152 and 1247, the
cardinals Nicolaus Brekespeare and William of Sabina visited Norway. During
their stay in Nidaros and Bergen, they consecrated bishops to Sodor and Hólar.
It also happened, if the archbishop was ill or the metropolitan see was vacant,
that another Norwegian bishop had to take on the consecration. However, the
right to ordain was one thing; quite another matter was the authority or power to
control the candidature.
Table 7.1. Appointments of bishops to Hólar, Skálholt, Kirkjubøur, and Gardar c. 1230–137033
Archbishop Suffragans Nationality Career

Sigurd Eindrideson 3 Kirkjubøur, 2 Hólar, Norwegians 2 canons, 2 monks, 1
tafse 1231–52 1 Skálholt, 2 Gardar. abbot
Elect. and ordinat. in
Norway
Einar Gunnarson 1 Kirkjubøur, 1 Hólar. 1 Norwegian, 1 1 canon, 1 abbot
smjorbak 1255–63 Elect. and ordinat. in Icelander (Hólar)
Norway
Håkon 1267 1 Hólar. Elect. and Icelander Local priest
ordinat. in Norway
Jon raude 1268–82 1 Kirkjubøur, 1 1 Icelander, 1 1 canon, 1 priest and
Skálholt. Elect. and Norwegian administrator of the
ordinat. in Norway bishop’s see (Hólar)
Jørund 1288–1309 1 Gardar, 1 Skálholt, 1 1 Icelander, 2 1 administrator
Kirkjubøur. Elect. and Norwegians of the bishop’s see
ordinat. in Norway. (Skálholt), 1 local
priest (Borgund)
Eilif Arneson korte 3 Hólar, 1 Gardar, 6 Norwegians, 2 2 canons, 2 monks, 1
1311–32 2 Skálholt, 2 Icelanders abbot
Kirkjubøur. Elect. and
ordinat. in Norway
33
This table is based upon Kolsrud, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper. In ten out of
these thirty-five cases, we have no information about the bishops’ career.
166 Steinar Imsen
Table 7.1. Contd.
Archbishop Suffragans Nationality Career

Pål Bårdsson 1333–46 2 Skálholt, 1 Gardar, 1 4 Norwegians, 1 1 abbot, 1 monk, 1
Hólar, 1 Kirkjubøur. 4 Icelander canon
elect. and 5 ordinat. in
Norway, 1 elect. at the
General Assembly in
Iceland
Pål Bårdsson 1333–46 2 Skálholt, 1 Gardar, 1 4 Norwegians, 1 1 abbot, 1 monk, 1
Hólar, 1 Kirkjubøur. 4 Icelander canon
elect. and 5 ordinat. in
Norway, 1 elect. at the
General Assembly in
Iceland
A core of Norse dioceses in the North Atlantic stand out among the other insular
bishoprics because the Archbishop of Nidaros in the first half of the thirteenth
century obtained full control over the process of episcopal appointment, from
election to ordination. When discussing the relations between the metropolitan
and his insular suffragans I therefore will concentrate on these bishoprics,
focusing primarily on the Icelandic dioceses Skálholt and Hólar, since Icelandic
sources are manifold and extensive while documentary evidence from Greenland
and the Faeroe Islands is rather meagre.
Norwegians dominate in this long list of insular suffragans. As to the few
Icelanders, they were close to ecclesiastical authorities in Norway or they belonged
to a clerical milieu in Iceland closely tied to Norway and engaged in the reform
policy of the archbishops. The Icelander Árni Þorláksson for instance (1269–98)
had been an apprentice and protégé of Brandr Jónsson, abbot of the monastery
of Þykkvabær. When in 1262, the archbishop and the canons of the cathedral
chapter of Nidaros elected Brandr as Bishop of Hólar, Árni accompanied his
mentor to Nidaros, where he met King Magnus. The relation between the young
king and the young Icelander would become a lifelong friendship. Back in Iceland
(1264) Árni was consecrated priest by Sigvart Þettmarsson (1238–68), the very
first Norwegian bishop in Skálholt, and when Brandr died, Sigvart asked Árni
to administer the episcopal see of Hólar during the vacancy. Another Icelander,
Jörundr Þorsteinsson, succeeded Brandr as Bishop of Hólar, and when Sigvart
died in 1268, Jörundr and the best men of the bishopric sent Árni to Nidaros
with a letter of recommendation. They wished to have one of their own as Bishop
of Skálholt. However, Archbishop Jon preferred the Norwegian Þorleifr, a canon
from the cathedral chapter of Nidaros, who died soon after the election. Since Árni
was next in line, he was elected, confirmed, and consecrated Bishop of Skálholt.
His good relations to both king and archbishop were favourable for his reform
work. After King Magnus’s death in 1280, Árni joined forces with Archbishop
Jon in his fight against the regency of the minor King Eirik, who wanted to
reverse the settlement between archbishop and king from 1277. However, when
the king came of age, the situation improved, and the year before Árni died,
he succeeded in obtaining control over the ‘staðir’ in his bishopric, at least in
principal. Staðamál, that is, the process of expropriating the bigger churches and
their land (staðir), is one of the main issues in Icelandic historiography. In the
Settlement of Avaldsnes 1297, King Eirik announced that the bishop should rule
over the staðir, while laymen should rule over the farmers’ churches. Archbishop
Jørund, Bishop Árni, and King Eirik sealed the document.
Árni Helgason (1304–20), Árni Þorláksson’s nephew, succeeded his uncle
who died in 1298, but he had to wait in five years for his ordination because
of a long-lasting conflict between Archbishop Jørund (1288–1309) and the
cathedral chapter. Árni Helgason had been administrator of Skálholt during Árni
Þorláksson’s long stays in Norway, and like his uncle, he also spent much time at
the metropolitan see. Árni Helgason too was favoured with good relations to the
Church leadership in Norway, and he succeeded in implementing the Settlement
of Avaldsnes, which Árni Þorláksson did not achieve before he died in Bergen in
1298.34 The proprietorial church-system almost vanished in Skálholt during Árni
Helgason’s tenure.
The metropolitan see was not an administrative centre only; it was also a centre
of culture and learning, and not least, a place to make contacts, which might be
beneficial for an ecclesiastical career. Several Icelanders travelled to Nidaros to
qualify for offices and obtain benefices; many of them also served as local vicars
or took on some other ecclesiastical business in Norway before returning home.
The case of Bishop Laurentius Kálfsson of Hólar (1324–31) may be typical.
According to his saga, Laurentius studied canon law in Nidaros and lent the
archbishop a hand, which was not especially advantageous with regard to his
career. Back in Iceland, he joined the Benedictine convent at Þingeyrar. When
in 1323 he heard that the archbishop and the cathedral chapter in Nidaros had
elected him Bishop of Hólar he was very surprised and exclaimed, ‘I will not make
a fool of myself. I have no expectations that the canons in Nidaros will give me
any position of authority, since everybody knows that they rather have worked
against me than promoted my professional status and position’.35
34
Magnús Stefánsson, Staðir og staðamál, p. 46; cf. Helgi Þorláksson, ‘Succumbing Secular Chiefs’.
35
‘Gjör mér engan dáruskap. Þat þykki mér likara at svá fremi hafi þeir kórsbrœðr í Nóregi
168 Steinar Imsen
As a young priest and student in Nidaros Laurentius had supported Archbishop

Jørund in his prolonged conflict with the cathedral chapter. The conflict culmi-
nated when Jørund excommunicated the leading men of the chapter, among
whom was Eilif Arneson, who became the next Archbishop in Nidaros (1311–32).
Laurentius had the delicate task of publishing Jørund’s letter of excommunication,
which made him persona non grata among the canons. Nevertheless, Eilif some
ten years later elected him Bishop of Hólar; Bishop Audfinn in Bergen and Bishop
William in Kirkwall attended his ordination on 24 June 1324.36 Laurentius proved
to be a loyal and dedicated suffragan for Archbishop Eilif.
Many Norwegian overseas bishops came from the clerical milieu in Nidaros.
They had been canons at the cathedral chapter, and some had served as official
principals at the archiepiscopal court, been schoolmasters, etc. A lot of them
had been members of the Benedictine convent at Nidarholm or the Augustinian
convent at Helgeseter right outside the city. The convent at Helgeseter, which
Archbishop Øystein Erlendsson established, may have served as a kind of proto-
or parallel chapter before a real secular cathedral chapter came into being in the
thirteenth century. ‘Mensa communis’ for the cathedral canons in Nidaros did
not exist until 1252.37 Some of the Norwegian-born suffragans, such as Audun
Þorbergsson in Hólar (1313–22), had also combined service at the cathedral
with service for the king. Audun had been Håkon V’s treasurer in Trøndelag
and was highly appreciated by the king. Around 1300 good relations between
king and archbishop had resumed, not least because Archbishop Jørund needed
royal protection in his conflict with the cathedral chapter. King Håkon in 1297
even made Jørund his earl. However, the metropolitan’s relations with the king
do not matter in our context. There is no evidence that the king intervened in
the appointments of insular bishops between 1280 and 1380. Clergy from the
countryside occur among the insular bishops elect as well, as for instance Lodin
to Kirkjubøur (1308–16). He had been a priest at St Peter’s church in Borgund in
Sunnmøre, which until 1622 was part of the archdiocese. However, Lodin never
obtained consecration, because Archbishop Jørund died soon after the election.
When the cathedral chapter in Nidaros ordered the Bishop of Stavanger to
consecrate him, Bishop Arne in Bergen intervened and sent a letter of protest to
the Curia. So far, we can conclude that many of the candidates to this core of insular
bishoprics were men well known to the archbishops, and men they could trust.
mik undir brotit af stéttum, sem mörgum er kunnigt, at enga vænting hefi ek til þess at þeir
munu mér vold skipa.’ Biskopa Sögur, ed. by Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, p. 351.
36
Biskopa Sögur, ed. by Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, p. 366.
37
Hamre, ‘Domkapitel (Norge)’, cols 195f.
Next to Nidaros, canons and monks from the bishopric of Bergen were
preferred as insular suffragans. Some of them had belonged to Benedictine
convents like Selja at Stadt in the northern part of the diocese, or Munkeliv
in Bergen. The Augustinian brothers at Jonskirken in Bergen were popular
candidates as well. Like Helgeseter in Nidaros, Jonskirken had been a sort of
proto- or parallel chapter in Bergen before a secular chapter came into being.
There is one Dominican among the bishops elect from Bergen, namely Jon
Halldorsson, Bishop of Skálholt (1322–39). He had studied canon law in Paris
and Bologna. Like many of his Icelandic colleagues, he died in Norway.
The cathedral chapter in Bergen too furnished insular dioceses with bishops.
As already mentioned, Kirkjubøur was a favourite among the Bergen clergy. In
1246 Peter, Bishop Arne’s chaplain, was ordained Bishop of Kirkjubøur, and
when in 1256 Arne died Pope Alexander at the request of the cathedral chapter
translated him to Bergen. The conflict between Nidaros and Bergen over the
right to elect bishops to Kirkjubøur does not seem to have influenced relations
between the Faeroese bishops and their metropolitan. Skálholt too was popular
among Bergen clerics. Finally, two bishops, to Gardar and Hólar respectively, had
been canons at the cathedral chapter in Stavanger.
Even though documentary evidence from the Faeroes and Greenland is
extremely fragmentary, we may, from what we know about the ethnic background
of the suffragans and their election, assume that relations with the metropolitans
and the clerical milieu in Norway were close. Many of them remained in Norway
for many years; some of the Gardar bishops never visited their bishopric but
stayed in Nidaros where they assisted the archbishop for instance in the visitation
of his huge diocese.
We may assume that bishops from Norway did not leave their ethnic iden-
tity behind when moving to Iceland. Icelanders were very conscious with regard
to ethnicity, and they constantly stress their native identity. Norwegians were
foreigners, often named ‘austmenn’ (men from the east). Nevertheless, Nor-
wegians had to adjust to Icelandic culture and society, and we cannot rule out
that a common clerical identity evolved in the Norse lands during the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries. The Icelandic bishops of native stock too belonged to
and were dependant on a common professional and social network centred on
Nidaros and the metropolitan see. On the other hand, the Icelanders had divided
loyalties, not least because of kinship, which are being illustrated in the bishops’
sagas, for instance in the case of Árni Þorláksson.38
38
Beistad, ‘An Almost Fanatical Devotion to the Pope?’, pp. 124f.
170 Steinar Imsen
In her doctoral dissertation, Erika Sigurdson argues convincingly for the

development of a clerical elite in Iceland after 1297 with the bishops, the official
principals, the episcopal ‘ráðsmenn’ (managers), and the priests who were
entrusted with the richest churches at the top. A clerical elite culture evolved,
which Sigurdson characterizes as ‘a complex amalgam of learned, ecclesiastical
culture and long-standing Icelandic customs, adapted to suit this new clerical
milieu’.39 In this process the interplay between the Icelandic bishops and the
Church leadership in Nidaros was crucial. The Settlement at Avaldsnes of 1297
caused the introduction of a benefice system in the Icelandic Church, which
made the clergy independent from the traditional elite of chieftains. We should
add that the archbishop in Nidaros acquired some of the richest staðir in Iceland,
which they granted to deserving members of the Icelandic clergy. Magnús
Stefánsson refers to these staðir as archiepiscopal benefices.40 According to Erika
Sigurdson, this new clerical elite with strong ties to Nidaros merged with the new
Icelandic elite of royal servants in the fourteenth century.
Compared to the North Atlantic suffragans, the bishops from the Northern
Isles and the Hebrides seldom visited Norway after c. 1250. However, we should
have in mind that evidence is almost lacking. As far as we know, none of the bishops
from Orkney and Sodor studied in Nidaros, and except the senior præpositus in
Tønsberg, Jofrey, none of them had an occupational background from Norway.
After the middle of the thirteenth century, there were no connections between
the bishops in the British dioceses and the network of North Atlantic bishops. At
the turn of the thirteenth century, the bishops at Kirkwall did not belong to the
inner circle of Norse bishops, and the distance to Nidaros and their colleagues in
Iceland, the Faroes, and Norway grew larger throughout the late Middle Ages.
The End of the Story

Ecclesiastical reform was a major concern for the archbishop. His role in the
implementation of reform in the insular bishoprics was central with regard to
how metropolitan authority functioned. Øystein Erlendsson made a fresh start
as Archbishop of Nidaros, not only in Norway, but in Iceland as well, where
in the 1170s he launched a campaign to implement ecclesiastical reform. In
the beginning, Øystein’s campaign succeeded, not least, as already mentioned,
because of support from the bishop elect of Skálholt, Þórlakur Þórhallson.
39
Sigurdson, ‘The Church in Fourteenth-Century Iceland’, p. 203.
40
Magnús Stefánsson, Staðir og staðamál.
However, both archbishop and bishop met with considerable resistance from
the leading men of the country, and after 1181, when Øystein went into exile
in England, the Bishop of Skálholt had to give up the project of ecclesiastical
reform. The case of Iceland tells us that the archbishop alone did not have means
to overcome local structures of power as long as the local elite were able to unite
in protecting their interest in upholding the traditional ecclesiastical order.
The shift when Archbishop Sigurd turned away the two Icelandic bishops
elect, in 1238, meant a new start for ecclesiastical reform. However, it was not
until the reign of King Magnus Håkonsson (1263–80) and the archiepiscopacy
of Jon the Red (1268–82) that reform took off. As already mentioned, the Bishop
of Skálholt, Árni Þorláksson, was the key figure in the process. He always turned
to his superior in Nidaros for advice. Archbishop Jon equipped him with books
about canon law, and Árni’s own Christian law leaned heavily on Jon’s Christian
law for the bishopric of Nidaros.41 Árni succeeded in having his Christian law
accepted by the Alþingi (the General Assembly of Iceland) in 1275.42
The final breakthrough for an independent Church in Iceland happened
in the generation after the reign of Håkon V (1299–1319). Not only did the
Church leaders obtain control over the farmer’s churches, but in 1354, King
Magnus Eriksson (1319–74) also consented to the implementation of Árni
Þorláksson’s church law in the bishopric of Hólar.43 We should notice that
the Old Norse translations of the 1277 settlement between King Magnus and
Archbishop Jon are only found in Icelandic manuscripts, the oldest of them in the
so-called Codex Scardensis (1363). When the reform process started anew at the
end of Håkon V’s reign, the abovementioned Audun Torbergsson, a Norwegian
who in 1313 became bishop at Hólar, was a key figure. According to Jón Viðar
Sigurðsson, Audun’s ‘goal was to centralize the administration of the diocese and
to strengthen the bishop’s prestige, economy and authority. An important step in
this process was that he in 1318, as the first bishop in Iceland, collected máldagar
(cartularies) for individual churches in Holar see in one máldagar-collection,
called Auðunarmáldagar’.44 In general, Sigurðsson concludes, the fourteenth
century witnessed a centralization of episcopal authority and power in Iceland.
What we can learn from the protracted reform process in Iceland is that it
required an independent and ardent local bishop to lead the groundwork. He
41
Vadum, ‘Use of Canonistic Texts in Medieval Iceland’.
42
Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, ‘Island og Nidaros’, pp. 127–33.
43
Helgi Þorláksson, ‘Succumbing Secular Chiefs’.
44
Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, ‘The Organisation of Hólar Bishopric according to
Auðunarmáldagar’, p. 243.
172 Steinar Imsen
again was dependent on support from the outside, from the lord of the land
(the king) and his ecclesiastic superior (the archbishop). Metropolitan authority
was dependent on political stability and harmonious relations with secular
authorities. We should add that ecclesiastical reform needed time to overcome old
and deep-seated social, mental, and material structures. Probably the Icelanders
were still not ready for reform when in the 1170s Archbishop Øystein launched
his campaign in Iceland.
Even though the material resources of the Church, at least in Norway proper,
were bigger than those of the Crown, the Church leadership did not have the
power or force to carry through its plans. Inside the Church metropolitan
authority rested on a mutual understanding among the clergy as to their social
mission: what we might label hierarchical loyalty. The archbishop could convey
his will to the suffragans and other ecclesiastical dignitaries in many ways. He
could assemble them at provincial synods, which did not happen very often.
According to Knut Helle, bishops from outside Norway were seldom present at
important meetings in Norway. The combined coronation and provincial synod
in Bergen in 1280 was an exception, since as many as four insular bishops met,
having received summonses two ‘winters’ in advance.45 The four bishops were
Jörundr from Hólar, Erlend from the Faeroes, Árni from Skálholt, and Mark from
Sodor, but Jörundr, Erlend, and Árni only issued the provincial statute together
with the Norwegian bishops. To the provincial synods from 1290 to 1351 only
bishops from Iceland and the Faeroes came, except Bishop William from Orkney,
who attended the synods in 1320 and 1327, and Bishop Johannes from Gardar,
who was there in 1351. At the synods of 1334, 1336, and 1349, only Norwegian
bishops were present.46 Incidentally, the acts from the synods in 1290 to 1351 are
mostly about canon law matters and papal decisions, which the archbishop could
forward to the subordinated bishops by mail. Helle is probably right when he says
that attendance from overseas bishops at meetings in Norway was occasional and
sporadic, not least because of the great distances and the seasonal sailing pattern.
After 1351, insular bishops’ attendance at meetings in Norway are rare
exceptions. However, some of them met at Scandinavian summits, for instance
Bishop John Pak of Orkney, who was the only bishop from the Nidaros
province that attended King Erik’s coronation in Kalmar in 1397. According
to Eldbjørg Haug, Hallgeir, the Bishop of the Faeroes, probably attended King
Erik’s coronation in Oslo in 1392.47 When in 1435 Archbishop Aslak Bolt
45
Helle, Konge og gode menn i norsk riksstyring ca. 1150–1319, pp. 215–20.
46
Norges gamle love, iii, 229–306.
47
Haug, ‘The Nidaros Church as a Political Actor in the Norwegian Commonwealth’,
once again summoned the bishops to a provincial council, very few came, and
none from the insular bishoprics. However, the archbishop had other means
than provincial synods to assert his metropolitan authority. He could summon
bishops from overseas ad hoc, which in the case of Iceland happened often. The
archbishop also sent envoys with metropolitan decisions and commands to his
insular suffragans. Such envoys probably carried out visitations on behalf of the
archbishop. Moreover, he could instigate legal proceedings against those who
did not comply with canon law and episcopal behaviour, as in the case of Bishop
William of Orkney in the 1320s.48 Between the 1350s and the 1430s, however,
such metropolitan interference in local ecclesiastical matters is rare.
The protracted dismantling of the original Nidaros Province started in the first
half of the fourteenth century. After c. 1320 no bishops of Sodor were ordained
by any Archbishop of Trondheim, and when in 1349 the bishops of Sodor were
granted exemption from their obligation to visit Nidaros during their terms of
office, metropolitan authority in the islands was in fact suspended. However, the
Norwegian archbishops in reality never succeeded in enforcing their authority
in the Western Isles, and their position was further weakened when in 1266 the
King of Norway ceded Man and the Hebrides to the King of Scots, even though
the Treaty of Perth declares that the rights of the archbishop should not be
violated as a consequence of the transfer of sovereignty.
On the other hand, the ties between Nidaros and Kirkwall proved relatively
strong, not least because Shetland was forfeited to the Norwegian king in 1195,
and after 1266 Orkney as well was incorporated in the new monarchic state of
King Magnus the Lawmender and his sons. Still in the fifteenth century bishops
from Orkney visited Norway as when in 1426 Thomas Tulloch took part in the
negotiations in Bergen between Scotland and Norway to renew the Treaty of
Perth. At that occasion Thomas acted as a member of the Norwegian Council
of the Realm. However, the establishment of a cathedral chapter in Kirkwall
in the first half of the thirteenth century meant that the canons gained control
over episcopal elections, the effect of which was that in the long run the Church
of Orkney never was fully integrated in the Nidaros network. And, in the late
Middle Ages we can observe a strengthening of ecclesiastical self-rule and insular
identity in Orkney-Shetland. Besides, after 1400 the Orkney clergy gravitated
increasingly towards Scotland, and especially St Andrews.
p. 125. Haug adds: ‘It is evident that the chapter of Nidaros and Archbishop Vinald Henriksson
(1387–1402) took responsibility for the church of the Faeroes the first years of the Great
Schism’.
48
Smith, ‘The Nidaros Church and “Norgesveldet”’, pp. 166–70.
174 Steinar Imsen
In contrast to these ‘peripheral’ British dioceses, the Atlantic bishoprics were

fully integrated into the web of Nidaros from c. 1270 until 1370. In this period the
archbishop and his canons exerted unlimited control of the appointment process.
Even though metropolitan authority was threatened by papal provisions and the
centralization of the late medieval Church, especially in the period c. 1380–1430,
the old system of appointments to the Norse dioceses in the Atlantic were almost
restored in the second half of the fifteenth century. Thus, at latest from the turn
of the thirteenth century, we can observe a bisection of the archbishops’ insular
realm between a Norse-Atlantic core and a British periphery, which was finally
lost in 1472.
Works Cited
Primary Sources
Adam von Bremen, Hamburgische Kirchengeschichte, ed. by Bernhard Schmeidler (Han-
nover: Hahn, 1917)
Biskopa Sögur, vol. iii: Árna saga biskups, Lárentius saga biskups, ed. by Guðrún Ása
Grímsdóttir, Íslenzk fornrit, 17 (Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 1998)
Diplomatarium Danicum, 1st ser., vol. ii: 1053–1169 (København: Reitzel, 1963)
Diplomatarium Norvegicum, vols i–xxiii (Christiania/Oslo: Malling, 1847–1911)
Hákonar saga, vol. ii, ed. by Sverrir Jakobsson and Þorleifur Hauksson, Íslenzk fornrit, 31
(Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 2013)
Norges gamle love, 1st ser., vols i–v (Christiania, 1846–95), 2nd ser., vols i–iv (Christiania/
Oslo: Grøndahl, 1912–95)
Norske middelalderdokumenter, ed. by Sverre Bagge, Synnøve Holstad Smedsdal, and
Knut Helle (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1973)
Secondary Sources
Andersen, Per Sveaas, ‘The Orkney Church in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: A
Stepdaughter of the Norwegian Church’, Collegium Medievale, 2.1 (1989), 5–25
Beistad, Heidi Anett Øvergård, ‘An Almost Fanatical Devotion to the Pope? Power and
Priorities in the Integration of the Nidaros Province, c. 1152–1300’ (unpublished
doctoral thesis, NTNU Trondheim, 2016)
—— , ‘Election and Rejection: The Norwegian “Seizure” of the Icelandic Bishoprics
in 1237–39’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in
the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen
(Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 203–29
Bull, Edvard, Det norske folks liv og historie gjennom tidene, vol. ii (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1931)
Crawford, Barbara E., ‘The Bishopric of Orkney’, in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537:

Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trond-
heim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 2003), pp. 143–58
—— , ‘St. Magnus Cathedral: A Proprietorial Church of the Orkney Earls?’, in ‘Ecclesia
Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian
Domination in the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012),
pp. 177–202
Dahlrup, Troels, ‘Orkney Bishops and Suffragans in the Scandinavian-Baltic Area’, in
Scotland and Scandinavia, 800–1800, ed. by Grant G. Simpson (Edinburgh: John
Donald, 1990), pp. 38–47
Grohse, Ian Peter, ‘Defending Country and Realm: Military Features and the Norse-Scottish
Frontier’, in Rex Insularum: The King of Norway and his ‘Skattlands’ as a Political System,
c. 1250 – c. 1450, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Bergen: Fakbogforlaget, 2014), pp. 163–79
Hamre, Lars, ‘Domkapitel (Norge)’, in Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder,
vol. iii (København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1958), cols 195–98
—— , ‘Kannikgjeld’, in Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder, vol. xxi (Køben-
havn: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1977), cols 227–30
—— , ‘Striden mellom erkebiskop Jørund og domkapitlet i Nidaros’, in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis
1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed. by Steinar
Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 2003), pp. 187–213
Haug, Eldbjørg, ‘The Council of Basle, the Rise against King Erik of Pomerania and the
Last Provincial Statute of Norway’, Monumenta Iuris Canonici: Series C, Subsidia,
2016, 343–53
—— , ‘The Nidaros Church as a Political Actor in the Norwegian Commonwealth’, in
Rex Insularum: The King of Norway and his ‘Skattlands’ as a Political System, c. 1250 –
c. 1450, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Bergen: Fakbogforlaget, 2014), pp. 101–39
Helgi Þorláksson, ‘Succumbing Secular Chiefs: On Secular Chiefs in Iceland, their Loss
of Ground to the Church, c. 1270 to 1355, and its Impact’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’
and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making of Norwegian Domination in
the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 261–82
Helle, Knut, Konge og gode menn i norsk riksstyring ca. 1150–1319 (Bergen: Universitets-
forlaget, 1972)
Imsen, Steinar, ed., Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på Nidaroskirkens og Nidaros
provinsens historie (Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag, 2003)
Johnsen, Arne Odd, ‘Subsidium pallii’, in Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder,
vol. xvii (København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1972), cols 410–19
Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, ‘Island og Nidaros’, in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på
Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir
akademisk forlag, 2003) pp. 121–40
—— , ‘The Organisation of Hólar Bishopric according to Auðunarmáldagar’, in ‘Ecclesia
pp. 243–59
176 Steinar Imsen
Kolsrud, Oluf, Den norske Kirkes Erkebiskoper og Biskoper indtil Reformationen,

Diplomatarium Norvegicum, 17B (Christiania, 1913)
Magnús Stefánsson, Staðir og staðamál: Studier i islandske egenkirkelige og beneficialrettslige
forhold i Middelalderen, Part I, Historisk institutt, Skrifter 4 (Bergen: Universitetet i
Bergen, 2000)
Munch, Peter Andreas, Det norske Folks Historie, vol. iv.2 (Christiania, 1859)
Sigurdson, Erika Ruth, ‘The Church in Fourteenth-Century Iceland: Ecclesiastical
Administration, Literacy, and the Formation of an Elite Clerical Identity’ (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds, 2011)
Smith, Brian, ‘The Nidaros Church and “Norgesveldet”: Shetland to 1470’, in ‘Ecclesia
pp. 163–76
Thomas, Sarah, ‘The Diocese of Sodor and its Connection to Nidaros and the Curia after
1266’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church in the Making
of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim:
Akademika, 2012), pp. 143–62
Vadum, Kristoffer, ‘Use of Canonistic Texts in Medieval Iceland: The Case of AM 671
4o fol. 40r–63v’, in ‘Ecclesia Nidrosiensis’ and ‘Noregs veldi’: The Role of the Church
in the Making of Norwegian Domination in the Norse World, ed. by Steinar Imsen
(Trondheim: Akademika, 2012), pp. 283–300
Woolf, Alex, ‘The Diocese of Sudreyar’, in Ecclesia Nidrosiensis 1153–1537: Søkelys på
Nidaroskirkens og Nidarosprovinsens historie, ed. by Steinar Imsen (Trondheim: Tapir
akademisk forlag, 2003), pp. 171–82
Part III
Individual Bishops
The Scolari Family at the Head of the
Bishopric of Volterra (1261–1269)
Jacopo Paganelli
Introduction
On 24 November 1295, Pope Boniface VIII asked the Prior of S. Stefano al
Ponte of Florence to investigate a series of accusations advanced against one
Scolaro, known as Cimpo, and one Giovanni, members of the aristocratic family
of the Scolari. The two were accused of the assault and robbery of the monastery
of Passignano, an important religious house not far from Florence, from which
they allegedly stole chalices, prayer books, and other precious objects. This
event disproves the narrative according to which by the late thirteenth century,
aristocratic violence was under the control of the most powerful city communes.
At Passignano, like many other localities, it was not uncommon to find armed
knights (milites) carrying out robberies, as this activity remained an important
element of social distinction and economic revenue. In the late thirteenth
century, the activity of civic councils did not hold a political monopoly, but
left space for other forms of power. Moreover, it is possible that Scolaro and
Giovanni were seeking a reward from their uncle Alberto Scolari, Bishop of
Volterra between 1261 and 1269 and consobrinus (cousin) of the cardinal
Ottaviano Ubaldini.1 Indeed, at the end of the thirteenth century, the bishops
1
This deed took place long before Boniface’s pontificate, most likely in the second half of
Jacopo Paganelli (jacopo.paganelli@cfs.unipi.it) has finished his PhD at the University of

Pisa and now is a postdoctoral researcher at the same university. His research interests focus on
Tuscany during High and Late Middle Ages.
180 Jacopo Paganelli
of Volterra exerted rights of lordship (dominatus loci) over at least four castles,
even if their authority on the town of Volterra itself had been contested some
years before. For a long time, historians of late medieval Italy have privileged
the study of urban political systems. This was mainly because of the wealth of
the documentary sources produced and preserved in these urban environments,
and the belief that Duecento men perceived the governance of the res publica
within the city as the most worthy human activity. As a result, rural lordships
were largely ignored, or studied in relation to the expansion of the communes
into their surrounding territory. As recent scholarship has showed, however, civic
communes did not expand their authority everywhere. In the second half of the
thirteenth century, Tuscany was not just a land of powerful cities, but also one of
numerous political, economic, and cultural areas controlled by robust lordships,
lay (such as the comital family of the Guidi) as well as ecclesiastical (such as the
bishops of Volterra and Arezzo). In many instances, these lordships had risen and
consolidated after the breakdown of the institutions of the regnum in the eleventh
and early twelfth centuries, a period which some historians have characterized as
‘feudal revolution’.2
the 1260s. The letter sent by Boniface VIII to the Prior of S. Stefano ad Pontem against Scolaro
and Giovanni may be found in ASF, Diplomatico Passignano, S. Michele, ad datam. The two
aristocrats were accused because ‘tempore quo Florentina civitas adherebat quondam Manfredo
olim principi Tarentino ad monasterium predictum cum quibusdam suis complicibus armata
manu hostiliter accedentes monasterium ipsum temerarie occuparunt ac illud detinuerunt per
quatuor annos et amplius occupatum, fructus, redditus et proventus eiusdem percipiendo, et
libros, calices, onamenta ecclesiastica et alia bona ibidem inventa exinde nequiter absportando’.
The letter is discussed in Plesner, L’emigrazione dalla campagna alla città libera di Firenze,
pp. 149–50. Ottaviano Ubaldini, ‘’l Cardinale’, is depicted in Dante’s Inferno (X, 118–20) as
lying near the emperor Frederick II, where the epicureans are punished. He is believed to have
said: ‘si anima est, ego perdidi millies pro Gibellinis’ (see Vasina, ‘Ubaldini, Ottaviano degli’).
Now essential on the issues concerning kinship in the ecclesiastical world is Varanini, ‘Strategie
familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica’. On rural lordships, see Feller, Paysans et seigneurs au Moyen
Âge; for the Tuscan case, see Wickham, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’. For the political events
mentioned infra, see Canaccini, Ghibellini e ghibellinismo in Toscana, pp. 297–352; and Najemy,
Storia di Firenze, pp. 86–91. See also Bastianoni, Cherubini, and Pinto, La Toscana ai tempi
di Arnolfo. For a historiographical point of view over the years 1260–66, see Faini, ‘I sei anni
dimenticati’.
2
See Pinto and Pirillo, Lontano dalle città; Collavini, ‘I signori rurali in Italia centrale’. The
commune of Volterra had become independent notwithstanding Barbarossa’s concessions to
Bishop Galgano (1150–68), among which were the jurisdiction over the comitatus around the
city. In the thirteenth century, the bishops still held jurisdiction over the castles of Berignone,
Montalcinello, Montieri, and Montecastelli; for the development of the ecclesiastical lordship
of Volterra, see Paganelli, ‘“Infra nostrum episcopatum et comitatum”’.
the scolari family at the head of the bishopric of volterra 181
In this essay, I shall use the region around Volterra (known as Volterrano) as a
case study to analyse the consolidation of power in a rural lordship untouched by
civic governments. In particular, I will focus on the role of Bishop Alberto Scolari
and his retinue within the Ghibelline party that dominated Tuscany between
the Battle of Montaperti of 1260 and the Battles of Benevento in 1266 and
Colle Valdelsa in 1269. The bishopric of Volterra exerted a considerable degree
of attraction for Tuscan aristocratic families, thanks to the highly remunerative
offices available within its entourage, such as the governorship of episcopal castles
and other administrative roles. In terms of opportunities for the milites, the rural
lordship of Volterra was comparable to civic governments. At the same time, the
bishop benefited from the collaboration with the milites, because his lordship was
strengthened by the presence of a supporting aristocracy. For this purpose, in the
final part of this study I have inserted an appendix of three unpublished documents
taken from the Episcopal Archive of Volterra: these documents will help to
enlighten the connections and the ways through which Alberto led his policy.3
In June 1251, Filippo di Sinibaldo Scolari, a relative of Alberto, swore
allegiance to the Ghibelline league with the commune of Siena and other Tuscan
polities, ‘pro se ipso et pro omnibus hominibus sue domus’ (for himself and all the
other men of his house). In the wake of the death of Frederick II, the pro-imperial
faction, led by Farinata degli Uberti, had found a precious and strong ally in the
city of Siena. Meanwhile, the members of the Primo Popolo of Florence were
pursuing the hegemony of their city on a regional scale. In 1254, having subjected
the town of Poggibonsi, the commune of Florence gained a definitive foothold
in the Valdelsa by acquiring the castle of Pulicciano from Neri Piccolino of the
Uberti family. And after a truce with Siena achieved on 11 June 1254, Florence
imposed a pro-Florentine regime at Volterra. In those years, Alberto Scolari had
moved from his position as a canon in the chapter of the cathedral of Florence,
where he was in 1257, to that of Archdeacon of Bologna, where he remained
until 1261, at which point Pope Alexander IV sent him to the see of Volterra.4
Alberto’s election as Bishop of Volterra happened soon after the resignation
of Ranieri I Ubertini, who had never been consecrated by the pope. Ranieri had
been chosen by Innocent IV to form a boundary against the Florentines together
3
Raveggi, ‘Siena nell’Italia dei guelfi e dei ghibellini’.
4
The truce between Siena and Florence is in ASS, Dipl. Riformagioni, ad datam. For these
political events, see Davidsohn, Storia di Firenze, pp. 535–860; and Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de
Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 112–14, especially for Pulicciano: this castle was sold to Florence
by Ranieri Piccolino on 18 December 1254 (ASF, Capitoli, 30, fol. 184). The quotation in the
text is taken from ASF, Capitoli, Appendice 44, fol. 25r.
with his brother Guglielmino, Bishop of Arezzo. However, Ranieri had later
agreed an alliance with Florence, granting them a substantial share of the areas of
jurisdiction controlled by the see of Volterra.5 At a second stage, the Senesi forced
the bishop to change his alliance, as they managed the silver mines of Montieri and
were the bishop’s creditors for enormous sums. Thus, Bishop Ranieri promised:
quod terras dicti Episcopatus vel aliquam ipsarum non submictemus vel
supponemus alicui comitatui vel loco seu alicui speciali persone toto tempore vite
nostre et etiam hinc ad duodecim annos nec supponi vel submicti promittemus,
immo procurabimus et faciemus ne fiat, nec societatem vel federationem aliquam
faciemus nos vel successores nostri usque dictum tempus sine parabola et licentia
dicti Comunis Senensis, exceptis fidelibus dicti Episcopatus presentibus qui non
sint inimici Comunis Senensis.6
[that we shall not subject the lands of the said episcopate nor any of these to any
commune or person for the entire duration of our life and for the next twelve years,
promising that we shall not have them subjected by anyone. And we also shall make
sure that this does not happen, and promise not to constitute any league, either us
or our descendants, within this period of time and without the authorization and
licence of the commune of Siena, with the exception of the faithful who are not
enemies of the commune of Siena.]
The outcome of the Battle of Montaperti and the defeat of the Florentines
forced the Holy See to choose a Florentine bishop for Volterra, lest the political
chessboard of Tuscany become too unbalanced and favourable for Siena.7
Alberto Scolari and his Networks

The first official act carried out by Alberto Scolari dates to 11 June 1261, when
he appointed two men as notaries at San Gimignano. However, we do not
know the date of the two ‘procuria partis ghibellinorum Florentinorum ad
componendum amicitiam et societatem cum episcopo Vulterrano’ (power of
5
The alliance between Florence and Ranieri I, officialized by the episcopal notary Lamberto,
is in ADV, Diplomatico, 760. For Ranieri Ubertini, see Paganelli, ‘Ubertini, Ranieri’. For Arezzo
in the same years, see Scharf, Potere e società ad Arezzo.
6
ASS, Dipl. Riformagioni, 31 August 1254.
7
On 6 June 1255, the commune of Siena deliberated about the fact that the commune
of Florence tried to ‘habere Massam et episcopatum Vulterre’ (ASS, Consiglio Generale,
Deliberazioni, 4, fol. 78r). ‘Rainerius de Ubertinis olim electus Vulterranus’ was still alive in
1285 (see BGV, MS 8491, III, fol. 18v).
attorney granted by the Ghibelline party of Florence to forge an alliance with

the Bishop of Volterra), and the ‘instrumentum amicitie et societatis inter eos seu
procuratores eorum’ (treaty of alliance between them or their proctors).8 In the
autumn of that year, Alberto began an energetic programme to regain the lost
rights of his episcopate. So, for example, the bishop appointed a new governor of
the castle of Montevoltraio, little more than a mile from Volterra, and provided
for nine soldiers (masnaderii) to reside in the fortress so that they might guard it.
Zambrasio, the personal notary of Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini, was also present
when Alberto provided for the castle of Montevoltraio to be defended. However,
the castle soon capitulated to the Volterrani in July 1262. The conditions of
the peace, which survive only fragmentarily, foresaw a large reimbursement for
the bishop, which was accepted ‘pro se et amicis et de domo de Scolaribus’ (for
himself and his allies and regarding the Scolari family), and the ‘ratificatio domini
cardinalis in partibus’ (ratification made by the cardinal legate).9
As we learn from this document, some members of Alberto’s family —
probably, but not surely, his nephews who would later occupy the monastery
of Passignano — fought alongside their uncle, hoping perhaps to draw some
financial benefits for their services. Who were the masnaderi tasked with the
defence of Montevoltraio, however? Three of these came from San Giuliano di
Settimo near Signa in the episcopate of Florence, two came from Fiesole, and the
other two from Florence. These extensive geographical origins reflect the outreach
of the Scolari family as well that of the Counts of Gangalandi, the patrons of
the church of S. Martino nel Valdarno near Florence, and fellow members of
the Ghibelline party. Since at least 1251, a member of the Gangalandi (another
Alberto) had been a canon at Florence, where he perhaps met his homonymous
future Bishop of Volterra. In 1261, Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini appointed the
cleric Ghibellino da Gangalandi as Prior of S. Martino. Ghibellino, whose name
tells us much about the political orientation of his family, would become one
of the most trusted advisors to Alberto Scolari, and canon of the cathedral of
Volterra after 1264.10
8
See BGV, MS 8494, III, fols 39r, 40r; and ASF, Capitoli, Appendice, 44, fol. 25r.
9
See Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 128–31.
10
Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 146–48 and pp. 151–52. The Counts
of Gangalandi, like the Scolari, incurred troubles with the ecclesiastical authorities because of
their violent character, as demonstrated, for example, by the accusations advanced by the vicar
of the Bishop of Florence against Lapo di Filippo in 1266, for crimes against the church of S.
Martino in Palma, under the jurisdiction of S. Salvatore di Settimo. ASF, Dipl. S. Frediano in
Cestello, 28 June 1266.
Together with ties of solidarity cultivated within the Church, the link between
Alberto Scolari and the Counts of Gangalandi was furthermore cemented
by military support provided to the bishop. After the defeat of Manfredi, in
February 1266, the leader of the Ghibelline party, Guido Novello, asked the cities
of Tuscany to send knights in order to support his power in Florence, according
to the chronicle written by Giovanni Villani. We know that various members of
the Gangalandi, namely Tondellino, Catello, Lambresco, Chianni, Piggello, and
Tecco, were ‘in servitio domini episcopi’ (in service of the lord bishop) on 17 June
1266, when the blacksmith of the bishop certified that Tondellino’s warhorse was
sick.11 An important aspect is that the Bishop of Volterra, a Florentine citizen, was
felt like an authority capable of certifying the disease of Tondellino’s warhorse,
declaring that he could not to be sent to Florence. Publica fides (i.e. the power of
certifying) recognized to the Bishop of Volterra and to his blacksmith enlightens
how faible were the barriers between the urban communes and the rural lordships
even in the second half of the thirteenth century.12
Villani thought that Guido Novello asked the allies for knights because,
on 24 May 1266, the pope appointed two friars of the so-called Ordo Fratrum
Gaudentium, Catalano and Loderingo, to bring peace in Florence as the city
was becoming reconciled with the Holy See: according to the chronicler, the
appointment made by Clement IV aroused Guido’s envy. On 18 June 1266,
Ghibellino, Prior of S. Martino in Gangalandi, designated three procurators to
act against the measures taken by the friars Catalano and Loderingo, concerning
the return of the goods seized by the commune of Florence, which could damage
the estate of San Martino. The document is very important because it enlightens
how the friars sent by the pope were promoting the reconciliation in Florence; on
the other side, it clarifies how the networks between the episcopal clique and the
city of Florence were strong.13
Moreover, in 1265 Chianni, son of Corrado and brother of Tecco and
Catello of the Gangalandi, was appointed as podestà of the episcopal castle of
Montecastelli in Valdicecina. In the same year, the bishop nominated Piggello,
brother of Tondellino and of Alberto canon at Florence, as general vicar in
temporalibus of the episcopate, a rather important office indeed. Thus, Alberto
Scolari had fully absorbed a powerful Ghibelline Florentine aristocratic family —
11
See Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 154–55.
12
See Tarassi, ‘Il regime guelfo’, pp. 73–90; Villani, Nuova Cronica, ed. by Porta, pp. 352–54.
13
For the Fratres Gaudentes, see Gazzini, ‘I Disciplinati, la milizia dei frati Gaudenti, il
comune di Bologna e la pace cittadina’. Villani, Nuova Cronica, ed. by Porta, p. 352, uses the
word ‘gelosia’ to explain the behaviour adopted by Guido Novello.
a background similar to his own — into his entourage, rewarding his allies and
supporters with numerous prestigious offices. This was undoubtedly a successful
political manoeuvre, as it guaranteed the support of the dominant political party
to the episcopate.14
Proof of this is the acquisition of the castle of Pulicciano in the Valdelsa, a
manoeuvre planned by Cardinal Ottaviano Ubaldini. The castle of Pulicciano
had anciently been the property of the bishops of Volterra, but Frederick II
had granted it to the powerful clan of the Uberti and in particular to Ranieri
Piccolino, brother of the more famous Farinata. It is worth mentioning that
Ranieri Piccolino had been an associate of Brancaleone Scolari, a relative of
Bishop Alberto, as the two had signed a payment to the commune of Siena on
behalf of the Ghibelline party of Florence on 10 August 1250. Bishop elect
Ranieri I of Volterra had sought to reconquer the castle of Pulicciano by putting
together an army, but his efforts were in vain, despite the financial and military
help received from San Gimignano. In December 1254, Ranieri Piccolino sold
the castle to the commune of Florence.15
When Alberto Scolari was appointed as Bishop of Volterra, the castle was still
occupied by Ranieri Piccolino. Unlike Ranieri I, Alberto did not seek to take the
castle back through military force. Rather, he took a diplomatic path, also exploiting
the strong links of solidarity which existed within the Ghibelline faction. Thus,
on 8 May 1263, Ranieri Piccolino and Bishop Alberto asked Cardinal Ottaviano
Ubaldini to act as a peacemaker so as to solve the question of Pulicciano.16
In 1258, the cardinal had sought to overturn the regime of the Primo Popolo
of Florence, together with some Ghibelline allies such as the Uberti and the
Scolari. The conspiracy had failed, and many Florentines had been forced to take
refuge in Siena. Thus, it is clear why the bishop and his counterparty had recourse
to Ottaviano: the delegate of the Holy See was a common friend to both Uberti
and Scolari. Upon examination of the dispute, the cardinal finally declared:
Ecclesia Vulterrana intentionem suam non plene fundaverat in hac parte ex quo
iura ipsius Ecclesie dubia credebantur; et […], propter potentiam dicti nobilis et
propter alias multas causas, castrum ipsum cum eius curte iuribus et pertinentiis
suis magis dispendiosum et dampnosum quam fructuosum eidem Ecclesie posset
14
Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 154–55. Piggello appears to be
Alberto’s general vicar in ADV, Diplomatico, 512.
15
The receipt of payment is in ASS, Dipl. Riformagioni, 10 August 1250. For Ranieri I and
Pulicciano, see Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 142–45. When the castle of
Pulicciano had been granted to Ranieri Piccolino by Frederick II is unknown.
16
ADV, Diplomatico, 496.
existere presertim, cum proventus ipsius castri cum eius curte, iuribus et pertinentiis
suis annui modici sine valoris.17
[The church of Volterra has not argued its instances well as its rights appear as
dubious. Moreover, because of the power of [Ranieri Piccolino], and because of
many other reasons, the castle itself and its modest jurisdiction without much value
may represent a costly and troubling nuisance, rather than an advantage, for the
said church since the income from this castle and the rights attached to it are of
small annual value.]
As the document reads, the cardinal argued that the Church of Volterra was not
powerful enough to drive the Uberti out. But it is probable that the cardinal
needed the bishop and Ranieri not to be at war, so as to weaken the Ghibelline
front. Thus, Ottaviano established that Ranieri Piccolino should become a vassal
of Bishop Alberto, pay him half a golden florin every year, and serve as a knight for
his overlord. This oath of fealty had to be sworn again every twenty-eight years.
On 30 May 1263, a great ceremony of homage was set up. Zambrasio, notary of
the cardinal, and Ubaldino di Pila (represented by Zambrasio) declared that they
would obtain papal approval for the compromise arbitrated by Ottaviano. The
ceremony, which was held at the church of Casole d’Elsa, was attended — among
other people — by Mainetto, Bishop of Fiesole, and Ghibellino da Gangalandi,
Prior of San Martino.18
Conclusion
In his analysis of leading Ghibelline families at Florence in the aftermath of the
Battle of Montaperti, the Italian historian Sergio Raveggi noticed that the Counts
of Gangalandi were characterized by a low degree of political participation in the
councils of the city. Raveggi hypothesized that this was caused by the refusal of the
aristocratic Gangalandi to mix with urban families of recent social affirmation.
In fact, however, we know that the Gangalandi did not invest in the communal
institutions, but rather in the rural lordship of Volterra, as its bishops remained
wealthy and powerful by the end of the thirteenth century. The servitium episcopi
was probably seen as something more appropriate for the aristocratic lifestyle of
the Gangalandi, and certainly as something more financially rewarding. In 1268,
Pigello took part in the Ghibelline assault against Volterra, which had been taken
back by the Guelphs after the Battle of Benevento (1266). As the siege failed, the
17
18
ADV, Diplomatico, 500, 501, both edited in the Appendix below.
count was captured. At that point, Alberto wrote to the members of the Commune
of Volterra, begging them to release his protegee in return for a rich series of
jurisdictional concessions. Because of recent political events, the bishop had been
forced to steer his policy in favour of the Guelphs, up to the point where Alberto
facilitated the election of Foligno degli Adimari, a relative of his, as podestà of
Gambassi in Valdelsa (a castle in which the bishop shared his jurisdiction together
with San Gimignano). At this stage, politics moved along the lines of blood kin,
which ran across the divisions between Guelphs and Ghibellines.19
We do not know whether Alberto’s petition on behalf of the Count of
Gangalandi was successful, but Piggello was released from prison. What is
worth noticing here is that rural lordships such as that of the Bishop of Volterra
constituted important paths for social ascendency, rather similarly to the cities.
For aristocratic clans, distinguished by an attitude to rule, the decision to focus
one’s familial strategies on the city or rural lordship depended on a number of
different aspects, although never determined by teleology. At the same time, the
episcopal see was strengthened by these links, and the bishop became as strong as
the families supporting him were. In particular, we have seen how the entourage
of the Bishop of Volterra was based on a number of elements: family connections
(between uncle and nephews), factional allegiance (Gangalandi and Scolari),
geographical proximity (the Florentine masnaderii present at Montevoltraio),
and economic interests. Moreover, all these elements created, pour ainsi dire,
an osmotic connection between the episcopal clique and the city of Florence
during Alberto’s pontificate, as the events that happened in Florence had strong
repercussions in Volterra.
But the argument can be further developed: as in the rest of medieval Europe a
city was characterized by the presence of a cathedral within the walls; an episcopal
lordship in the countryside was never rural tout court, because the bishop always
maintained a special and indissoluble relation with his city. Indeed, in addition
to his religious prerogatives, he could find it extremely profitable to bring the
crops he cultivated in his farms to town, in order to gain high profits from the
urban market. Given this bond, the episcopal entourage was never a fully rural
entity, because its members also followed the bishop when he was in the city: as
we have seen, the vicissitudes concerning Piggello, Count of Gangalandi, deeply
influenced the political life of the city when he took part in the assault on Volterra,
forcing his lord to deal with the commune. The weight of the episcopal clique
19
See Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 155–56. Raveggi, ‘Il regime
ghibellino’, p. 32. See also Raveggi, ‘Le famiglie di parte ghibellina nella classe dirigente della
città di Firenze durante il xiii secolo’.
was so significant that it could affect the appointment of the next bishop: not
accepting the election — made by the other members of the cathedral chapters
— of Guglielmo Pannocchieschi, a powerful family which, at that time, was
reconciled with the Angevins, the canons Ghibellino and Bertoldo left Volterra
and barricaded themselves in the castle of Berignone. In this fortress, Bertoldo and
Ghibellino, failing to recognize Guglielmo’s postulatio to the Holy See, proceeded
to an alternative election supported by the Counts of Gangalandi. They chose
Cacciaconte Cacciaconti, the Bishop of Cremona who could not take possession of
his diocese, belonging to a powerful Ghibelline family of Siena. However, after the
Battle of Colle Valdelsa (1269) and the collapse of almost all hopes of the Ghibelline
party, the new pope, Gregory X, did not confirm Guglielmo Pannocchieschi
nor the candidate proposed by Ghibellino and Bertoldo, who, in the meanwhile,
returned to Volterra and made peace with the other canons.20
En résumé, considering the debate between those who claim the nearly
obvious superiority of the commune over the rural aristocracy, and those who
underline the resiliency of its members during the thirteenth century, it is possible
to assume that an episcopal entourage, at least of those bishoprics — like that of
Volterra — provided with great seigneurial estates, constituted a third way, by
which the members of the most important aristocratic families could improve
the consistence of their patrimonies, their military skills, and their attitudes to
command over other people.21
In 1272, by which point Alberto had been dead for three years, his nephews
asked the Cardinals Ottobono of Sant’Adriano and Uberto of Sant’Eustachio to
obtain ‘a certain quantity of silver in certain silver vases’ held by the canons of the
cathedral, which had been saved by Alberto ‘for his nephews’ (suis nepotibus).
Even if the document does not specify the names of the nephews, it is likely that
these were Scolaro and Giovanni.22
20
See Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, p. 151. For the support of the Counts
of Gangalandi to the canons who had left Volterra, see BGV, MS 5672, II, fol. 31v: ‘de comitibus
de Gangalandi qui arcem de Berignone Vulterrani Episcopatus quam tenent pro ut dicitur’
([Ghibellino belonging] to the Counts of Gangalandi who hold the castle of Berignone of the
Episcopate of Volterra, as they say). For Cacciaconte, see Kamp, ‘Cacciaconti, Cacciaconte’.
21
For a survey over the Tuscan aristocracy of the thirteenth century, see Cortese, ‘I destini
di un gruppo dominante nell’età della crescita’.
22
Paganelli, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”’, pp. 153–54.
Appendix
ADV, Cancelleria, Attività di governo, Notarile Rossa no. 1, fol. 26v.

Pateat publice quod dominus Gibellinus prior Let it be publicly known that Lord Ghibellino,
canonice Sancti Martini de Gangalandi Florentini prior of the rectory of St Martin of Gangalandi
comitatus nomine suo et dicte sue ecclesie fecit in the Florentine district, in his name and in that
constituit et ordinavit suos et dicte sue ecclesie of the aforementioned church, nominates and
sindicos procuratores et certos nuntios dominum appoints as attorneys Lord Pucciolo dei Ciappardi
Pucciolum de Cappiardis olim domini Piscis of the late Lord Pesce, Lapo of the late Lord
et Lapum olim domini Guidonis del Gallo et Guido del Gallo, and Banchello of Marabottino de
Banchellum filium Maraboctini de Infangatis cives Infangatis Florentine citizens absent, each of them
Florentinos absentes et quemlibet eorum in solidum on a joint basis, to present themselves to the Lords
ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis ad Loderengo and Catalano, friars of the Order of the
comparendum et representandum se pro eo et Militia of the Blessed Mary, at this time rectors and
dicta canonica coram dominis Loderingo et magistrates of the commune of Florence, and before
Catalano fratribus Ordinis militie Sancte Marie de every magistrate, captain, judge, or official of the
Bononia nunc rectoribus sive potestatibus Comunis Florentine commune to ask to immediately compel
Florentini et coram quocumque potestate capitaneo, Lord Rodolfo, son of Lord Tafuro of Gangalandi,
iudice vel officialibus Comunis Florentini et ad to abandon and liberate the possession of the
petendum instanter compelli dominum Rodulfum houses, of the farm and of the possessions and of
olim domini Tafuri de Gangalandi exire et liberam the lands positioned in the parish of San Michele
et expeditam dimictere possessionem domorum of Gangalandi that are due to the aforementioned
poderis et possessionum sive terrarum positarum prior and the rectory which it is said that Lord
in populo Sancti Micchaelis de Gangalandi Rodolfo has occupied on the occasion of a provision
spectantem ad dictum priorem et canonicam quam made by the said friars, i.e. that each should renew
intrasse dicitur nuper sive occupasse dictus dominus acquisition of his own possessions, simulating that
Rodulfus occasione cuiusdam bannimenti sive the said possession was due to him; and to act
promulgationis factorum ab ipsis fratribus scilicet in all these things against the said Lord Rodolfo
quod quilibet rediret ad possessionem suam, fingens and against every other possessor before the
ad se idem dominus Rodulfus dicta possessio aforementioned friars, magistrates, captain, judge,
spectare et ad agendum pro hiis omnibus et singulis or officials of the commune of Florence and to any
contra dictum dominum Rodulfum vel contra other ordinary or extraordinary judge, delegate,
quemcumque alium detentorem coram predictis or subdelegate, to answer in any court engaging in
fratribus, potestate, capitaneo, iudice vel officialibus any kind of judicial action and to respond to any
Comunis Florentini et aliis quibuscumque allegation in any court, either by inducing witnesses
iudicibus ordinariis sive extraordinariis, delegatis vel and presenting documents or challenging them.
subdelegatis et in quacumque curia respondendum, Promised to me, Ildebrandino, the undermentioned
excipiendum, replicandum, reconveniendum litem, notary, recipient for each party involved, in his name
contestandum et cuiuslibet generis sacramentum and in that of his church, regarding the ‘judgement
prestandum, petitiones faciendum et respondendum, of the sixth’ and the ‘sentence to be paid’ under the
testes et instrumenta inducendum et reprobandum, collateral of the assets of said church. Act in Casole,
sententiam audiendum et appellandum si opus Lord Bencivenni parish priest of the parish of
fuerit, et appellationes prosequendum et geraliter Villamagna of the Florentine diocese, Giovanni of

et cetera habiturus et cetera et in casu defensionis the late Ardiccione and Falco of the late Compagno
volens dictos suos procuratores et quemlibet eorum present as witnesses. Year of the Lord 1266, 9th
in solidum sublevare ab honere satisdationis. indiction, June 18th.
Promisit mihi Ildebrandino notario infrascripto
recipienti pro omni eo cuius interest et pro se et ipsa
sua ecclesia de iudicio sisti et iudicato solvendo sub
ypotheca bonorum dicte ecclesie. Actum Casulis
coram domino Bencivenne plebano plebis de
Villamagna Florentine diocesis, Iohanne quondam
Ardiccionis et Falco quondam Compagni testibus.
Anno Domini mocclxvi, indictione viiii, xviii iunii,

Roll of parchment, 29 × 22 cm.
On the backside: ‘carta promissionis facte episcopo Alberto a Rainerio Piccholino
de castro Pulicciani’ (document of the promise made to the Bishop Alberto da
Ranieri Piccolino regarding the castle of Pulicciano).
In nomine Domini amen. Ego Raynerius In the name of God, amen. I, Ranieri Piccolino,
Piccholinus quondam domini Iacobi Schiatte son of Lord Iacopo di Schiatta of Uberti, citizen
de Ubertis civis Florentinus, pro me ipso, et nos of Florence on my own behalf, and we, Ugolino
Ugolinus de Filiccione filius domini Ubaldini di Filiccione, son of Lord Ubaldino di Pila, and
de Pila et Zambrasius notarius de Burgo Sancti Zambrasio, notary of Borgo San Lorenzo, present
Laurentii, pro eo presente et mandante, et quisque on behalf of this man, and each of them, with all
nostrum principaliter in solidum proprio motu ex pertinent blessings do pledge and establish with
certa scientia et non per errorem per solempnem you, venerable father Lord Alberto, who with the
stipulationem promictimus et convenimus vobis grace of God is elected Bishop of Volterra, receiving
venerabili patri domino Alberto Dei gratia electo in your name and in that of the Church of Volterra
Vulterrano recipienti nomine vestro et nomine and of the diocese and of your successors, that we
dicte Ecclesie Vulterrane et Episcopatus et will ensure the approval of the most holy father
successorum vestrorum nos facturos et curaturos Pope Urban IV within three months, or a longer
ita quod sanctissimus pater dominus Urbanus term that you will permit, of the contract celebrated
papa quartus hinc ad tres menses proximos, vel ad today between you in the name of the diocese and I,
alium longiorem terminum quem nobis duxerit Ranieri Piccolino, as it fully consists of the deed made
prorogandum, contractum hodie celebratum inter by the notary Lamberto, son of Braccio Francobaro,
vos pro Episcopatu, ex parte una, et me dictum and all the things contained therein, and that it will
Rainerium Piccholinum, ex altera, super castro be ratified as is written, and we will give you in the
et de castro Pulicciani et eius curte et iuribus et aforementioned terms the letters of confirmation
pertinentiis suis omnibus, ut constat plene per or a public document made by a legal expert. And
singula instrumento rogato manu Lamberti notarii if we do not do all these things we will pay two
filii Bracii Francobari, et omnia in eo contenta, thousand lire of coins of Volterra as compensation;
ratificabit et confirmabit non dicendo ut rite factum a penalty to which each of us promises to fully and
est, sed simpliciter confirmabit ex certa scientia, completely adhere, to you and your successors, if
sicut scriptum est, et licteras confirmationis ipsius necessary and if the aforementioned conditions will
vel instrumentum publicum in laude sapientis not be observed and, having paid the penalty, we
sine malitia confectum vobis dabimus in termino promise to observe these conditions. We, all within
supradicto. Et si hec omnia non fecerimus, vobis our group and all our heirs, bind to you in pledge
dabimus et dare promictimus nomine pene duo for these things, and renounce the exception of the
milia libras denariorum Vulterranorum monete; unfulfilled promise and the contract not honoured,
quam penam vobis dabimus et dare promictimus of the condition without cause and for unjust cause,
et quisque nostrum in solidum et in totum and of the privilege of the court and the benefit of
vobis stipulatorio nomine dicti Episcopatus et the new constitution and constitutions that concern
successorum nostrorum si committeretur et the guarantors and all rights that are valid against
predicta omnia non observarentur etiam pena these things. Act in the church of Casole, the
soluta vel non commissa vel non predicta omnia per venerable father Lord Mainetto by the grace of God
singula observare promictimus. Obligando in hiis Bishop of Fiesole is present, as is Lord Ghibellino,
et pro eis nos et quemlibet nostrum in solidum et Prior of San Martino di Gangalandi; Lord Alberto,
nostros et cuiusque nostrum heredes et bona vobis parish priest of the parish church of Gerfalco; Lord
recipientibus ut dictum est pignore. Renuntiantes Dono, Prior of San Michele Bertelde, Florence;
exceptioni non facte permissionis et sic non and Lord Diedi, judge, son of the late Lord Iacopo
celebrati contractus, conditioni sine causa et ex of Florence, and other witnesses. Year of the Lord
iniusta causa et fori privilegio et beneficio nove et 1263, sixth indiction, May 30th.
novarum constitutionum de fideiussoribus et omni (Notarial mark) I, Lamberto, notary and son of
iuri contra hec agenti. Braccio di Francobaro, have witnessed all the
Actum in ecclesia de Casulis presentibus venerabili aforementioned things and all these things I have
patre domino Maynetto Dei gratia episcopo written and published.
Fesulano, domino Ghibellino priore Sancti
Martini de Gangalandi, domino Alberto plebano
plebis de Gerfalco, domino Dono priore Sancti
Michaelis Berteldi Florentini et domino Diedi
iudice quondam Iacoppi de Florentia et aliis testibus
vocatis et rogatis. Anno Domini millesimo ccolxiiio,
indictione via, xxxo maii.
(SN). Ego Lambertus notarius filius Braccii
Francobari predictis omnibus interfui et ea omnia
rogatus scripsi et publicavi.

Roll of parchment, 32 × 18.5 cm.
On the backside: ‘concessio castri Pulicciani per episcopum Vulterranum Rainerio
Picolino Florentino sub annuo censu medii florini’ (concession of the castle of
Pulicciano by the Bishop of Volterra to Ranieri Piccolino from Florence for a
yearly fee of a half florin).
In nomine Domini amen. Ego Rainerius Piccholinus In the name of God, amen. I, Ranieri Piccolino
quondam domini Iacobi Schiatte Florentinus of the late Lord Iacopo Schiatta of Florence, do
civis in veritate confiteor vobis domino Alberto veritably acknowledge to you, Lord Alberto, by the
Dei gratia Vulterrano electo recipienti nomine grace of God elected Bishop of Volterra, recipient
et vice Ecclesie Vulterrane et pro ea me nomine in the name of the Church of Volterra, in my name,
meo et heredum nostrorum habuisse et recepisse and in that of my heirs, that I have received from
a vobis dantibus et concedentibus in perpetuam you, given in perpetual emphyteusis, the castle of
emphyteosim castrum de Pulicciano qud est Ecclesie Pulicciano which is of the Church of Volterra,
Vulterrane cum pertinentiis et iuribus omnibus with its annexes and all the rights and jurisdiction
et curte dicti castri, ad habendum, tenendum, of the castle, to make use of it in perpetuity; by
possidendum, utendum et fruendum in perpetuum virtue of the concession granted to me, I have paid
[et] infinitum; pro quarum rerum concessione mihi the sum of 100 solidi of Pisan coins to you. And as
facta solvi vobis c solidos denariorum Pisanorum. remittance for these things I promise to pay you
Et pro earum rerum pensione et censu promicto yearly and indefinitely a half a gold florin of the
vobis ut dictum est recipientibus dare et solvere present currency before the feast of Saint Mary in
annuatim in perpetuum [et] in infinitum in festo the month of August. I also promise to you in the
Sancte Marie de mense Augusti medium florinum aforementioned manner that I will hold and possess
aureum ex florinis nunc currentibus. Promicto the castle of Pulicciano as leaseholder placed by you
etiam vobis recipientibus modo dicto castrum in the aforementioned goods, in your name and in
predictum et curte ipsius cum pertinentiis et iuribus that of your successors and of the aforementioned
suprascriptis tamquam emphyteotha in res dictas Church, in perpetuity, for me and for my heirs and,
a vobis susceptas emphyteothico iure pro vobis et every twenty-eight years, in the last year of this
successoribus vestris et dicta Ecclesia in perpetuum period I will request and receive the things said in
[et] in infinitum per me et meos heredes tenere et emphyteusis from you and your successors, and
possidere et singulis viginti octo annis ultimo anno renew to you and your successors the contract of
ipsorum singulorum viginti octo annorum res dictas emphyteusis, and then make the deed according to
in emphytheosim a vobis et vestris successoribus the form of this contract, and with the same fee to be
postulare ac recipere, et ipsius emphytheosis eiusque paid in my name and in that of my heirs in perpetuity,
receptionis et confessionis contractum vobis et and every twenty-eight years as mentioned, at the
eisdem successoribus renovare, et instrumentum time of renewal, to pay to your successors the sum
inde facere secundum tenorem et formam huius of 100 of the aforementioned coin. I also promise
presentis instrumenti, et sub simili pensione to you, under the same conditions, to renew, also in
sive censu a me et meis heredibus in perpetuum the name of my heirs, the undermentioned oath of
prestando et dando ut in hoc eodem instrumento loyalty every twenty-eight years upon the time of
continetur, et singulis xxviii annis predictis tempore the renewal of the aforementioned emphyteusis;
dicte renovationis et eius occasione dare et solvere and, whenever it should happen that you or your
vobis et successoribus vestris centum soldos predicte successors or the Church of Volterra may set up a
monete. Promicto etiam vobis, ut sepedictum est general army in the diocese of Volterra, I promise
recipientibus, renovare et facere per me et meos to serve you at my expense with a knight for fifteen
heredes infrascriptam fidelitatem singulis xxviii days. I also promise, on said occasion, to be faithful
annis predictis quando fiet renovatio emphytheosis to you and to the Church, and I swear of my own
dicte; et, quotienscumque contigitur vos vel accord, with my hand on the Gospel of God, to
successores vestros aut Ecclesiam Vulterranam in be faithful to you and your successors and to said
Episcopatu Vulterrano exercitum facere generalem, Church, and as far as possible, to save the person
servitia vobis et successoribus eisdem et Ecclesie of yours and of your successors, and the goods
memorate meis expensis cum uno milite per and rights of the aforementioned Church, and not
quindecim dies in eodem exercitu. Pretera confiteor carry out any action that could cause you or your
vobis, recipientibus ut est dictum, me occasione successors to lose your life, a part of your body,
predicta esse vestrum et successorum vestrorum et mind, or intellect, or that would cause suffering
Ecclesie dicte fidelem, et nichilominus iuro sponte through unjust imprisonment or damage or injury
ad sancta Dei evangelia, libro corporaliter tacto, to person or property. And if I come to know that
esse de cetero vester et successorum vestrorum et someone intends to do any of these actions I will
Ecclesie dicte fidelis, et salvare pro posse personas try to prevent it and I will denounce it as soon as
vestram et successorum vestrorum et res et iura et possible to you and your successors by voice, by
bona Ecclesie supradicte, et non tractare vel esse messenger or by writing; and I promise to you that I
in consilio vel assensu vel facto quo vos aut aliquis will fully respect this oath of loyalty, at a penalty of
successorum vestrorum amictatis aut amictat vitam 2000 lire of Pisan currency. This penalty I promise
vel membrum [au]t mentem vel intellectum, vel to pay to you for every single matter, if it happens
quod patiamini aut patiatur aliquis eorumdem that I will not observe all these things; and, having
successorum malam captionem aut dampnum vel paid it, to comply with all these conditions in the
iniuriam aliquam in personis vel rebus. Et si scivero way indicated, and to compensate for any damage,
aliquem predicta vel aliquod predictorum facere expense, or interest that you or one of your associates
volentem resistam ei pro posse et ipsum vobis et will communicate to have sustained as a result of
successoribus vestris quam citius potero lingua, the non-payment of this penalty. And I do all these
nuntio vel scriptura nuntiabo et manifestabo; things wishing to respect the praise pronounced
et dictam fidelitatem in perpetuum et omnia between you and the Church of Volterra, on
supradicta attendere et observare et facere promicto the one hand, and I, Ranieri, on the other, by the
vobis, ut dictum est recipientibus, sub pena duorum venerable father Lord Ottaviano, cardinal deacon of
milium librarum Pisane monete. Quam penam pro Santa Maria in Via Lata; from which praise exists
singulis capitulis vobis, ut dictum est recipientibus, publicly in the deed made by the notary Giovanni di
dare promicto si commicteretur et predicta omnia Campolo. Renouncing the exception of the things
non observarentur; et ea soluta vel commissa that were not had and not received in emphyteusis,
predicta firma tenere et reficere vobis eodem modo as mentioned, and of the fee that is not owed and of
recipientibus, et resarcire omnia dampna et interesse the promises and obligations not made and of the
et expensas que et quas pro dicto censu seu pensione thing not conducted in the aforementioned way,
si cessatum fuerit in solvendo, et aliis predictis at the discretion of the court and every support of
dixeritis vos aut sindicus Ecclesie dicte dixerit se
right and law.
substinuisse vel fecisse. Obligans me et meos heredes
et bonam omnia presentia et futura in predictis Act in the church of Casole, present the venerable
omnibus et pro eis vobis recipientibus ut dictum father Lord Mainetto, by the grace of God Bishop
est. Et predicta facio volens emologare laudum et of Fiesole, and Lord Ghibellino, Prior of S. Martino
arbitrium latum inter vos et Ecclesiam Vulterranam, of Gangalandi; Lord Diedi, judge and son of Iacopo
ex parte una, et dictum Rainerium, ex parte altera, of Florence; Lord Alberto, parish priest of Gerfalco;
per venerabilem patrem dominum Octavianum Lord Dono, Prior of S. Michele Bertelde of Florence
Sancte Marie in Via Lata diaconem cardinalem; and many other witnesses.
de quo laudo est publico instrumentum factum Year of the Lord 1263, sixth indiction, May 30th.
manu Iohannis notarii de Campulo. Renumptians (Notarial mark) I, Lamberto, notary and son of
exceptioni non habitarum et non receptarum rerum Braccio di Francobaro, have witnessed all the
dictarum in emphytheosim, ut dictum est, et non aforementioned things and all these things by
debiti census et non factarum promissionum et mandate and by the will of the said elected member
obligationum dictarum et rei dicto modo non geste, and Lord Ranieri Piccolino of which I have written
fori privilegio et omni iuris et legis auxilio. and published.
Actum in ecclesia Casulana presentibus venerabili

patre domino Mainetto Dei gratia episcopo
Fesulano, domino Ghibellino priore Sancti Martini
de Gangalandi, domino Diedi iudice quondam
Iacoppi de Florentia, domino Alberto plebano de
Gerfalco, domino Dono priore Sancti Micchaelis
Bertelde de Florentia et aliis pluribus testibus
vocatis et rogatis.
Anno domini millesimo ducentesimo sexagesimo
tertio, indictione via, xxxo maii.
(SN). Ego Lambertus notarius filius Braccii
Francobari predictis omnibus interfui et ea omnia
de mandato et voluntate dictorum domini electi et
domini Rainerii Piccholini scripsi et publicavi.
Works Cited

Florence, Archivio di Stato di Firenze [ASF]
Capitoli, 30
Capitoli, Appendice, 44
Diplomatico Passignano, S. Michele, 24 November 1295
Diplomatico S. Frediano in Cestello, 28 June 1266
Siena, Archivio di Stato di Siena [ASS]
Consiglio Generale, Deliberazioni, 4
Diplomatico Riformagioni, 10 August 1250
Diplomatico Riformagioni, 11 June 1254
Diplomatico Riformagioni, 31 August 1254
Volterra, Archivio Diocesano di Volterra [ADV]
Diplomatico, 496
Diplomatico, 497
Diplomatico, 500
Diplomatico, 501
Diplomatico, 512
Diplomatico, 760
Volterra, Biblioteca Guarnacci di Volterra [BGV]
MS 5672, II
MS 8491, III
MS 8494, III
Primary Sources
Villani, Giovanni, Nuova Cronica, ed. by Giuseppe Porta (Parma: Fondazione Pietro
Bembo, 1991)
Secondary Sources
Bastianoni, Curzio, Giovanni Cherubini, and Giuliano Pinto, eds, La Toscana ai tempi di
Arnolfo (Florence: Olschki, 2005)
Canaccini, Federico, Ghibellini e ghibellinismo in Toscana da Montaperti a Campaldino
(1260–1289) (Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 2009)
Collavini, Simone Maria, ‘I signori rurali in Italia centrale (secoli xii–metà xiv): profilo
sociale e forme di interazione’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen Âge, 123.2
(2011), 301–18
Cortese, Maria Elena, ‘I destini di un gruppo dominante nell’età della crescita: la media
aristocrazia del territorio fiorentino (1150–1250 ca.)’, in Cambiamento economico e
mobilità sociale nella Toscana bassomedievale (xii–xv sec) (Rome: Viella, in press)
Davidsohn, Robert, Storia di Firenze, vol. ii (Florence: Sansoni, 1956)

Faini, Enrico, ‘I sei anni dimenticati: Spunti per una riconsiderazione del governo
ghibellino di Firenze, 1260–1266’, in Tra storia e letteratura: Il parlamento di Empoli
del 1260, ed. by Vanna Arrighi and Giuliano Pinto (Florence: Olschki, 2012),
pp. 29–49
Feller, Laurent, Paysans et seigneurs au Moyen Âge, viiie–xve siècle (Paris: Armand Colin,
2017)
Gazzini, Marina, ‘I Disciplinati, la milizia dei frati Gaudenti, il comune di Bologna e
la pace cittadina: statuti a confronto (1261–1265)’, Bollettino della Deputazione di
Storia Patria per l’Umbria, 101 (2004), 419–37
Kamp, Norbert, ‘Cacciaconti, Cacciaconte’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 15
(1972), <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/cacciaconte-cacciaconti_(Dizionario-
Biografico)>
Najemy, John M., Storia di Firenze, 1200–1376 (Turin: Einaudi, 2014)
Paganelli, Jacopo, ‘“Et fuit de Scolaribus de Florentia”: Un profilo di Alberto vescovo di
Volterra (1261–1269)’, Rassegna Volterrana, 93 (2016), 109–56
—— , ‘“Infra nostrum episcopatum et comitatum”: Alcuni caratteri del principato
vescovile di Volterra (ix–xiii sec.)’, Rassegna Volterrana, 92 (2015), 89–156
—— , ‘Ubertini, Ranieri’, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 97 (2020), <http://www.
treccani.it/enciclopedia/ranieri-ubertini_(Dizionario-Biografico)>
Pinto, Giuliano, and Paolo Pirillo, eds, Lontano dalle città: Il Valdarno di Sopra nei secoli
xii–xiii (Roma: Viella, 2005)
Plesner, Johan, L’emigrazione dalla campagna alla città libera di Firenze nel xii secolo
(Firenze: Papafava, 1979)
Raveggi, Sergio, ‘Le famiglie di parte ghibellina nella classe dirigente della città di Firenze
durante il xiii secolo’, in I ceti dirigenti dell’età comunale nei secoli xii e xiii (Pisa:
Pacini, 1982), pp. 287–99
—— , ‘Il regime ghibellino’, in Sergio Raveggi, Massimo Tarassi, Daniela Medici, and
Patrizia Parenti, Ghibellini, guelfi e popolo grasso: I detentori del potere politico a Firenze
nella seconda metà del Dugento (Florence: La Nuova Italia 1978), pp. 1–72
—— , ‘Siena nell’Italia dei guelfi e dei ghibellini’, in Fedeltà ghibellina, affari guelfi: Saggi e
riletture intorno alla storia di Siena fra Due e Trecento, ed. by Gabriella Piccinni (Pisa:
Pacini, 2008), pp. 29–62
Scharf, Gian Paolo G., Potere e società ad Arezzo nel xiii secolo (1214–1312) (Spoleto:
Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2013)
Varanini, Gian Maria, ‘Strategie familiari per la carriera ecclesiastica (Italia, sec. xiii–xv)’,
in La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano, vol. iii: Il mondo ecclesiastico (secoli xii–xv),
ed. by Sandro Carocci and Amedeo De Vincentiis (Rome: Viella, 2017), pp. 361–98
Vasina, Augusto, ‘Ubaldini, Ottaviano degli’, Enciclopedia Dantesca (1970), <http://
www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ottaviano-degli-ubaldini_(Enciclopedia-Dantesca)>
Wickham, Chris, ‘La signoria rurale in Toscana’, in Strutture e trasformazioni della signoria
rurale nei secoli x–xiii, ed. by Cinzio Violante and Gerhard Dilcher (Bologna: Il
Mulino, 1996), pp. 343–409
Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324):
A New Bishop for a New Era
in Salamanca
Fernando Gutiérrez Baños
I
n the chapel of San Nicolás of the Old Cathedral of Salamanca (i.e. the south
apse chapel of this magnificent Romanesque building erected between the
mid-twelfth century and the early thirteenth century and decorated in the
Gothic period) there is an episcopal tomb that has no epitaph (see Figure 9.1).
The book of anniversaries of the cathedral, compiled in its present form at the
beginning of the sixteenth century, refers to it in the entry of 30 January in the
following terms: ‘Por don Pedro, obispo de Salamanca, que yaze en la capilla
de sant Niculás en vn arco como entran a la mano derecha, en vn monumento
figurado’ (For don Pedro, Bishop of Salamanca, who lies in the chapel of San
Nicolás beneath an arch to the right as one enters, inside a figured monument).1
There were many bishops named Pedro in Salamanca in the Middle Ages, but
since the seventeenth century this niche tomb has been ascribed to the one who
flourished in the early fourteenth century. Stylistic comparisons not only of the
architectural layout of the niche, but also of the sculptures of the sarcophagus
and recumbent effigy and of the paintings displayed on the soffit of the arched
niche, confirm this ascription.2 But the question is: Who was Bishop Pedro?
1
Salamanca, ACS, Caj. 67, leg. 3, núm. 1, fol. 60v.
2
About the tomb of Bishop Pedro, see Gómez-Moreno, Catálogo monumental de España:
Fernando Gutiérrez Baños (fbanos@fyl.uva.es) is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Art

History of the University of Valladolid, in Spain. He specializes in art of the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries and develops his research within the G. I. R. IDINTAR (Acknowledged
Research Group Identity and Artistic Interchanges).
200 Fernando Gutiérrez Baños
Figure 9.1. ‘Tomb of Pedro Pérez de

Monroy (d. 1322–1324), Bishop of
Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral,
chapel of San Nicolás. c. 1330–1340.
Photo by the author.
Onomastic uses of medieval Iberia make it difficult to provide an answer. In

this territory and period, a standard full name was usually composed of three
elements. First, the given name, which is the name conferred to an individual
upon baptism: in this case Pedro. Second, the patronymic, which was formed by
adding the suffix ez to the name of the father: in this instance, Pérez, which means
son of Pedro. Third, and quite often introduced by the preposition ‘de’ (of ), the
family name, which distinguishes each family from others and might refer to
its place of origin, the location of their core properties, or even to an unusual
feature of an ancestor. In this instance, de Monroy refers to the territory whose
Provincia de Salamanca, i, 120, 131; Gutiérrez Baños, Aportación al estudio de la pintura de estilo
gótico lineal en Castilla y León, ii, 164–65; Ruiz Maldonado, ‘Imágenes de lo sagrado. Imágenes
de lo humano’, pp. 214–15. Gómez-Moreno relates its carvings to the ones displayed in the
tombs of Rodrigo Díaz (d. 1339), Bishop of Salamanca, and Diego López (d. 1341 or 1342),
Archdeacon of Ledesma, in the church of Salamanca, in the very same building, considering
even the possibility of the identity of authorship. The layout of the tomb of Bishop Pedro is
identical to the one of the tomb of Diego López.
Pedro Pérez de Monroy (1310–1324) 201
lordship belonged to the family. So, Pedro Pérez de Monroy means ‘Pedro, the son
of Pedro, of the family of the lords of Monroy’.
The problem is that there are many exceptions to the rule, particularly when
it comes to ecclesiastical personnel. Especially in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, it was quite usual to omit their family names and even their patronymics;
they were mentioned only through their given names (quite often abbreviated),
together with the position they occupied. Our bishop never appears in the
records as Pedro Pérez de Monroy. He appears as ‘Pedro, obispo de Salamanca’
or as ‘P., obispo de Salamanca’.3 This is why reconstructing the identity and the
memory of Portuguese and Spanish bishops of this period is a real challenge.
Historical Background: The Bishopric of Salamanca in the Twelfth and

Thirteenth Centuries
The see of Salamanca is recorded for the first time in 589, in the period of the
Visigothic rule over the whole Iberian peninsula.4 This period is characterized by
the persistence of the administrative and ecclesiastical structures of the already
disappeared Roman Empire, so that the see of Salmantica (current Salamanca),
a city of the former Roman province of Lusitania, was then a suffragan of the
metropolitan see of Emerita (current Mérida), the capital city of this province
and one of the most important cities of Roman Hispania. This is proved by a
record of 666.
This situation was completely altered by the Muslim conquest of 711. The
bishops of Salamanca disappear from the records for more than one hundred
years. When they are mentioned again in documents of the ninth and tenth
centuries, it is clear that their see is a merely nominal see whose titulars live in the
courts of the kings of Asturias and León, the emergent Christian powers of north-
western Iberia, who had no effective control over the territory of Salamanca, now
for the most part a deserted city.
The scene changed after the conquest of Toledo in 1085 by Leonese King
Alfonso VI. Then, the frontier with al-Andalus, the Muslim realm of the Iberian
peninsula, moved further south, bringing stability to the until then southern
territories of the kingdoms of León and Castile and facilitating the repopulation
3
E.g., in documents issued by King Alfonso XI between 1315 and 1320; see Colección
documental de Alfonso XI, ed. by González Crespo, nos 33–34, 36, 47, 49, 54, 70, 73.
4
For a brief summary of the history of the bishopric of Salamanca, see Marcos, ‘Salamanca,
Diócesis de’, pp. 2137–40.
of these territories. In this context, the city of Salamanca, together with its episcopal
see, was formally re-established in 1102 by Count Raimundo de Borgoña, son-in-
law of King Alfonso VI as husband of his daughter Urraca, who was to become
Queen of León.
But geopolitical and geo-ecclesiastical contexts now differed completely from
the ones that justified the first existence of the see of Salamanca. Mérida, still
a Muslim city, had lost a great deal of its former prominence, so that the see of
Salamanca was soon declared a suffragan of the new and powerful metropolitan
see of Santiago de Compostela, in the region of Galicia, created over the presumed
tomb of the apostle St James the Greater, discovered in the ninth century. This
was formally approved in 1124 by a bull of Pope Callixtus II.5
The dependence of Salamanca on Santiago de Compostela is a crucial issue in
the history of the bishopric of Salamanca. Quite often, clerics of Galician origin
considered Salamanca as an appropriate place to make their careers, obtaining
positions and benefices to the detriment of local clerics, who were frustrated in
their aspirations.6 In fact, many Galician clerics became bishops of Salamanca
in this period, and some of them became later archbishops of Santiago de
Compostela. This was a source of constant confrontation within the chapter of
Salamanca. Circumstances reached such a critical point in the thirteenth century
that in 1245 the Castilian cardinal Gil Torres had to dictate some constitutions
about how to confer ecclesiastical positions in Salamanca in order to achieve a
certain degree of balance between the two factions of the chapter.7 Consequently,
local clerics became more prominent in the late thirteenth century, but the
bishopric of Salamanca was regarded as an opaque and oligarchic one. Bishop
Pedro became its head in 1310.
A Confusing Historiography
The first history of the church of Salamanca, entitled Historia de las antigüedades
de la ciudad de Salamanca, was published in 1606. Its author, Gil González
Dávila, was by then a member of the chapter of Salamanca, and he was even
responsible for the archive of the cathedral of Salamanca. González Dávila later
became the official chronicler for the Kings of Spain, Felipe III and Felipe IV. In
5
Historia compostelana, ed. by Falque Rey, pp. 429–31.
6
Beltrán de Heredia, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 59–83.
7
Colección documental de la catedral de Salamanca, ed. by Guadalupe Beraza and others,
no. 214.
spite of his presumed authority and of the certain fact that he had full access to the
documents of Salamanca, his works display plenty of mistakes and inaccuracies
that unfortunately modern authors repeat because they assume González Dávila
to be an authoritative source.
Concerning Bishop Pedro, González Dávila presented him as certain brother
Pedro, a Dominican friar, who was elected by the chapter after the death of Bishop
Alfonso in 1309 and who died in 1315.8 This is all incorrect. The only possible
ground for considering him a friar, though not necessarily a Dominican friar,
is a bull issued by Pope Clement V that, according to González Dávila, begins
‘Dudum nobis fratris Petri episcopi Salamantini petitio continebat […]’ (Recently
a request to us by friar Pedro, Bishop of Salamanca, contained […]). However, this
text was miscopied. It actually reads ‘Dvdum oblata nobis venerabilis fratris nostri
Petri, episcopi Salamantini, petitio continebat […]’ (Recently a request presented
to us by our venerable brother Pedro, Bishop of Salamanca, contained […]).9 It
is clear, in any case, that the word frater is used in this context in a spiritual sense
(and González Dávila should have known it).
More than a century later, Bernardo Dorado, a priest of Salamanca, wrote a
new history of the church of Salamanca: the Compendio histórico de la ciudad de
Salamanca, published in 1776. Dorado worked more rigorously, checking the
documents carefully. This allowed him to determine correctly the tenure of Bishop
Pedro between 1310 and 1324,10 but he continued to refer to him as brother
Pedro, Dominican friar, elected by the chapter after the death of Bishop Alfonso.11
Even though after the publication in the late nineteenth century of the
regestum of Pope Clement V some scholars, such as Konrad Eubel, Vicente
Beltrán de Heredia, and the authors of the Diccionario de Historia Eclesiástica de
España, no longer referred to this bishop as brother Pedro, Dominican friar, it is
still common to find high-quality academic studies referring to him as ‘brother
Pedro, O.P.’. However, neither his seal, of which several impressions are known
(see Figure 9.2), nor any original record called him ‘don fray Pedro’ (as would be
8
González Dávila, Historia de las antigüedades de la ciudad de Salamanca, pp. 248–64.
9
Documentos del Clemente V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed. by Domínguez Sánchez,
no. 1357.
10
He is last recorded in 1322; see Guglieri Navarro, Catálogo de sellos de la Sección de
Sigilografía del Archivo Histórico Nacional, ii (1974), no. 1174. Bernardo, his successor, was
transferred from the see of Ciudad Rodrigo in 1324.
11
Dorado, Compendio histórico de la ciudad de Salamanca, pp. 243–47. Dorado even stated
that ‘brother Pedro’ came from the convent of San Esteban, the Dominican convent of the city
of Salamanca.
Figure 9.2. ‘Seal of Pedro Pérez

de Monroy (d. 1322–24), Bishop
of Salamanca (impression dated
1322)’, España, Ministerio de
Educación, Cultura y Deporte,
Archivo Histórico Nacional,
SIGIL-SELLO, C.81, N.1.
Reproduced with permission.
the case if he were a friar). On the contrary, he appears always as ‘don Pedro’. This,
together with the information about his nomination, makes clear that he was a
secular cleric.
Family Ties: From Brother Pedro, Dominican Friar, to Pedro Pérez de

Monroy, Secular Cleric
Two unnoticed references published in the second half of the twentieth century
provided the key for a competent identification of Bishop Pedro. In 1970
Beltrán de Heredia, writing about the University of Salamanca, said that the
newly appointed bishop gained ‘otras concesiones para Nuño Pérez, su hermano,
abad de Santander y arcediano de Campos’ (other grants for Nuño Pérez, his
brother, Abbot of Santander and Archdeacon of Campos).12 In 1999 Olivera
12
Beltrán de Heredia, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca, p. 115.
Arranz, writing about a hospital founded by the Abbot of Santander in the city
of Valladolid, referred to a document of 1314 that mentions Pedro, Bishop
of Salamanca, and Fernán Pérez de Monroy, cupbearer of the dowager Queen
María de Molina, as brothers of this personage.13 Moreover, the records about
his nomination as Bishop of Salamanca by Pope Clement V tell us about the
positions he held before becoming bishop, which links him to the Castilian city of
Plasencia.14 His nomination took place not following an election by the chapter, as
stated by González Dávila and Dorado, but after a personal decision by the pope.
These testimonies allow us to identify Bishop Pedro as a brother of Nuño Pérez
de Monroy, Abbot of Santander (a secular church), one of the most outstanding
figures of the political scene of the early fourteenth century in Castile. This is
also confirmed by the documents kept in the Cistercian abbey of las Huelgas, of
Valladolid (the institution that supervised the aforementioned hospital),15 and
by the heraldry displayed on the seal of the bishop, poorly preserved on a seal
impression dated 1322, which is similar to the heraldic bearings of the Monroy
family (a shield quartering castles and vairs).16
So, the full name of Bishop Pedro was Pedro Pérez de Monroy, brother of
Nuño Pérez de Monroy (who died in 1326), Abbot of Santander, and Fernán
Pérez de Monroy (who died probably in 1351 after dictating his will), Lord
of Monroy, a village in the territory of the aforementioned Castilian city of
Plasencia, where the whole family was rooted.17
13
Olivera Arranz, ‘La hospitalidad privada en el Valladolid bajomedieval’, p. 328.
14
See below, note 29.
15
Valladolid, AMSMRHV, Carp. 1, núm. 11; Carp. 1, núm. 14. These are the afore-
mentioned 1314 document and the 1318 will of Nuño Pérez de Monroy. I am indebted to my
colleagues Mauricio Herrero Jiménez, Irene Ruiz Albi, and Francisco Javier Molina de la Torre
for facilitating my access to their in-progress edition of this archival collection.
16
Guglieri Navarro, Catálogo de sellos de la Sección de Sigilografía del Archivo Histórico
Nacional, ii, no. 1174, describing this seal impression, mentions at the feet of the effigy of the
bishop a quartered escutcheon displaying castles, which is compatible with the arms described
above (its condition does not allow further remarks). Escutcheons painted on his tomb, along
the rim of its arched niche, are probably an addition of the restoration carried out in 1951
following the model of the tomb of Diego López, Archdeacon of Ledesma: no author mentions
them before 1951, and the way in which they are presented invites suspicion (devoid of heraldic
bearings and surmounted by red ecclesiastical hats, unfair for a bishop and strange, in any case,
at such an early date).
17
About the Monroy family, see Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’; Sierra Simón,
‘Mayorazgos de Monroy’; Sierra Simón, ‘Estrategias matrimoniales de la casa de Monroy’.
Map 9.1. The Iberian peninsula in the early fourteenth century, with major places cited in the text.
Design by Francisco M. Morillo, according to the author.
The prominence of this family in the early fourteenth century relied completely
on the role played by Nuño Pérez de Monroy.18 Nuño entered in the service of
the royal court in the late thirteenth century, during the reign of King Sancho IV
(1284–95), but he only came to the fore after the death of the monarch in
1295, when he became confessor, advisor, and chancellor of the dowager Queen
María de Molina, a sort of spiritual and political assistant of the so-called ‘Reina
Prudente’ (Wise Queen). María de Molina had to rule over Castile during the
successive minorities of her son Fernando IV (1295–1312) and her grandson
18
About Nuño Pérez de Monroy, see Velo y Nieto, ‘Don Nuño Pérez de Monroy, abad de
Santander’. A modern biography of this personage is much required. Competent information
about him is to be found scattered in works dealing with María de Molina or with the reigns of
Sancho IV, Fernando IV, and Alfonso XI.
Alfonso XI (1312–50), working for the benefit of the monarchy and the kingdom
against other members of the royal family and some nobles, who battled among
themselves and against her to obtain the guardianship of the corresponding
child-king and the control of the kingdom.19 In this arduous task, Nuño Pérez
de Monroy became the main support of the dowager Queen María de Molina.
Considering this, it is not strange that Nuño’s brothers reached high positions in
the entourage of the queen: Fernán Pérez de Monroy became her cupbearer, and
Pedro Pérez de Monroy, who was Archdeacon of Plasencia and canon of Sigüenza
before becoming Bishop of Salamanca, acted as Castilian ambassador at the papal
court, newly established in the city of Avignon.
The origins of this family remain obscure. Velo y Nieto, relying on the
surveys of ancient genealogists, counted among their ancestors Fernando Yáñez,
a Galician noble who flourished in the second third of the twelfth century
outstandingly serving the Leonese Queen Urraca (1109–26) and Emperor
Alfonso VII (1126–57), and Pedro Fernández (d. 1184), supposedly a son of the
former, who founded the prestigious military order of Santiago.20 None of this
can be confirmed in present times.21 The father of the Pérez de Monroy siblings
was a Pedro Fernández who is mentioned in 1287, when he, together with his
sons Fernán and Nuño, received the place of Monroy from the city council of
Plasencia.22 This was a standard procedure: to facilitate the population of scarcely
inhabited areas, city councils granted some places to notable families. Grants
were later confirmed by the monarchs. In 1309 King Fernando IV confirmed the
lordship of Monroy in favour of Fernán Pérez de Monroy.23 On the basis of the
lordship of Monroy, Fernán Pérez de Monroy established a mayorazgo attached
to the lineage.24 Nuño, the true pillar of the family, contributed substantially to
this mayorazgo in his successive wills of 1318 and 1326,25 through the transfer
19
Gaibrois de Ballesteros, María de Molina.
20
Velo y Nieto, ‘Don Nuño Pérez de Monroy, abad de Santander’, pp. 319–26.
21
About Fernando Yáñez, see Barton, The Aristocracy in TwelfthCentury León and Castile,
pp. 36–37. Fernando Yáñez’s only known son is Pelayo Curvo. On his part, Pedro Fernández is
now regarded as a son of Fernando García de Hita.
22
Sierra Simón, ‘Mayorazgos de Monroy’, pp. 263–64.
23
Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 133–34 and 159–60.
24
A mayorazgo, which must be formally instituted, is an ensemble of properties and rights
to be inherited by the eldest son of an aristocratic family without the possibility of dividing it,
as these properties and rights are considered substantial to the identity and to the persistence of
the lineage.
25
Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 136–37; Sierra Simón, ‘Mayorazgos de
Figure 9.3. ‘House of Nuño Pérez de Monroy Figure 9.4. ‘Castle of the Monroy family’, Monroy
(d. 1326), Abbot of Santander’, Plasencia (Cáceres). Photo by the author.
(Cáceres). Photo by the author.
of his house in Plasencia and the lordship of Valverde de la Vera, the last one
confirmed by King Fernando IV in 1303 after it had been granted by the city
council of Plasencia in 1301.26
The house of Nuño Pérez de Monroy in Plasencia, partially preserved in the
much-remodelled Casa de las Dos Torres, and the castle of Monroy, reworked in
the fifteenth century, are still witnesses of this mayorazgo and of the strength of
the Monroy family in early fourteenth-century Castile (see Figures 9.3–9.4).27
The Monroy family would be expected to rise up to the highest rank of the
Castilian nobility, but in the last instance, they were people of Queen María
de Molina, who died in 1321, not people of King Fernando IV or of King
Alfonso XI, even though they worked for their advantage. Moreover, the
adherence of Fernán Pérez de Monroy the Younger, the son and successor of the
first Lord of Monroy, to King Pedro I during the civil war that shocked Castile
in the mid-fourteenth century (a war that ended with the assassination of the
monarch and the installation of a new dynasty), together with the lack of male
descent, relegated the role of the Monroy family to one of a regional nobility
established in Plasencia and, following, probably, the bishop here discussed, in
Salamanca, where some of its members became notable.28
Monroy’, pp. 238–42. The unpublished 1318 will is in Valladolid, AMSMRHV, Carp. 1, núm. 14.
26
Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 134–35 and 158–59.
27
About the castle, see Velo y Nieto, Castillos de Extremadura, pp. 371–95; Cooper,
Castillos señoriales en la Corona de Castilla, i.2, 540–41.
28
Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 137–47. The heraldry of the Monroy
1310: The Nomination of Pedro Pérez de Monroy

In 1309 Alfonso de las Asturias, Bishop of Salamanca, passed away after a tenure
of only three years. On 11 February 1310, Pope Clement V appointed Pedro
Pérez de Monroy as the new Bishop of Salamanca.29 By then, the brother of the
Abbot of Santander was at the papal court. According to Beltrán de Heredia, he
had travelled to Avignon as Castilian ambassador to negotiate an embarrassing
question that from time to time was a source of discomfort and even conflict
between the Castilian monarchy and the papacy: the collection of the tercias reales
(royal thirds).30 Tercias reales were a portion of the tithes that were conferred by
the popes to the Kings of Castile to contribute to the funding of the war against
the Muslims in the Iberian peninsula.31 Tercias reales were first granted in 1247
by Pope Innocent IV to King Fernando III to support the conquest of Seville.
Such a grant was normally made for periods of three years. However, two things
happened that turned this favour into a troublesome issue. First, the Castilian
kings tended to renew these grants automatically, without waiting for papal
approval. Second, the Castilian kings employed them not only to finance the
war against the Muslims, but also for the most unexpected purposes: in fact, they
began to consider the tercias reales as an income of which they could dispose at
their will. This was possible because there was usually a passive attitude on the part
of the popes, but in the early fourteenth century Boniface VIII and Clement V
tried to gain control over the tercias reales under the threat of excommunication
and interdict (which, in fact, were occasionally decreed).32 Beyond this, the
family is widely represented in the ancient monuments of Salamanca; see Álvarez Villar, De
heráldica salmantina, pp. 46, 100, 195, 318, 326, 332.
29
Documentos del Clemente V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed. by Domínguez
Sánchez, nos 612–17.
30
Beltrán de Heredia, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 114–15. The author
presents Pedro Pérez de Monroy as accompanying Juan Núñez de Lara (whom he names Juan
Pérez de Lara by mistake), but the embassy of the latter took place later this very same year; see
below, note 36. The author also merges tercias reales and décima, which were different incomes
of ecclesiastical origin.
31
They were not one third of the tithes, but two ninths of them. Tithes were divided into
three equal parts: one for the clergy, one for the fabric of the churches, and one for the bishops.
The parts for the clergy and for the fabric of the churches were divided again into three equal
parts, and it was one third of each of these two parts that was conferred to the Kings of Castile.
About the structure and origins of the tercias reales, see Linehan, The Spanish Church and the
Papacy, pp. 111–13; Aldea, ‘Tercias reales’.
32
Nieto Soria, Las relaciones monarquíaepiscopado castellano, i, 307–21; Ladero Quesada,
Fiscalidad y poder real en Castilla, pp. 191–203.
beginning of the fourteenth century was a period of intense contacts between

Castile and the papal court.33 The Iberian kingdom required extra funding to
finance the projected Castilian-Aragonese offensive against the Muslim Kingdom
of Granada that was to start in 1309. This very same year Clement V granted the
décima for a period of three years starting on St John’s feast.34 He also granted
the cruzada.35 However, the campaign failed after the conquest of Gibraltar
in September 1309, and this moved the pope to reconsider his grants. In this
context, some Castilian embassies are well known. In 1309, the one by the Bishop
of Zamora, Gonzalo Rodríguez Osorio, and a knight from Córdoba, Pay Arias
de Castro, Lord of Espejo and cupbearer of Queen Constanza of Portugal, wife
of King Fernando IV, obtained the décima and the cruzada for the war against
Granada. In 1310, the one by a noble of the highest rank, Juan Núñez de Lara,
secured papal support for the apparently frustrated campaign.36 For Pedro Pérez
de Monroy we must rely on the testimony of Beltrán de Heredia.
By nominating Pedro Pérez de Monroy, Clement V was supporting the
dowager Queen María de Molina against other members of the royal family,
following in the traditional policy of the papacy with regard to Castile.37 Upon
his nomination, Clement V granted an unusual amount of privileges in favour
of the new Bishop of Salamanca. To begin with, it was Clement V himself who
ordained Pedro Pérez de Monroy bishop. On 11 March 1310, one month after
the appointment, Clement V granted one hundred days of indulgence to those
33
This has been thoroughly analysed by Linehan, ‘The Church, the Economy and the
Reconquista in Early Fourteenth-Century Castile’.
34
Sánchez, nos 448–49. The décima was one tenth of all ecclesiastical revenues. While tercias
reales were collected by officers of the king, décima was collected by papal appointees, which
made more difficult its seizure by the kings (as had happened with tercias reales). About décima
and its 1309 grant, see Nieto Soria, Las relaciones monarquíaepiscopado castellano, i, 322–32;
Ladero Quesada, Fiscalidad y poder real en Castilla, pp. 203–07.
35
Sánchez, no. 453. The cruzada was an appeal for donations benefited with indulgences. About
cruzada and its 1309 grant, see Goñi Gaztambide, Historia de la bula de cruzada en España,
pp. 265–81; Nieto Soria, Las relaciones monarquíaepiscopado castellano, i, 332–35; Ladero
Quesada, Fiscalidad y poder real en Castilla, pp. 207–09.
36
González Mínguez, Fernando IV de Castilla, pp. 213, 227–28. These embassies had also
other purposes: to obtain the dispensation for the projected marriage between Prince Jaime
of Aragon and Princess Leonor of Castile (1309) and to stop the intended trial of the late
Boniface VIII (1310).
37
Crónica del rey don Fernando, ed. by Benavides, pp. 83–84.
contributing to the works of the cathedral of Salamanca for the next ten years.
On this very same day, Clement V granted Pedro Pérez de Monroy the faculty
to appoint two canons in Salamanca, quite sure to allow the new bishop to have
some people in his confidence in a see to which he was completely alien. Pedro
Pérez de Monroy immediately appointed his brother Nuño, who, beyond being
Abbot of Santander and Archdeacon of Campos in the church of Palencia, held
canonries in six cathedral churches and one collegiate church and a benefice
in Galisteo. Finally, Clement V granted Pedro Pérez de Monroy the faculty to
concede one year and forty days of indulgence to those attending his first solemn
Mass as bishop in the cathedral of Salamanca.38
However, if the nomination of Pedro Pérez de Monroy is significant for its
meaning in positive terms, it is much more significant for its meaning in negative
terms. By nominating him, Clement V was not only supporting a certain profile of
bishop (a cleric from a noble family belonging to the circle of the Castilian governing
class). He was also rejecting another profile of bishop. Indeed, the nomination of
Pedro Pérez de Monroy was made to the detriment of Diego Fernández, Bishop of
Lamego, who had been unanimously elected as the new bishop by the chapter of
Salamanca after the death of Alfonso de las Asturias in 1309.39 In fact, Clement V’s
decision reflects the dichotomy noticed by Nieto Soria in the social provenance of
Castilian bishops of this period: bishops from the entourage of the monarchy on
the one hand and bishops from the local oligarchies on the other hand.40
Diego Fernández was clearly a representative of the local oligarchy that took
control over the chapter of Salamanca in the late thirteenth century. His career
was spectacular: in 1286 he was canon; in 1288 he was precentor; in 1289 he
was Archdeacon of Alba; in 1291 he was dean.41 As soon as there was a vacancy
in a superior position, Diego Fernández occupied it immediately. Moreover, he
had benefices in the churches of Santiago de Compostela and Ciudad Rodrigo.42
His career was clearly intended to culminate with the bishopric of Salamanca.
However, he never succeeded. In 1306, when, after a couple of decades, there
38
Sánchez, nos 642–45, 654, 1044.
39
Sánchez, no. 612.
40
Nieto Soria, Las relaciones monarquíaepiscopado castellano, i, 474–78.
41
Colección documental de la catedral de Salamanca, ed. by Guadalupe Beraza and others,
nos 411, 417, 423, 432.
42
Sánchez, no. 159.
was at last a vacancy in the bishopric, the divided chapter elected two different
candidates: Arnaldo López de Tejo, Archdeacon of Medina, and Diego
Fernández, dean. Both travelled to the papal court to claim their rights. Arnaldo
López de Tejo died before reaching the Curia. Diego Fernández arrived only
to be informed that the pope had decided to nominate to the see of Salamanca
Alfonso de las Asturias, Bishop of Lamego, in Portugal (but within the same
ecclesiastical province of Santiago de Compostela).43 As a consolation prize,
Diego Fernández was appointed Bishop of Lamego.44 Diego Fernández had to be
ordained priest and bishop at the Curia because at the time of his nomination he
was merely a deacon in terms of ecclesiastical orders.45 In 1307, still at the papal
court, he was invited to go to his church, but it seems that he resided instead in
Salamanca: in 1308 he was authorized to visit his church through proctors for a
period of four years.46 The death of Alfonso de las Asturias in 1309, only three
years after their respective appointments as Bishops of Salamanca and Lamego,
granted Diego Fernández a new opportunity. This time Diego Fernández was
unanimously elected by the chapter of Salamanca. However, Clement V rejected
him: ‘non uitio persone sue, sed certis aliis de causis’ (not because of any defect in
his person, but for some other reasons).47 A new consolation prize was waiting for
him: in 1311 Diego Fernández was appointed Bishop of Zamora, a city very close
to Salamanca, where it seems he continued to reside.48 He died in 1320 or 1321,
without achieving his ambition.49 I can only speculate how the bishop first of
43
Sánchez, no. 101.
44
Sánchez, nos 107–11.
45
Sánchez, no. 133.
46
Sánchez, nos 313, 319–20. Costa, História do bispado e cidade de Lamego, pp. 156–58, agrees in
considering that he was absent from Lamego.
47
Sánchez, no. 612.
48
Sánchez, nos 824–29. In 1311 his house in the street Escuderos of Salamanca is mentioned,
and in 1313 he purchases some properties in La Orbada, a village close to Salamanca; see
Catálogo de documentos del Archivo Catedralicio de Salamanca, ed. by Marcos Rodríguez,
nos 488, 493.
49
Diego Fernández, Bishop of Zamora, is last recorded in 1320; see Colección documental
de Alfonso XI, ed. by González Crespo, no. 73. Rodrigo, his successor, is mentioned in 1321,
Figure 9.5. ‘Wall paintings of the tomb of Pedro Pérez de Monroy (d. 1322–24), Bishop of
Salamanca’, Salamanca, Old Cathedral, chapel of San Nicolás. c. 1330–1340. Photo by the author.
Lamego, then of Zamora, and the corresponding Bishop of Salamanca coexisted

in the very same city. Surprisingly, the first session of the national council held in
Salamanca in 1310 to discuss the Templar question, presided by the Archbishop
of Santiago de Compostela, was held ‘en las casas del obispo de Lamego que son
en la dicha cibdad de Salamanca’ (in the house of the Bishop of Lamego that is in
the aforementioned city of Salamanca).50
By the time this national council was held, Pedro Pérez de Monroy was still at the
papal court. Probably he did not come to Castile until 1313, when he is mentioned
in the chronicle of King Alfonso XI as arriving at the court.51 In 1315, already in
in the national council of Palencia-Valladolid of 1321–22; see Álvarez Domínguez, Historia

general civil y eclesiástica de la provincia de Zamora, p. 243.
50
Actas inéditas de siete concilios españoles, ed. by Fita y Colomé, p. 65.
51
Gran crónica de Alfonso XI, ed. by Catalán, i, 290. It is recorded that he attended the
ecumenical council of Vienne of 1311–12 (see Documentos del Clemente V (1305–1314)
referentes a España, ed. by Domínguez Sánchez, no. 965), and, conversely, he is absent in the acts
of the national and provincial councils held in Salamanca and Zamora between 1310 and 1313;
see Actas inéditas de siete concilios españoles, ed. by Fita y Colomé.
Figure 9.6. ‘Tomb ascribed to Diego Fernández

(d. 1320–21), Bishop of Lamego and Zamora
and former Dean of Salamanca’, Salamanca,
Old Cathedral, south transept. c. 1310–1320.
Photo by the author.
Salamanca, Pedro Pérez de Monroy approved the expenses made by the chapter
in support of the candidature of Diego Fernández for Bishop of Salamanca.52
Before this, whilst still at the papal court, Pedro Pérez de Monroy acted
outstandingly in 1313 in two important issues related to the tercias reales. First, he
mediated to guarantee the funding of the University of Salamanca, which relied
on the tercias reales granted by the monarchs of the thirteenth century. When, as
explained before, the popes of the early fourteenth century tried to gain control
over the tercias reales, this university, one of the oldest and most prestigious in the
Iberian peninsula, was about to disappear as a consequence of the disruption of
the incomes supporting it. In 1313 Bishop Pedro guaranteed regular funding for
the university on the basis of the tercias reales, not by royal privilege, but by papal
privilege so that no future authorization would be required to collect the tercias
52
no. 501.
reales of the diocese of Salamanca for the upkeep of its university.53 The other
important issue in which Pedro Pérez de Monroy acted in 1313 was the removal
of the interdict dictated over Castile by Pope Clement V to stop the unauthorized
appropriation of the tercias reales that took place in the last years of the reign of
Fernando IV, recently deceased.54 It was this happy news that brought him back
to Castile in the autumn of 1313.
In sum, it appears quite clear that Clement V battled the local oligarchy in
Salamanca in favour of a new type of bishop. Clement V did this not only by
twice rejecting Diego Fernández as Bishop of Salamanca (in 1306 and in 1310),
but also by impeding any future rise of a comparable figure. In 1306, when both
the archdeaconry of Medina and the deanery were vacated in Salamanca (the
first one because of the death of Arnaldo López de Tejo and the second one
because of the appointment of Diego Fernández as Bishop of Lamego), it was
Clement V himself who appointed the new dignitaries: the new Archdeacon of
Medina was García Pérez, a canon of Salamanca who was a familiar of a Castilian
cardinal, and the new dean was Master Iohannes de Montedomeri, one of the
physicians of the pope, who, in order to avoid residence, was authorized to act
through vicars.55 These nominations must be regarded as early examples of the
policy of papal reservations in the provision of ecclesiastical benefices that was
to characterize the Avignon papacy.56 Bishop Pedro gained full control over the
chapter of Salamanca, either by placing people in his confidence in key positions
or by showing himself compliant with its most prominent members, as proved by
his 1315 approval of the expenses made in favour of his undesired rival. In 1320,
after the death of Master Iohannes de Montedomeri, it was Nuño, the bishop’s
brother, who was appointed Dean of Salamanca.57 Bishop Pedro also introduced
53
nos 1206, 1357. The process, which required further intervention in 1318, is fully analysed by
Beltrán de Heredia, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 116–18.
54
Sánchez, no. 1366.
55
nos 93–94; Regestum Clementis papae V, ed. by monks of the Order of St Benedict, p. cxi. Vicars
of the dean are widely mentioned in the chapter records preserved for the period 1317–18; see
Los libros de actas capitulares de la Catedral de Salamanca, ed. by Vicente Baz, nos 62, 65, 69–70,
72, 80, 93, 95–96, 98, 101–02, 116–17, 120, 122–24, 134, 138.
56
Díaz Ibáñez, ‘La provisión pontificia de beneficios eclesiásticos en el reino de Castilla
durante el periodo aviñonés’.
57
no. 507.
into his chapter his nephew Ruy Fernández de Monroy, son of Fernán Pérez de
Monroy the Elder, who was appointed portionist in 1318 as the starting point of
a career that was to culminate in the position of Archdeacon of Alba, in which he
is recorded in 1346.58
Epilogue: The Tombs of Discord?

This contribution ends by looking again at the starting point for this research:
the episcopal tomb in the chapel of San Nicolás of the Old Cathedral of
Salamanca, whose titular is now more confidently identified as Bishop Pedro
Pérez de Monroy, brother of Nuño Pérez de Monroy, Abbot of Santander and
chancellor of Queen María de Molina, and brother of Fernán Pérez de Monroy,
Lord of Monroy and cupbearer of Queen María de Molina. Bishop Pedro Pérez
de Monroy was personally nominated by Pope Clement V, who rejected the local
chapter’s unanimous proposal of its former Dean Diego Fernández, by then
Bishop of Lamego in Portugal. Bishop Pedro Pérez de Monroy inaugurated at the
see of Salamanca an era of bishops of noble and political profile, to which belong
bishops like Juan Lucero or Diego de Anaya in this very same century. These are
local examples of a process that became general throughout the entire Crown
of Castile in the late Middle Ages.59 Certainly, Pedro Pérez de Monroy was not
the first Bishop of Salamanca nominated personally by a pope: there are earlier
examples, beginning with the aforementioned Alfonso de las Asturias. But former
appointments always took place in the context of disputes within the chapter.
What is new about Pedro Pérez de Monroy is that his nomination was made against
the unanimous decision of the chapter: in fact, it marks the end of the control
of the bishopric by the chapter, as traditional historiography already noted.60
Is some of this expressed in his tomb? Unfortunately, his stay in Avignon
took place long before this city became a leading artistic centre, so that his tomb
displays a local feel. As other tombs created in Salamanca since the late thirteenth
century, his tomb combines sculpture and wall painting and shows, in terms of
iconography, the representation of the funerals on the front of the sarcophagus,
the recumbent effigy of the deceased on the top of the sarcophagus, and while
58
Los libros de actas capitulares de la Catedral de Salamanca, ed. by Vicente Baz, no. 116;
Ávila Seoane, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces’, pp. 136–37.
59
Díaz Ibáñez, ‘La incorporación de la nobleza al alto clero en el reino de Castilla durante
la Baja Edad Media’, pp. 559–65.
60
González Dávila, Historia de las antigüedades de la ciudad de Salamanca, pp. 248–49;
Dorado, Compendio histórico de la ciudad de Salamanca, p. 243.
omitting the Adoration of the Magi usual on the tympanum of the tombs of
Salamanca, it shows on it an abridged Last Judgement (displayed in other
monuments above the arched niche).61 What is more original is the choice of
themes for the wall paintings of the soffit of the arched niche (see Figure 9.5):
the figure of St Catherine to the right and a much-discussed scene to the left that
in my (contested) opinion is a disputatio, where two figures holding books that
look like seated clerics address each other with expressive gestures. The figure to
the left is a woman (notice her long hair). This is why I interpret this scene as
an abridged and unusual depiction of St Catherine disputing with the wise men,
excluded from a narrative context and brought to a contemporary setting.62 In
my opinion these images underline the role of Bishop Pedro Pérez de Monroy as
protector of knowledge, because, as noted above, he contributed in a decisive way
to the continuity of the University of Salamanca in the early fourteenth century.
In the story reported here there is a second tomb to be considered: a niche
tomb situated in the south transept of the Old Cathedral of Salamanca, close to
the entrance to the cloister (see Figure 9.6).63 Its attribution has been the subject
of great controversy. However, since the discovery of wall paintings in this area in
1997 it is clear that it belongs to a Diego who flourished in the early fourteenth
century. A Diego because this name is recorded twice in the painted epitaph
above the tomb.64 A Diego who flourished in the early fourteenth century
because of its relationship with the adjacent tombs.65 Is this the tomb of Diego
Fernández, the frustrated Bishop of Salamanca that became Bishop of Lamego
and Zamora? I cannot be certain, but I think it is possible: Diego Fernández had
no good reason at all to be buried either in Lamego or in Zamora. However, the
recumbent effigy corresponds to an average cleric, not to a bishop. If this is his
61
Gutiérrez Baños, ‘Imaging the Tomb’, pp. 203–04.
62
Ruiz Maldonado, ‘Imágenes de lo sagrado. Imágenes de lo humano’, n. 125, rejects this
energetically. The depiction of this scene transformed into a devotional image per se, excluded
from a narrative context, is attested in a Florentine panel by Cenni di Francesco dated possibly
c. 1380, now preserved in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (no. 1982.35.1); see Christiansen,
Saint Catherine Disputing and Two Donors.
63
About this tomb, see Gómez-Moreno, Catálogo monumental de España: Provincia de
Salamanca, i, 118; Gutiérrez Baños, Aportación al estudio de la pintura de estilo gótico lineal en
Castilla y León, ii, 176–78; Ruiz Maldonado, ‘Imágenes de lo sagrado. Imágenes de lo humano’,
pp. 209–12.
64
Gutiérrez Baños, Aportación al estudio de la pintura de estilo gótico lineal en Castilla y
León, ii, 178; Salamanca (siglos viii–xv), ed. by Rodríguez Suárez, no. 51.
65
It is placed physically and chronologically between the tombs of Alfonso Vidal, Dean of
Ávila (d. 1288–89), and Diego, Archdeacon of Ledesma (d. 1304–06), created c. 1330.
tomb, maybe he ordered it before 1306, when he became bishop (I don’t think
so: he was eager for becoming bishop and he would have waited for it), or, if
he ordered it later, he could decide to be represented as dean: first, to avoid a
possible conflict with the Bishop of Salamanca; second, to be remembered in
his city as the powerful cleric he had been.66 As his epitaph reads, ‘multis spargi
Didaci fama’ (Diego’s fame reached many people).
66
There are other episcopal tombs whose titulars are not represented as bishops, but their
circumstances are not fully comparable to this hypothetical case. In the cathedral of Girona,
in Catalonia, Guillem de Montgrí (d. 1273), nominated Archbishop of Tarragona, was buried
as chief sacristan, but certainly he had rejected the archbishopric. In the collegiate church of
Tudela, in Navarre, Sancho Sánchez de Oteiza (d. 1425), Bishop of Pamplona, ordered a still-
preserved tomb as Dean of Tudela (the dignity he held before being appointed bishop), but
this was before his nomination: he later ordered another tomb as Bishop of Pamplona in the
cathedral church of his see, where he was finally buried.
Works Cited
Salamanca, Archivo de la Catedral de Salamanca [ACS], Caj. 67, leg. 3, núm. 1

Valladolid, Archivo del Monasterio de Santa María la Real de las Huelgas de Valladolid
[AMSMRHV]
Carp. 1, núm. 11
Carp. 1, núm. 14
Primary Sources
Actas inéditas de siete concilios españoles celebrados desde el año 1282 hasta el de 1314, ed. by
Fidel Fita y Colomé (Madrid: Imprenta de F. Maroto e Hijos, 1882)
Catálogo de documentos del Archivo Catedralicio de Salamanca, ed. by Florencio Marcos
Rodríguez (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca and Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, 1962)
Colección documental de Alfonso XI: Diplomas reales conservados en el Archivo Histórico
Nacional. Sección de Clero. Pergaminos, ed. by Esther González Crespo (Madrid:
Universidad Complutense, 1985)
Colección documental de la catedral de Salamanca, vol. i: 1098–1300, ed. by María Luisa
Guadalupe Beraza, José Luis Martín Martín, Ángel Vaca Lorenzo, and Luis Miguel
Villar García (Madrid: Caja España de Inversiones and Archivo Histórico Diocesano
de León, 2009)
Crónica del rey don Fernando, in Memorias de D. Fernando IV de Castilla, ed. by Antonio
Benavides, vol. i (Madrid: Imprenta de José Rodríguez, 1860), pp. 1–243
Documentos del Clemente V (1305–1314) referentes a España, ed. by Santiago Domínguez
Sánchez, Monumenta Hispaniae Pontificia, 7 (León: Universidad de León, 2014)
Gran crónica de Alfonso XI, ed. by Diego Catalán, 2 vols (Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1977)
Historia compostelana, ed. by Emma Falque Rey (Madrid: Ediciones Akal, 1994)
Los libros de actas capitulares de la Catedral de Salamanca (1298–1489), ed. by Raúl
Vicente Baz, Colección Instrumentos del Archivo Catedral de Salamanca, 2 (Sala-
manca: Cabildo Catedral de Salamanca, 2009)
Regestum Clementis papae V[. Annus primus], ed. by monks of the Order of St Benedict
(Roma: Typographia Vaticana, 1885)
Salamanca (siglos viii–xv), ed. by Natalia Rodríguez Suárez, Corpus Inscriptionum
Hispaniae Medievalium, 2 (León: Universidad de León, 2016)
Secondary Sources
Aldea, Quintín, ‘Tercias reales’, in Diccionario de Historia Eclesiástica de España, ed. by
Quintín Aldea Vaquero, Tomás Marín Martínez, and José Vives Gatell, 4 vols (Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1972–75), iv, 2252–53
Álvarez Domínguez, Ursicino, Historia general civil y eclesiástica de la provincia de Zamora
(Zamora: Establecimiento Tipográfico de ‘La Seña Bermeja’, 1889)
Álvarez Villar, Julián, De heráldica salmantina: Historia de la ciudad en el arte de sus blasones,
2nd edn (Salamanca: Ayuntamiento de Salamanca and Colegio de España, 1997)
Ávila Seoane, Nicolás, ‘Monroyes, Botes y Almaraces: tres señoríos tempranos en el
concejo de Plasencia’, En la España Medieval, 27 (2004), 131–63
Barton, Simon, The Aristocracy in TwelfthCentury León and Castile (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1997)
Beltrán de Heredia, Vicente, Cartulario de la Universidad de Salamanca (1218–1600),
vol. i (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1970)
Christiansen, Keith, Saint Catherine Disputing and Two Donors, New York, Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 2014, <https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/435863>
[accessed 14 December 2017]
Cooper, Edward, Castillos señoriales en la Corona de Castilla, rev. edn, 3 vols (Salamanca:
Junta de Castilla y León, 1991)
Costa, M. Gonçalves da, História do bispado e cidade de Lamego, vol. i: Idade Média: a
mitra e o município (Lamego: Diocese de Lamego, 1977)
Díaz Ibáñez, Jorge, ‘La incorporación de la nobleza al alto clero en el reino de Castilla
durante la Baja Edad Media’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 35.2 (2005), 557–603
—— , ‘La provisión pontificia de beneficios eclesiásticos en el reino de Castilla durante el
periodo aviñonés: Estado de la cuestión’, Lusitania Sacra, 22 (2010), 63–84
Dorado, Bernardo, Compendio histórico de la ciudad de Salamanca (Salamanca: Juan
Antonio de Lasanta, [1776])
Gaibrois de Ballesteros, Mercedes, María de Molina (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1936)
Gómez-Moreno, Manuel, Catálogo monumental de España: Provincia de Salamanca,
2 vols (Valencia: Dirección General de Bellas Artes, 1967)
González Dávila, Gil, Historia de las antigüedades de la ciudad de Salamanca (Salamanca:
Imprenta de Artús Taberniel, 1606)
González Mínguez, César, Fernando IV de Castilla (1295–1312), 2nd edn (Gijón: Edi-
ciones Trea, 2017)
Goñi Gaztambide, José, Historia de la bula de cruzada en España (Vitoria: Editorial del
Seminario, 1958)
Guglieri Navarro, Araceli, Catálogo de sellos de la Sección de Sigilografía del Archivo
Histórico Nacional, 3 vols (Valencia: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, 1974–75)
Gutiérrez Baños, Fernando, Aportación al estudio de la pintura de estilo gótico lineal en
Castilla y León: precisiones cronológicas y corpus de pintura mural y sobre tabla, 2 vols
(Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Española, 2005)
—— , ‘Imaging the Tomb: Remarks on Funerary Murals of the 13th and 14th Centuries in
Castile and Leon’, in Out of the Stream: Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Mural
Painting, ed. by Luís Urbano Afonso and Vítor Serrão (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2007), pp. 182–205, 414–15
Ladero Quesada, Miguel Ángel, Fiscalidad y poder real en Castilla (1252–1369) (Madrid:
Editorial Complutense, 1993)
Linehan, Peter, ‘The Church, the Economy and the Reconquista in Early Fourteenth-
Century Castile’, Revista Española de Teología, 43 (1983), 275–303
—— , The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1971)
Marcos, Florencio, ‘Salamanca, Diócesis de’, in Diccionario de Historia Eclesiástica de
España, ed. by Quintín Aldea Vaquero, Tomás Marín Martínez, and José Vives Gatell,
4 vols (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1972–75), iv,
2137–44
Nieto Soria, José Manuel, Las relaciones monarquíaepiscopado castellano como sistema de
poder (1252–1312), 2 vols (Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 1983)
Olivera Arranz, María del Rosario, ‘La hospitalidad privada en el Valladolid bajomedieval:
el hospital de don Nuño Pérez de Monroy’, in Valladolid: Historia de una ciudad.
Congreso Internacional, vol. i: La ciudad y el arte: Valladolid villa (época medieval)
(Valladolid: Ayuntamiento de Valladolid, 1999), pp. 327–37
Ruiz Maldonado, Margarita, ‘Imágenes de lo sagrado. Imágenes de lo humano: La escul-
tura y pintura medievales’, in La catedral de Salamanca: Nueve siglos de historia y arte,
ed. by René Jesús Payo Hernanz and Valentín Berriochoa Sánchez-Moreno (Burgos:
Promecal, 2012), pp. 189–254
Sierra Simón, José María, ‘Estrategias matrimoniales de la casa de Monroy’, Revista de
Estudios Extremeños, 72.1 (2016), 391–419
—— , ‘Mayorazgos de Monroy’, Revista de Estudios Extremeños, 71.1 (2015), 235–93
Velo y Nieto, Gervasio, Castillos de Extremadura (tierra de conquistadores): Cáceres (Madrid:
Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Cáceres y Plasencia, 1968)
—— , ‘Don Nuño Pérez de Monroy, abad de Santander’, Hispania Sacra, 3 (1950), 319–60
Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical
Reform in Late Medieval Castile:
The Bishop of Burgos,
Luis de Acuña (1456–1495)*
Susana Guijarro
L
uis de Acuña was Bishop of Burgos for over three decades (1456–95)
He came to the city when he was about thirty-five years old from the
diocese of Segovia, where he had been administrator of the Church. The
city of Burgos was the political capital and main centre of international trade in
the Kingdom of Castile in the late Middle Ages. Despite the fall in the number
of inhabitants in the mid-fourteenth century, the following century began
with a slow but steady growth that accelerated in its last decades. It has been
calculated that in about 1500 the city would have had some twelve to fourteen
* This paper has been written in the framework of the research project HARD2016-
79265-P (funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness) entitled ‘Culture,
Power and Social Network in Medieval Castile: The Cathedral and Diocesan Clergy of Burgos
in the Late Middle Ages’.
Susana Guijarro (guijarrs@unican.es) is an Associate Professor at the University of Cantabria,

Spain. Her publications include ‘Maestros, escuelas y libros: El universo cultural de las
Catedrales en la Castilla Medieval’ (University Carlos III, Madrid, 2004) and ‘El buen fazer, el
buen morir en la sociedad medieval burgalesa, siglos xiii–xv’ (University of Cantabria, 2016),
about attitudes towards death in the medieval city of Burgos. She has recently edited the book
Cabildos catedralicios y obispos en la Iberia Medieval: autoridad, disciplina y conflicto (Editorial
Sílex, 2019).
224 Susana Guijarro
thousand inhabitants.1 Crafts and trade activity favoured the emergence of an

urban oligarchy formed by members of the lower nobility (urban knights with
both urban and rural income) and prosperous merchants. In the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries Burgos became the main centre in the kingdom for
the redistribution of raw materials and manufactured products, which were
exported to France, Flanders, and England through the ports in the north on
the Bay of Biscay.2 The affirmation of some families and lineages in the city
oligarchy caused violent disturbances between them and public disorder from
the mid-fifteenth century. The pacification of the city allowed members of the
high nobility, such as the Mendozas, members of the cathedral chapter, or the
Estúñigas, who were delegated by the king to govern the castle, to intervene
in the policies of the municipal government. The king’s law officers acted
together with the municipal officers, so that royal justice became increasingly
powerful. In addition, the city walls protected the royal court with relative
frequency during its stays in Burgos; indeed, royal ceremonies of great fame
for the Kingdom of Castile took place in its monasteries and churches. City
life was also periodically altered in the second half of the fifteenth century
as a consequence of the disputes over the succession to the throne between
members of the royal family. Supporting one or another pretender to the throne
was the cause of confrontations between lineages in the city oligarchy, and
changing alliances were formed between the castle governors, the bishop, and
the cathedral chapter.3
The diocese was directly dependent on the pontifical see in Rome, and it was
one of the largest in Castile (30,000 km2, with about two thousand churches
in the fifteenth century). Acuña’s bishopric took place at a time of political and
economic instability marked above all by the war of succession to the throne
during the reign of Enrique IV (1454–74). Luis de Acuña’s life and career
developed simultaneously in the spheres of the Church and politics. He is an
archetype of the long process of the introduction of Castilian nobility into the
high clergy, which began timidly in the thirteenth century and intensified in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.4 This process was favoured by a new dynasty
(the Trastámara) reaching the throne of Castile in 1369, after the war between
1
However, there were outbreaks of epidemics in 1478 and 1496. See Martínez García, ‘La
sociedad burgalesa a fines de la Edad Media’, p. 71.
2
Casado Alonso, ‘Oligarquía urbana, comercio internacional y poder real’, pp. 328–36.
3
Guerrero Navarrete, ‘Rey, nobleza y élites urbanas en Burgos (siglo xv)’, pp. 257–62.
4
Díaz Ibáñez, ‘La incorporación de la nobleza al alto clero en el reino de Castilla durante
la Baja Edad Media’.
Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval Castile 225
Pedro I (1350–69) and his stepbrother Enrique (who became Enrique II of

Castile), and the rise of new noble lineages.
The Ecclesiastical Career towards the Bishopric:

Family, Patronage, and Clientelism
Although King Enrique IV had backed Alfonso Vázquez de Acuña (Bishop of
Jaen and of Mondoñedo) as the candidate to the bishopric of Burgos following
the death of Bishop Alfonso de Cartagena, it was Luis de Acuña y Osorio who
gained the position, which is proof of his contacts in the pontifical court. His
family was linked to important noble lineages. His father, Juan Álvarez de
Osorio, originated from Portugal and had been important in the court of King
Enrique III of Castile (1390–1406). In turn, his mother, María de Manuel, had
royal blood. He was the nephew of the Archbishop of Toledo, Alfonso Carrillo de
Acuña (1446–82), and the Count of Buendía, Pedro de Acuña. On his mother’s
side, he was related to Pedro Pacheco, Marquis of Villena and a favourite in King
Enrique IV’s court.5 After his mother’s second marriage (to Garci Sarmiento), he
had two stepbrothers, whom he helped when he became Bishop of Burgos: Pedro
Girón, who became Archdeacon of Treviño (1466) and Archdeacon of Valpuesta
(1474) in the diocese of Burgos,6 and Antonio Sarmiento who became one of the
regidores (officials of the local government) in Burgos.7 We also know of four
nephews who obtained canonries and dignities in Burgos cathedral chapter in
the second half of the fifteenth century: Juan de Osorio8 (canon, Archdeacon of
5
López Martínez, ‘Don Luis de Acuña, el cabildo de Burgos y la reforma’, pp. 193–96.
6
CAB, 16 September 1466, Libro Redondo of 1466, fol. 16r: Pedro Girón took possession
of the archdeaconry of Treviño. CAB, 26 August 1474, Libro Redondo of 1474, fol. 13r: he
obtained the archdeaconry of Valpuesta after an exchange that he made in Rome with Cardinal
Rodrigo de Borja.
7
CAB, 12 and 13 September 1496, Libro 39/2, fol. 450v: in his last will, Bishop Acuña
left him 400,000 maravedis (one of the Castilian coins) and called him his brother servant.
It was, however, a problem for the bishop as in the conflict over the succession to the throne
between King Enrique IV and his sister Isabel of Castile, Antonio Sarmiento helped those
who supported Juana of Castile, Enrique IV’s daughter, as the heiress to the throne. Part of the
Castilian nobility regarded Juana as an illegitimate daughter.
8
CAB, 24 October 1463, Libro Redondo of 1463, fol. 16r: Juan Osorio, Bishop Acuña’s
nephew, took possession of a canonry. CAB, 13 December 1471, Register 18, fol. 402v: he took
possession of the Abbey of San Quirce. CAB, 1454, Libro Redondo of 1454, fol. 13r: he took
possession of the archdeaconry of Treviño.
226 Susana Guijarro
Treviño, and Abbot of San Quirce), Luis Osorio9 (precentor and canon at Burgos,
Dean of León, and later Bishop of Jaen), Martín Vázquez de Acuña10 (canon),
and Cristobal Osorio11 (canon). The kinship network was completed with two
sons and a daughter (Teresa de Guzmán), who appear in his will, through his
relationship with a noblewoman. However, it has not been possible to document
clearly whether they were born before or after he became bishop. Through his
son Diego de Osorio the kinship network was enlarged by the latter’s marriage
to Isabel de Rojas (from an important lineage in Burgos), which then formed
the lineage of the Osorio y Acuña.12 Diego de Osorio also ensured the presence
of Bishop Acuña’s relatives in the municipal government, of which he became a
regidor.13 In turn, his other son, Antonio de Acuña, guaranteed the participation
of the bishop’s family in the cathedral chapter, where he obtained two canonries
and two archdeaconries (Burgos and Valderas in the diocesis of Léon) and
culminated his career by being raised to the episcopal see of Zamora. However,
Bishop Acuña, his father, does not mention him at all in his detailed last will.14
Together with this kinship network, the bishop was surrounded by a large
circle of employees, some of which were called ‘servants’ (criados). We know
9
CAB, 28 November 1466, Libro Redondo of 1466, fol. 18r: he was precentor or cantor for a
short time. CAB, 31 July 1467, Register 18, fol. 45r: he appears as a canon in Burgos; he would later
move to León Cathedral. CAB, 7 March 1471, Register 15, fol. 350r: he appears as a dean in León.
10
CAB, 13 September 1466, Register 17, fols 419v–422r: Bishop Acuña applied to the
chapter for a canonry for his nephew Martín Vázquez de Acuña, of noble lineage but illegitimate
birth. The chapter agrees to the request on condition that he received exemption for that
circumstance. Meanwhile, Acuña’s secretary, Juan de Astudillo would occupy the canonry. There
would be no further promotion in his nephew’s career, perhaps because of his illegitimacy.
11
CAB, 29 July 1477, Libro Redondo of 1477, fol. 12 r : he also appears as Abbot of
Fuentecenadón on 20 July 1477.
12
CAB, 12 and 13 September 1495, Libro 39/2, fols 448r–451v: in his last will Bishop Luis
de Acuña names his son Diego de Osorio universal heir of all his properties. CAB, Libro 39/2,
fol. 443v. Diego de Osorio’s marriage with Isabel de Rojas enabled him to join the noble lineage
of the Rojas and municipal politics in Burgos.
13
Diego de Osorio was always close to the Castilian court of the Catholic Monarchs, Isabel
and Fernando (1474–1504). Municipal Archive of Burgos, Historical Section, Act Books of
1480, fol. 25r: in 1480 he became one of the city regidores (local officials) in Burgos.
14
CAB, 1 November 1486, Register 21, fols 255r–257r: his stay in the papal court in Rome
enabled him to obtain a pontifical exemption for his condition as an illegitimate son in order
to apply for ecclesiastical benefices. One year later he was awarded his first canonry in Burgos,
CAB, 23 September 1487, Libro Redondo of 1487, fol. 8r. CAB, 15 October 1491, Register 26,
fols 117r–1211r: he obtained a second canonry. CAB, 20 June 1507, Register 35, fol. 127v: he
was Archdeacon of Valderas when he was named Bishop of Zamora.
some of their names, like the servant Gonzalo de Ávila and, above all, those who
reached positions in the cathedral chapter, like the canon Diego de Coria (1465)
and the treasurer Juan de Monte (1490).15 However, the bishop’s most faithful
man in the chapter was his butler Fernán Díaz de Fuentepelayo, whom he brought
with him from Segovia and who obtained the dignities of precentor (1466) and
Archdeacon of Burgos (1472).16 He was a long-lasting supporter of the bishop
in the government of the diocese and in his private business. In his will, he also
mentions several servants,17 and another document names five of his servants or
squires (Pedro de Frias, Martín de Arce, Juan de Rojas, Martín Fría de Mozoncillo,
and Alonso de Polanco).18 In addition, in 1477 he had a chapel built, dedicated to
the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception (Chapel of the Conception, of which
he was a devotee).19 This chapel, intended to be his burial place and that of his
relatives, was another way to create a position for his servants by making them
the chaplains of it ( Juan de Astudillo, Alonso de Oña, the precentor Diego de
Andino, Pedro de Atienza, Alonso de León, and Francisco Artacho).20
15
CAB, 9 March 1465, Register 17, fol. 279r: Diego de Oria, Chamberlain of Obispo
Acuña, obtained a canonry that year and later his treasurer, Juan Monte, took possession of
another, CAB, 11 March 1490, Register 26, fols 11r–12v.
16
CAB, 2 November 1461, Libro Redondo of 1461, fol. 15v: five years after Acuña came
to Burgos he obtained a canonry for Díaz de Fuentepelayo. CAB, 20 January 1462, Register
17, fol. 7r : Despite the initial opposition of the chapter members to Bishop Acuña having
another two relatives/servants in Rome, they awarded Díaz de Fuentepelayo the condition of
student and the corresponding assignation of eight thousand maravedis. CAB, 28 November
1466, Libro Redondo of 1466, fol. 18r : named precentor. Six years later, CAB, 7 February
1472, Libro Redondo of 1472, fol. 18v, he reached the dignity of Archdeacon of Burgos from
where he was able to serve Bishop Acuña more efficaciously as one of his key men in the
cathedral chapter.
17
CAB, 12 and 13 September 1495, Libro 39/2, fols 448r–451v. In his will he left amounts
of money to some of his servants: four squires, three storekeepers (reposteros) whom he had at
home, a cathedral caretaker, and a chapel boy.
18
Pampliega, Pontido y otras dependencias de la Catedral de Burgos, p. 38.
19
CAB, 11 June 1472, Vol. 20, fols 160v–166r : Bishop Acuña awarded funding to the
foundation of postmortem memories connected with the place where he was buried. CAB,
25 January 1477, Register 20, fol. 91r: Luis de Acuña applied to the chapter for the place located
behind the chapels of Santa Ana and San Antolín to build a chapel where his tomb would be
placed. This chapel took the name of Chapel of the Conception because of his devotion to the
Immaculate Conception.
20
CAB, 12 and 13 September 1495, Libro 39/2, fols 448r–451v: In his will he left amounts
of money to some of his servants. See also the names of the chaplains in López Martínez, ‘Don
Luis de Acuña, el cabildo de Burgos y la reforma’, p. 200.
228 Susana Guijarro
Diagram 10.1. Bishop Acuña’s kinship and patronage networks.
He must have had a large entourage because when he arrived in Burgos in 1457
to take possession of the bishopric, his relatives had to lodge in several houses
belonging to the Burgos chapter. The bishop with his employees (some of which
had their own servants), squires, and chaplains moved into the bishop’s palace
on the southern side of the cathedral, but that was not enough. Bishop Acuña
asked the chapter for permission to cross the enclosed bridge (pontido) to go from
the palace to the high cloisters in the cathedral, above which there were several
rooms.21 The chapter gave Bishop Acuña permission for some of his servants to
lodge in those rooms for a year until the palace had been enlarged. The use of
this enclosed wooden bridge was the cause of the first clash between the prelate
and the cathedral chapter, as he and his retinue continued to use it. Indeed, an
agreement between the chapter and the prelate in 1488 determined that after
Bishop Acuña’s death, his successors would not have the right to cross from the
bishop’s palace to the high cloister.22
21
CAB, 7 April 1457, Register 19, fol. 43r.
22
CAB, 23 April 1488, Libro 46, fols 10r–12v: this agreement meant that until his death,
Active Participation in Politics in the Kingdom of Castile

Luis de Acuña’s relationship with the monarchy and most influential noble
lineages was variable, as occurred with other fifteenth-century prelates. He played
an active part in the political upheavals that endangered peace in the Kingdom of
Castile during Enrique IV’s reign and the civil war that broke out after his death.
In addition to the tense relations between part of the nobility and the monarch,
in Burgos there were times of economic crisis that caused famines due to the
increase in the rent that the peasants paid to use their lords’ land and the rise in
the prices of basic products. The famines also combined with outbreaks of plague
in the diocese and the consequent social discontent. There was also tension in
the relations between the city and the governors (tenentes) of Burgos Castle, the
powerful lineage of the Estúñiga, Counts of Plasencia and supporters of Juana,
Enrique IV’s daughter, as the successor to the throne. The city sought the support
of the bishop and the cathedral chapter against Count Álvaro de Estúñiga, who
had aligned with the nobles who backed Prince Alfonso against his stepbrother
King Enrique IV (1424–74). Bishop Acuña tried to remain impartial between
the chapter, the city, and the Count of Plasencia (governor of the castle), but the
kinship ties with the group of knights in the castle did not allow him to do so.
Chapter and bishop supported the followers of Prince Alfonso.23 At first, Bishop
Acuña had supported the monarch in the confrontation between Enrique IV’s
followers and the city governors of Burgos in 1461.24 However, two years later,
he took an active part in the meeting held in Burgos Cathedral with Enrique IV’s
opponents, in which a list of grievances against the king was drafted. From that
moment until 1468, he played an active role, and on occasions even put his armed
men in the service of the supporters of Prince Alfonso.25 The sudden death of the
prince in 1468 made his sister Isabel (stepsister of Enrique IV) the new candidate
of the opposition. The agreement at ‘Toros de Guisando’ (Ávila) signed between
Enrique IV and his stepsister made Isabel the Princess of Asturias and heir to the
Bishop Acuña, his servants, and chaplains were allowed to use the wooden bridge (pontido) to
go from the bishop’s palace to the high cloister in the cathedral and use the rooms prepared for
his servants.
23
Martínez García, ‘El castillo de Burgos y el poder feudal (siglos xiv y xv)’.
24
Bonachía Hernando and Casado Alonso, ‘La segunda mitad del siglo xiv y el siglo xv’,
pp. 384–85.
25
Ohara, ‘Reflexiones sobre la difusión de la información política en el ámbito urbano
durante el reinado de Enrique IV’: From 1463 Luis de Acuña opposed King Enrique IV. He took
part in the meeting that was held in the cathedral to draw up a list of citizens’ complaints against
the king. This meeting helped the city of Burgos to align with the party opposing the king.
230 Susana Guijarro
throne over Juana, the king’s daughter, known as ‘la Beltraneja’ (she was born
from the marriage between Enrique IV and Juana of Portugal that was declared
illegitimate).26 In this new situation, Bishop Luis de Acuña approached his uncle,
Alonso Carrillo de Acuña, Archbishop of Toledo, to gain the favour of Princess
Isabel. That was the situation until the king’s death in 1472 although, in reality,
he never fully separated from the side of the Marquis of Villena, to which his
uncle, the archbishop, did not belong.
King Enrique IV’s death marked the start of a new time of political instability
in the Kingdom of Castile, beginning with the outbreak of civil war between
supporters of Princess Isabel and the Portuguese followers of the king’s daughter,
Juana ‘la Beltraneja’.27 Although Bishop Acuña swore loyalty to the new Queen
Isabel in 1474, he again played an ambiguous role due to family and political
obligations with the Portuguese supporters of Juana. He attempted to maintain
a neutral position, but both the prelate and his stepbrother, Antonio Sarmiento,
had to choose one of the two factions that divided the city of Burgos, and this was
the side of Juana.28 The castle governor, Álvaro de Estúñiga did the same, but the
cathedral chapter and the municipal government supported Isabel. In the middle
of this political division, when the castle was besieged by Isabel’s supporters
(1475–76), Bishop Acuña left the city and took refuge in his fortress in Rabé.
After Isabel’s supporters took the castle in 1476, peace was signed with Portugal,
but the bishop was banished to his fortress until he was allowed to return to the
bishopric of Burgos in 1482.29 From there he governed the diocese and was able
to move freely about it without entering the city itself. However, from 1477, he
began to approach Queen Isabel, who confirmed his episcopal rights, but his
ecclesiastical career did not end with an archbishopric.30
26
Enríquez de Castillo, Crónica del Rey Enrique IV de este nombre, ed. by Torres Fontes,
ch. 102, pp. 334–37.
27
Villarroel González, Juana la Beltraneja, pp. 122–37.
28
Romero Portilla, ‘Protagonismo del partido portugués en la política castellana del siglo xv’.
29
Municipal Archive of Burgos, Historical Section 2996, 15 February 1482.
30
CAB, 16 March 1477, Vol. 21, fols 36–39.
Ecclesiastical Policy: Reform and Resistance of the Cathedral Chapter to

the Increase in Episcopal Power
Unlike his predecessors, Bishop Acuña lived in the diocese of Burgos during most
of his long bishopric. The lines of his ecclesiastical policy with the cathedral chapter
and the diocese of Burgos show he was a prelate committed to the guidelines of
reform taken by the Castilian Church in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It
is not difficult to see in these guidelines the spirit of reform in the life and training
of the clergy, as well as an increase in episcopal power and secular clergy.
First of all, he took some measures regarding episcopal properties and
possessions (mensa episcopalis). He was able to make some places in the diocese
of Burgos that had left the mensa episcopalis return to it. He also recovered
rent for the mensa episcopalis from some places that had stopped paying it.31
Additionally, he was continually struggling against the high taxes (decimae and
subsidia) imposed on the cathedral chapter and diocese clergy by pontifical
legates, following the Council of Mantua (1464), to finance the war against
the Turks that had won control over the Byzantine Empire. For the cathedral
chapter, he attempted to improve the financial situation of the lesser benefice
holders, medio racioneros (half portionaries), the basis of service to the choir
and the cathedral chapels, whose income barely allowed them to subsist. The
difference with the income allotted to the greater benefice holders of dignitaries
and canons was huge. This situation was particularly difficult in the time of
economic crisis from 1456 to 1476, when the income of the cathedral chapter
in money and kind decreased considerably. Most of the ecclesiastical benefices
in the diocese did not come to more than 4000 maravedis a year, whereas some
dignitaries received 25,668 maravedis a year (for example, the Archdeacon of
Burgos in 1456).32 As well as taking away a prebend or ecclesiastical benefice to
share the income among the half portionaries (twenty members), he founded
funerary anniversaries in 1474 that would be helped by half portionaries.
However, what most helped these lesser benefice holders was the foundation
of a chapel (Chapel of the Conception) in the cathedral for his tomb and the
burial of his relatives, dedicated to one of his favourite devotions, the Virgin
31
CAB, 28 December 1458, Register 16, fol. 77r: The cathedral chapter took before the
pontifical court in Rome the case in which Bishop Luis de Acuña and the chapter litigated
against the town council of Villasandino over the place of San Pedro del Campo, which had
previously belonged to Burgos cathedral church.
32
CAB, 26 December 1460, Register 16, fol. 151r: Acuña informed the chapter about the
low income that the half portionaries received and asked for their prebends to be increased
individually. CAB, 1456, Libro Redondo of 1456, fol. 222r.
232 Susana Guijarro
of the Immaculate Conception. The institutional record of the foundation is

dated in 1488 when the construction of the chapter was almost finished, but as
a chaplancy it had existed in the cathedral since more than a decade before.33 In
1486 he put the twenty half-portionaries whom he considered the most needy to
the service of this chapel. They would be assisted by two choirboys.34 In the end,
only ten half-portionaries would serve in this chapel after the chapter protested
that this service harmed their duties in the choir.35
Secondly, his most persistent policy, to put an end to the exemptions that
restricted episcopal jurisdiction over the cathedral chapter, came up against
the fierce resistance of that institution. Originally, the bishop was the supreme
head of the chapters and was able to correct and punish them, but in the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries the Holy See in Rome granted them exemption from
episcopal jurisdiction and they were placed under the archbishop’s jurisdiction.
In the case of the Church in Burgos, they also obtained exemption from the
archbishop’s jurisdiction and came to depend directly on the Holy See (1096).36
The episcopal exemption and the custom supporting it was repeatedly used
by the cathedral chapter as a reasoning against Bishop Acuña’s pretensions of
participating in the correction and punishment of the behaviour of cathedral
and diocese clergy. In fact, his first confrontation was with the archdeacons
and abbots of the institution who acted with total independence in their
circumscriptions. The prelate was unable to alter the custom with a new practice
until nearly three decades later, when his protests about the life of some canons
33
CAB, 9 June 1488, Libro 39/2, fols 294–397.
34
CAB, 12 April 1486, Vol. 21, fols 533r–535r.
35
CAB, 31 January 1486, Register 28, fol. 33r: Acuña established in the foundation of the
Chapel of the Conception that it would be served by chaplains. These would be chosen from
among the twenty half-portionaries that served the choir. This decision was not welcomed
by the chapter members, who accused him of reducing the service to the choir. CAB, 12 and
13 September 1495, Libro 39/2, fol. 451r: In his will, Luis de Acuña, expressed his regret for
taking twenty half-stipendaries from the choir and making them into chaplains in the chapel he
founded. He stated that it was his will that these twenty half-portionaries should return to the
choir and leave the benefices he had assigned them in his chapel. Thereafter, his chapel would be
served only by ten half-portionaries, which would be presented and provided of their chaplaincy
by the patron of the chapel named by Bishop Acuña. Only relatives and servants of the prelate
were allowed to be buried in the chapel.
36
Garrido Garrido, Documentación de la Catedral de Burgos (804–1183), no. 61, 15 July
1096: Pope Urban II declared the diocese of Burgos exempt of archbishopric jurisdiction and
subjected it directly to the Roman Apostolic See. He also acknowledged its ownership of the
town of Henar and the monasteries of San Pedro de Berlangas and Santa María de Ravanera,
which had been under the control of the Bishop of Toledo.
reached the Catholic Monarchs.37 According to his reform, honesty should be

reflected in the public life and image of the clergy. Supervision of the behaviour
of the diocesan and cathedral clergy by the bishop and his officers prolonged the
conflict between Acuña and the cathedral chapter. A previous study documented
282 cases of crimes and misdemeanours of cathedral and diocesan clergy that
were persecuted, of which 68 per cent were punished, particularly in the second
half of the fifteenth century.38 Bishop Acuña’s efforts to correct the behaviour of
clergy and the faithful were bearing their fruits.
The consequence was the agreement signed by both parties in 1488 and
sanctioned by Innocent VIII in 1489.39 With this, the bishop was assured the
correction of misdemeanours classified as serious. Some of these referred
to Church possessions: perjury, simony, harm to Church properties, and
inappropriate use of its symbols and sacred places. Others concerned social and
individual life, especially stressing sexual relations: abortion, zoophilia, and
relations between different ethnic groups and religions (Christians, Muslims,
and Jews). The debate eventually restarted in 1490–91, and a new agreement was
reached in 1492 and approved by Pope Alexander V.40 However, that did not put
an end to discussions, which continued in the sixteenth century.
37
CAB, 6 March 1472, Register 18, fol. 423 r : The chapter ordered an investigation
to be carried out of the maids of the chapter members who were accused of becoming their
concubines. CAB, 26 November 1477, Register 20, fols 132r–133r: Bishop Acuña ordered an
investigation into whether any chaplains were cohabiting.
38
Guijarro, ‘The Monastic Ideal of Discipline and the Making of Clerical Rules’.
39
CAB, 6 May 1488, Vol. 13/2, fol. 225r–233r: Bishop Acuña reached a first agreement
in the jurisdiction conflict with the cathedral chapter over the right to visit the institution and
punish the misdemeanours of its members. CAB, 1488–91, Libro 46, fol. 39r: This document
compiling information about the later conflict alludes to the terms of this first agreement
which allowed the bishop to judge certain cases, together with judges named by the chapter.
These included violence against married women and nuns, sodomy, carnal relations with blood
relatives, and similar.
40
CAB, 10 April 1492, Libro 46, fols 98r–101r and Vol. 55/2, fols 76r–81r: In the second
agreement, Acuña and the chapter agreed to supervise and punish cases deemed to be serious.
These included incest, public concubinage when it was not corrected after being condemned
by the bishop or the chapter, abduction of women, and adultery. However, the chapter was
allowed to pass judgement without the intervention of the bishop in such cases as aggression
without weapons or blood, playing dice for less than thirty reales, and some cases of adultery
and cohabitation. CAB, 29 September 1492, Vol. 55/2, fols 61r–65r: Alexander VI’s bull known
as the ‘Alexandrian Concord’ (Ea, quae concordia), which confirmed the agreement (10 April
1492) between the Bishop of Burgos, Luis de Acuña, and the chapter, indicating the rights of
each one as regards jurisdiction.
234 Susana Guijarro
As well as the tradition of episcopal exemption, another phenomenon may

have made the cathedral chapter sensitive to the bishop’s participation in internal
affairs, and that was the delicate matter of the provision of ecclesiastical benefices
when they became vacant. Since the constitution granted by Innocent IV to the
cathedral chapter (1252), a system had been in place alternating the proposal
of candidates for vacant ecclesiastical benefices: once the bishop and the
next time the chapter, although the proposals were sometimes made jointly.41
Additionally, the different steps on the ecclesiastical ladder should be respected,
from the bottom (half portionary, portionary) to the top (canon and finally
dignity). In practice, the step from the lower to higher hierarchy was not always
respected. Indeed, in the first three decades of Acuña’s bishopric, several men
linked to him rose rapidly in their careers. His brother, Pedro Girón, went in
less than a decade from a half portionary and portionary in 1458 to occupy two
important archdeaconries (Valpuesta and Treviño).42 In the last two decades of
his bishopric, no less rapid and the cause of conflicts with the chapter, were the
careers of Antonio de Acuña, his son (from lesser benefice holder to Abbot of the
Collegiate Church of Salas),43 and his nephews Luis de Osorio, Martín Vázquez
41
CAB, 13 April 1252, Vol. 62/1, fol. 108r: Constitutions granted to the Church of Burgos
by Cardinal Gil Torres and confirmed by Pope Innocent IV.
42
CAB, 9 April 1458, Register 15, fol. 19r: Pedro Girón obtained a half stipend. CAB,
11 April 1458, Register 15, fol. 19v–20r: he obtained a benefice of a stipend that had become
vacant. CAB, 6 January 1459, Register 15, fol. 34r: Pedro Girón presented a letter from Bishop
Acuña asking for permission to change his benefice of a stipend for a canonry. CAB, 12 August
1464, Libro 20, fol. 105r: he appeared as a canon and archdeacon at Valpuesta (diocese of
Burgos). CAB, 13 September 1466, Register 17, fol. 419r: Bishop Acuña grants his brother,
Pedro Girón, the archdeaconry of Treviño (diocese of Burgos).
43
Antonio Acuña, Bishop Acuña’s son, worked at the service of the pontifical court with
Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII, which made it easier for him to obtain ecclesiastical benefices.
CAB, 9 May 1484, Register 21, fols 186r–188r: Antonio Acuña presents Burgos cathedral chapter
the letter in which Bishop Acuña assigns him a dignitary (abbot at the Abbey of Salas). CAB,
10 April 1486 and 15 November 1486, Register 21, fols 255r–257r and 273r–274r: He obtained
pontifical exemption for his condition as an illegitimate son to be able to apply for ecclesiastical
dignitaries and benefices in the dioceses of Burgos and Segovia. CAB, 11 November 1484,
Register 22, fol. 187v: The cathedral chapter replied that it was a scandalous provision, never
seen before, owing to his condition as Bishop Acuña’s son. CAB, 10 November 1484, Register
22, fol. 188r–118v: On Bishop Acuña’s insistence, the chapter allowed Antonio Acuña to take
possession of the Abbey of Salas with the condition that he must not enter Burgos Cathedral,
and after two years he changed that dignitary for a benefice in another church. CAB, 18 January
1485, Register 21, fols 188v–189r: He took possession of the Abbey of Salas through his cousin
Juan Osorio who acted as his representative. CAB, 10 February 1485, Register 22, fol. 211r:
The Catholic Monarchs warn the cathedral chapter that they have a candidate for the Abbey
de Acuña, Cristobal de Osorio, and, above all, Juan de Osorio, who in fewer than
ten years rose from canon to hold two dignities (Abbot of the Collegiate Church
of San Quirce and Archdeacon of Treviño).44 Bishop Acuña gradually introduced
into the chapter men of his kin and all those who served him. Some of these were
called the bishop’s relatives or comensales because they had received that status
as a prerogative of the bishop after applying for it. It was therefore an artificial
kinship, characteristic of patronage and clientelism networks.
Promotion of Ecclesiastical Reform in the Diocese of Burgos

Bishop Acuña’s support for late medieval ecclesiastical reform culminated in a
diocese synod in 1474. The chapter complained that they had not been allowed
to take part in drafting the rules of the synod.45 This revealed a double concern.
First and foremost, the life and customs of the clergy were affecting their
pastoral function. The rules imposed were related to their outer appearance
(moderation in clerical vestments, clerical hairstyle, and no weapons) and
inappropriate behaviour (concubinage, business with laymen, gambling at cards,
insults, and violence).46 It also regulated the price that the faithful should pay
for funerary services, as the costs were sometimes too high.47 Closely connected
with improvements in the pastoral function, the bishop attempted to solve the
ignorance of parish clergy in carrying out the care of souls. Thus, Acuña made
all the clergy pass an examination on abilities in Latin grammar, the sacraments,
the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the faith in order to be ordained
of Salas and Antonio Acuña should leave it. CAB, 22 September 1487, Libro Redondo of 1487,
fol. 8r: After the death of the canon Gonzalo de Maluenda, he occupied his canonry. CAB,
15 October 1491, Register 26, fol. 117r and 11 December 1491, Register 26, fols 140r–141v:
He obtained another canonry and, at the same time, the archdeaconry of Burgos. CAB, 20 June
1507, Register 35, fol. 127v: He culminated his career with the bishopric of Zamora although he
kept the archdeaconry of Burgos.
44
López Martínez, ‘Don Luis de Acuña, el cabildo de Burgos y la reforma’, pp. 197–99.
45
Constitutions of Bishop Luis de Acuña, 3 July 1474, in Synodicon Hispanum, vii, ed. by
García y García, Burgos 19, [264] X – [319] XXV.
46
Synodicon Hispanum, vii, ed. by García y García, Burgos 19 [268] II: adultery and
fornication, [277] VII: concubinage among clergy, [316] XXIII: punishment of misdemeanours
and crimes. CAB, 13 July 1467, Register 18, fol. 40r: forbade Ruy Gómez to play at dice, board
games, cards, ball games, or any other game without the chapter’s permission, on the threat of a
fine of five hundred maravedis and ten days in jail, as well as twenty lashes.
47
Synodicon Hispanum, vii, ed. by García y García, Burgos 19 [291] XII and [292] XII: the
faithful only needed to pay the parish clergy funerary rights in kind in cases of penury.
236 Susana Guijarro
(1467).48 Because of the constant phenomenon of Muslims and Jews converting

to Christianity, the clergy had to be alert to cases of false conversions, a
misdemeanour for which Acuña determined punishments.49
The bishop’s other concern was to regulate the parish system and make Holy
Mass uniform, by taking cathedral Mass as a model. In Burgos, a particular parish
system had formed ‘patrimonial churches’ (iglesias patrimoniales), according
to which the faithful were able to freely choose their parish, and the parishes
were not divided into districts. Acuña believed that this caused confusion and
problems when collecting tithes. In these ‘patrimonial churches’, the people in
the district around the parish had obtained the right to choose their clergy from
among residents in the district and their descendants. As a result, the priests
were ordained exclusively for that parish. It was a protectionist system, but it
also reduced the mobility of the priests and hindered their career towards higher
ecclesiastical positions. Bishop Acuña did not put an end to the system, but he
forbade the residents being half parishioners, belonging to two parishes at the
same time.50
Further evidence of Acuña’s commitment to the reform of the Church in late
medieval Castile was his contribution to changes in some monastic orders in
Burgos (Mercedarians, Austin canons, Dominicans, and Poor Clares). Similarly,
his inclination for Franciscan spirituality is seen in his support of the Monastery
of San Esteban of Olmos, founded by the Acuña family.51 His patronage of
architectural repairs and building work in Burgos Cathedral should also be
mentioned.52
48
CAB, 7 July 1467, Register 18, fol. 47r. CAB, 2 October 1467, Register 18, fols 60r–61r:
Those benefice holders who so wished were allowed to go to learn various studies for one year
and for ten thousand maravedis.
49
Cantera Burgos, ‘La judería de Burgos’. López Martínez, Los judaizantes castellanos y la
Inquisición, pp. 98–129.
50
Synodicon Hispanum, vii, ed. by García y García, Burgos 19 [292] XII: De sepulturis,
[293] XIII, [294] XIII, and [295] XIII: De parochiis.
51
Omaechevarria, ‘Un plantel de seráfica santidad en las afueras de Burgos’.
52
Bishop Acuña, in addition to founding the Chapel of Saint Anne or the Conception
(finished in 1488), paid for the construction of the spires on top of the towers of Burgos
Cathedral, as well as the door connecting the cloister with the cathedral transept. San Martín
Payo and Matesanz, La Edad de oro de la Caput castellae, pp. 439–46.
A Churchman Influenced by Humanism and the Devotio Moderna

The traits that made Luis de Acuña a model of late medieval bishop would not
be complete without alluding to his cultural and spiritual interests, which can be
intuited from the study of his library. Fortunately, it is one of the few libraries of
a Castilian bishop for which we have an inventory, which records 363 books. It
reflects the common characteristics of ecclesiastical libraries since earlier centuries
in the Middle Ages as regards the available subject matter. It is predominated by
law books (167 volumes) followed by theology (86 books). The most noteworthy
aspect of the law authors is the large number of canonists and civilists (21 have
been identified), mostly Italians as might be expected, but also canonists linked to
the University of Salamanca. As usual in the libraries of ecclesiastics, among the
theology books there are commentaries on the books in the Bible, many of which
do not name the author. As well as the Fathers of the Latin Church, there are a few
authors of twelfth-century scholastic theology (Peter Lombard, Peter Comestor,
and Rupert of Deutz), and the great summists of thirteenth-century systematic
theology (Saint Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and Vincent
of Beauvais). The representation of fourteenth- and fifteenth-century theologians
is almost complete for those that taught in the University of Salamanca and
formed part of the circle of the introducers of humanism in Castile, together
with the Bishops of Burgos, Pablo de Santa María and Alfonso de Cartagena.
Although there are fewer books by European theologians, there is a commentary
on the works of Nicholas of Lyra († 1349) and Ludolph of Saxony († 1377), who
were representatives of mystic theology and the religious sensibility of the devotio
moderna. Books in Acuña’s library belonging to the Liberal Arts approach the
programme of the Studia humanitatis adopted by the late medieval grammar
schools through the influence of humanism. The historical and philological
approach of the grammarians is deduced from the grammar books of Guarino
da Verona († 1480) and Antonio Nebrija († 1522). The emphasis on oratory
is seen in the rhetorical books of Aristotle, Cicero, and Petrarch († 1374). The
moral aspect to accompany training in language and form the man in civic virtues
is found in poetry, in Politics and Ethics by Aristotle translated into vernacular
languages, in the moral treatises of Seneca and Cicero, in histories of classical
antiquity, and the chronicles of kingdoms (General Chronicle of Spain) or Italian
city-states (History of Florence) and other genres, such as the ‘Sums of Vices and
Virtues’ or the ‘Regiments of Princes’ (Egidio Romano).53 These bibliographical
53
A full study of the medieval inventories of Burgos Cathedral Library may be found in
Guijarro, ‘La circulación de libros entre el clero y la biblioteca de la catedral de Burgos en la
Edad Media’.
238 Susana Guijarro
interests of Acuña indicate not only a churchman trained in canonical law but
also the man of government and authority to whom the programme in Studia
humanitatis was addressed.
Conclusion
Luis de Acuña’s ecclesiastical career followed a pattern common to the model
of Spanish bishops in the late Middle Ages. His family origins were connected
to lineages of the high nobility close to the monarchy that had risen when the
Trastámara dynasty had reached the throne. At a time of political crisis and
economic instability in the Kingdom of Castile, he took an active part in politics
in the kingdom while attempting to keep a balance between supporting the king
and the factions of nobles that followed him and the opposing side. Finally, the
side he chose was determined by kinship ties and clientelism rather than by his
own interests. That may be the reason why he did not become Archbishop of
Toledo or a cardinal, as he had possibly aspired to because of family tradition.
His government of the Church in Burgos followed the main guidelines
of the late medieval reform of the Castilian Church: to regenerate the life and
training of secular and regular clergy, defend the rents and possessions of each
cathedral and diocese, and strengthen episcopal power. Bishop Acuña did not
put an end to the jurisdictional independence of the Burgos cathedral chapter,
but he challenged it and placed men of his family and clientelism network in
the chapter and government of the diocese. To achieve this, he had to obtain an
active role in the naming and provision of offices and ecclesiastical benefices. His
main achievement in the field of episcopal jurisdiction was to make the cathedral
chapter alert to the systematic correction of the behaviour of clergy and laymen.
This was of great transcendence in shaping social values, above all because the
most serious cases and those most threatening for the public image of the Church
were reserved for his authority. In sum, Luis de Acuña is a paradigm of the
complex interactions between the monarchy, the powerful elite (nobles and city
oligarchs), and the Church, represented by the bishops and cathedral chapters, in
late medieval Spain.
Works Cited
Cathedral Archive of Burgos [CAB]

Libros 39/2 and 46
Libros Redondos of the years 1454, 1456, 1461, 1463, 1466, 1472, 1474, 1477 and 1487
Registers 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 35
Volúmenes (Vol.) 20, 21, 28, 13/2, 55/2 and 62/1
Municipal Archive of Burgos, Historical Section, Acts of Books of the year 1480
Primary Sources
Enríquez de Castillo, Diego, Crónica del Rey Enrique IV de este nombre, ed. by Juan Torres
Fontes (Murcia: Instituto Jerónimo Zurita, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas, 1946)
Garrido Garrido, José Manuel, Documentación de la Catedral de Burgos (804–1183),
Colección Fuentes medievales castellano-leonesas, 13 (Burgos: Ediciones Garrido,
1983)
Synodicon Hispanum: Burgos y Palencia, ed. by Antonio García y García, vol. vii (Madrid:
Biblioteca de autores cristianos, 1997)
Secondary Sources
Bonachía Hernando, Juan Antonio, and Hilario Casado Alonso, ‘La segunda mitad del
siglo xiv y el siglo xv’, in Burgos en la Edad Media (Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y
León, 1984), pp. 213–498
Cantera Burgos, Francisco, ‘La judería de Burgos’, Sefarad: Revista de Estudios Hebraicos y
Sefardíes, 12 (1952), 59–104
Casado Alonso, Hilario, ‘Oligarquía urbana, comercio internacional y poder real: Burgos
a fines de la Edad Media’, in Realidad e imágenes del poder: España a fines de la edad
media, ed. by Adeline Rucquoi (Valladolid: Ámbito, 1988), pp. 325–48
Díaz Ibáñez, Jorge, ‘La incorporación de la nobleza al alto clero en el reino de Castilla
durante la Baja Edad Media’, Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 35.2 (2005), 557–603
Guerrero Navarrete, Yolanda, ‘Rey, nobleza y élites urbanas en Burgos (siglo xv)’, in El
contrato político en la Corona de Castilla: Cultura y sociedad política entre los siglos x al
xvi, ed. by François Foronda and Ana Isabel Carrasco Manchado (Madrid: Dikinson,
2008), pp. 241–79
Guijarro, Susana, ‘La circulación de libros entre el clero y la biblioteca de la catedral de
Burgos en la Edad Media’, Studium Ovetense, 27 (1998), 7–28
240 Susana Guijarro
—— , ‘The Monastic Idea. of Discipline and the Making of Clerical Rules’, Journal of
Medieval Monastic Studies, 2 (2013), 131–47
López Martínez, Nicolás, ‘Don Luis de Acuña, el cabildo de Burgos y la reforma (1456–1495)’,
Burgense, 2 (1961), 185–317
—— , Los judaizantes castellanos y la Inquisición en tiempo de los Reyes Católicos (Burgos:
Seminario Metropolitano de Burgos, 1954)
Martínez García, Luis, ‘El castillo de Burgos y el poder feudal (siglos xiv y xv)’, in El
Castillo de Burgos, ed. by Marta Sainz (Burgos: Ayuntamiento de Burgos, 1997),
pp. 151–72
—— , ‘La sociedad burgalesa a fines de la Edad Media’, in Actas de V centenario del Consulado
de Burgos, vol. ii (Burgos: Diputación Provincial de Burgos, 1994), pp. 57–104
Ohara, Sima, ‘Reflexiones sobre la difusión de la información política en el ámbito urbano
durante el reinado de Enrique IV’, Historia, Instituciones y Documentos, 32 (2005),
247–62
Omaechevarria, Isidoro, ‘Un plantel de seráfica santidad en las afueras de Burgos’, Boletín
de la Institución Fernán González, 10 (1952), 148–61
Pampliega, Rafael, Pontido y otras dependencias de la Catedral de Burgos (Burgos: Monte
Carmelo, 2005)
Romero Portilla, Paz, ‘Protagonismo del partido portugués en la política castellana del
siglo xv’, Revista da Facultade de Letras, 4 (2003), 187–212
San Martín Payo, René, and José Matesanz, La Edad de oro de la Caput castellae: Arte y
sociedad en Burgos, 1450–1600 (Burgos: Editorial Dosoles, 2015)
Villarroel González, Óscar, Juana la Beltraneja: La construcción de una ilegitimidad
(Madrid: Sílex, 2014)
Part IV
Bishops and the Papacy
Episcopal Appointments in Northern
Italy during the Papacy of John XXII
Fabrizio Pagnoni
S
cholars working on the growth of papal power in the Late Middle Ages
have traditionally focused on the attempts by the Apostolic See to increase
its influence over episcopal appointments across Christendom. The right
of intervention by the pontiff, as defined by canon law since the second half of
the thirteenth century, increased during the fourteenth century, especially at the
time of the Avignon popes.1
The aim of this study is to discuss these matters along certain lines that allow
us to measure the pervasiveness of the interventionism of the popes vis-à-vis the
complex network of social, political, and religious relations that surrounded
the delicate moment of the choice of the prelate. Ultimately, this piece will try
to evaluate to what extent the papal reservations changed clerics’ routes to the
episcopate and the profiles of nominated bishops.
Following this line of argument, the papacy of John XXII (1316–34)
requires specific attention, for this pontiff had an important role in the profound
reorganization of the structures of the papal Curia. Considered as a key topic of
his entire pontificate, his political actions in Italy have earned greater attention
1
Barraclough, Papal Provisions and Gaudemet, ‘De l’élection à la nomination des évêques’.
For the Italian situation, see Rando, ‘Le elezioni vescovili nei secoli xii–xiv’, pp. 376–77, and
Rigon, ‘Le elezioni vescovili’, pp. 404–09.
Fabrizio Pagnoni (fabrizio.pagnoni@unimi.it) is a postdoctoral researcher at the University

of Milan. His publications include L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo (Viella, 2018); his
current research interest is the episcopal government in late medieval Italy.
244 Fabrizio Pagnoni
from scholars.2 In order to pursue the ambitious coordination programme of

the peninsula under the auspices of the Guelph players and the papacy and to
subjugate the rampant Ghibelline dominions of northern Italy, the pontiff
not only committed considerable economic resources, but also used original
instruments, such as the extension of the apostolic reservation on episcopal
appointments in the regions most affected by the political conflict.3
In the following pages, this text argues that in order to understand how
these aspects of Pope John XXII’s politics in northern Italy influenced the
mechanism of selection of the bishops and the repercussions this had on the
episcopal recruitment channels, we need to examine specific appointments and
their political alliances within this area. The analysis here proposed consists of
about fifty dioceses, at that time included in the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan,
Aquileia, Genoa, and Ravenna.
A Premise: Limits to Papal Intervention

Before analysing the Italian episcopate of the pontificate of John XXII, it is
important, however, to draw attention to some aspects which relate to some
forms of papal control over episcopal appointments. After the first canonical
codification, which can be traced back essentially to the Licet Ecclesiarum of
Clement IV (1265), papal provisions acquired a growing power to the detriment
of the right of election still held by the cathedral chapters. The interventions
of the Apostolic See in episcopal appointments became steadily more frequent
to the point of losing, during the reigns of Boniface VIII (1294–1303) and
Clement V (1305–14), the extraordinary nature that they had had only half
a century earlier.4 In relation to the geographical context here specified, it was
precisely Pope Boniface VIII who made extensive use of the right of reservation
through a series of provisions, amongst which the best known is certainly the
Reservatio ecclesiae Mediolanensis (1295), by means of which he advocated the
right of appointment to the Ambrosian archbishopric to the Apostolic See.5 All
2
Starting from the notable works of Tabacco, La casa di Francia; Tabacco, ‘Programmi di
politica italiana’; Manselli, ‘Un papa in un età di contraddizione’.
3
Jamme, ‘Des usages de la démocratie’, p. 280.
4
Guillemain, La Cour pontificale d’Avignon, pp. 104–10; Gaudemet, ‘De l’élection à la
nomination des évêques’.
5
On the apostolic reservation of the Milanese Church, see Andenna, ‘The Lombard
Church in the Late Middle Ages’, p. 71. Other cases of papal intervention in episcopal elections
occurred at least in Tortona (1295), Novara (1296), Aquileia (1302: see respectively Les
episcopal appointments in northern italy 245
these interventions had a precise feature, that is, they concerned single diocesan
contexts, but they had no influence on a wider scale. It was precisely on this
second aspect, as we will be seeing, that John XXII’s action was more significant.
Another important aspect that should be taken into consideration is how
extremely rare it was, at that time, that they made use of episcopal transfers.
According to the widely accepted conception of the existing ‘mystical marriage’
between the pastor and his church, this practice had been opposed in canonistic
tradition since the late twelfth century.6 Even at the beginning of the fourteenth
century, the movement of bishops from one diocese to another was rather
unusual, unless it took place following the promotion to a greater ecclesiastical
dignity. This aspect represented a tangible limit to papal intervention in the
episcopal appointments, as is demonstrated by some dioceses in northern Italy,
mainly Bergamo, Mantua, Trento, Acqui, Alessandria, and Faenza. The respective
bishops of these dioceses did not die during the papacy of John XXII, so this may
explain the fact that there is no actual record of his intervention in these places.
Bird’sEye View: The Extension of the Pontifical Reservation in

Northern Italy
Comparing the data can elucidate the frequency of John XXII’s use of the
instrument of pontifical reservation. Whilst at the moment of his election in
1316, in the forty-eight dioceses examined, seventeen were bishops elected by
the respective cathedral chapters, in all the other locations, there were prelates
appointed by John’s predecessors (often, as we have seen, by issuing specific
reservations). Most of the time, papal interventions in these kind of appointments
had been provoked by serious conflicts within the cathedral chapters, often
caused by double elections and from profound divisions within the local clergy.7
During the papacy of John XXII the number of bishops selected through
the traditional mechanisms of the capitular election diminished drastically:
between 1316 and 1334 only four prelates out of a total of fifty-four episcopal
Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. by Digard and others, nos 461, 914, 4611), Ravenna (1303:
Piazzoni, ‘Concoregio, Rinaldo da’), Ferrara, Acqui (both 1304: see respectively Les Registres de
Benoît XI, ed. by Grandjean, nos 646, 1226).
6
Mollat, La Collation des bénéfices ecclésiastiques, p. 70; Ronzani, ‘Un aspetto della
circolazione degli ecclesiastici’.
7
In that period, the bishops elected by the chapter were those of Lodi, Como, Vercelli,
Genova, Luni, Brugnato, Savona, Tortona, Ventimiglia, Bobbio, Forlì, Modena, Reggio, Verona,
and Ceneda. See Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel.
appointments were chosen directly by the chapter without the apparent inter-
vention of the pope.8 In all the other cases, the bishops were chosen directly by
the Apostolic See, and eventually confirmed by the respective cathedral chapters.
To strengthen his control over the benefices, both major and minor, the pontiff
made use of specific legal instruments, such as the bulls Ex debito (1316) and
Execrabilis (1317), which extended the categories of benefices for which the
pontifical collation was intended.9
Equally important, especially regarding the field studied here, were the general
reservations declared in 1322, for through them the pontiff managed to keep the
collation of the major benefices in the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan, Ravenna,
Genoa, and Aquileia for the Apostolic See.10 Whilst taking into account the
limitations of papal action previously outlined, it is possible to appreciate that
these decisions undoubtedly had the effect of reinforcing Avignon’s control over
the episcopate in these areas: they could therefore be related to the contemporary
clash between the Guelph alliance and the Ghibelline lordships in Lombardy.11
In this regard, it is worth considering whether it is possible to extend to the
analysis of the episcopal appointments Sebastian Zanke’s recent hypothesis
on the papal chancellery, namely that ‘Italy was the only region for which the
popes […] developed a certain form of premeditated interest as opposed to
interest generated as a result of being prompted by a petition’.12
The First Episcopal Appointments in Northern Italy (1316–1320)

From the first few months after his election, the Italian question acquired an
important place on John XXII’s political agenda, given that the pontiff sought
to make the Apostolic See the backbone of a politically oriented peace-making
campaign. Likewise, he attempted to build a strong relationship with the House
of Anjou and the Italian Guelph players. Northern Italy represented, in this
respect, an ideal stage on which to experiment with this peace policy, even if
8
It is therefore important to point out that all these nominations occurred before the
general reservations issued in 1322: Concordia (1317), Forlì (1318), Turin (1320), and
Genoa (1321). See Gianni, ‘La diocesi di Concordia in Friuli’, p. 166; Ughelli, Italia sacra, iv,
cols 1476–77; Boldorini, ‘Bartolomeo da Reggio’.
9
Mollat, La Collation des bénéfices ecclésiastiques, pp. 12–25.
10
Lettres communes de Jean XXII, ed. by Mollat, no. 16165.
11
De Sandre Gasparini, ‘Chiese venete e signorie cittadine’, p. 316.
12
Zanke, ‘Imagined Spaces?’, pp. 471–72: ‘The main focus of papal policy certain lay on
Italian matters’.
there were uncertainties about the ways in which the balance could have been
attained, as the advance of the Ghibelline lordships seriously threatened not only
the Angevin dominions, but also the cities belonging to the Guelph alliance.13
In such a context, it is therefore important to pay attention both to the various
channels through which the pontiff selected the new bishops and to the profile of
the latter, for these elements may reveal further aspects of papal politics in Italy.
The conflict between the Guelph alliance and the Ghibelline forces exploded at
the end of 1317 when, after the failure of Bernard Guy and Bertrand de la Tour’s
mission, sentences of excommunication were pronounced and then issued on the
Visconti family.14 Until that time, the pope had nominated six new bishops, who
were recruited from amongst the main Lombard Guelph families, as for instance,
Tiberio della Torre, or those who belonged to families with important ties to
the papal Curia, such as Princivalle Fieschi or Federico Cybo.15 The Archbishop
of Milan Cassone della Torre, who had been banned from the city on account
of the conflict with the Visconti family, was transferred to the see of Aquileia,
where the Della Torre kinship had moved between the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries as a result of the Visconti’s accession to power.16 In Milan in 1317, the
pope appointed the friar Aicardo di Camodeia, who was a trusted person of
John XXII and had served for several years as Franciscan provincial in Lombardy
and could therefore guarantee a good knowledge of the Italian political context.
Through his network of contacts, Aicardo was able to coordinate part of the
Lombard clergy against the Visconti, who prevented him from entering Milan
for a considerable time.17
In the wake of the Italian legation of Bernard Guy and Bertrand de la Tour,
and their preaching against the political and factional divisions, interesting
areas for intervention in episcopal appointments opened up for the papacy. In
Modena, where the chapter had split because of the divisions amongst the canons,
13
Tabacco, La casa di Francia, pp. 153–55.
14
Tabacco, La casa di Francia, pp. 169–73. Parent, ‘Entre rébellion, hérésie, politique et
idéologie’.
15
Pagnoni, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo, pp. 240–44. Lettres communes de
Jean XXII, ed. by Mollat, nos 6770, 9297.
16
Fantoni, ‘Della Torre Cassone’, pp. 524–25. The instability of Cassone’s episcopate was
also due to internal conflicts within the Torriani family: Grillo, Milano guelfa, pp. 187–94.
17
Cadili, ‘Governare dall’“esilio”’, pp. 291–94. Some of the churchmen who supported
Aicardo were appointed bishops later: Tiberio della Torre at Tortona (Covini, ‘Della Torre
Tiberio’), Princivalle Fieschi at Brescia (Pagnoni, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo,
p. 238), Pace da Vedano, and Giordano da Montecucco (see below).
the Ghibelline part had identified Matteo da Gorzano as the ideal candidate to
succeed the deceased Bishop Bonincontro da Fiorano; nevertheless, the preaching
of the papal legates had the effect of making the candidate preferred by the other
half of the canons, Guido de Guisis, prevail.18 Similar situations occurred in
Lodi, where the Franciscan Leone Palatini was nominated to resolve the conflict
which had originated with the double election of Roberto Visconti and Alcherio
dell’Acqua. To some extent this situation was replicated in Cremona, where John’s
XXII’s intervention in 1318 in favour of Egidio Madalberti managed to settle a
dispute in the chapter which had begun five years earlier, and to defeat the choice
of Egidiolo Bonseri, supported by the Ponzoni family, who had approached and
supported the Visconti faction.19
The episcopal sees that became vacant over those years were assigned to persons
closely connected to the political orientations of the Apostolic See and who often,
through their service in the offices of the papal government, had built a close
relationship with the circles of the Curia of Avignon. This included Ildebrandino
Conti, nominated in Padua in 1319, an important diplomat on behalf of the
papacy, the apostolic penitentiary Raimondo (nominated in Ventimiglia in 1320),
Bernabò Malaspina (nominated in Luni in 1320), and Egidio Madalberti. All of
them were real accumulators of prebends by virtue of their close ties with some
important cardinals’ familiae.20 Only a few of these prelates were chosen from
amongst the main aristocratic families of their respective dioceses: in all these
cases, in fact, the pontiff acted pragmatically, choosing people who were able to
move the political axis in a direction convenient for the Guelph alliance regardless
of their geographical origin. In some cases, the episcopal nomination could
contribute towards strengthening ties with the cities in question, as it happened in
the case of Brescia. After the expulsion of the Ghibelline Bishop Federico Maggi
by the Guelphs in 1316, the pope intervened by excommunicating the prelate,
nominating as apostolic administrator the Guelph Inverardo Confalonieri, Abbot
of St Euphemia, and finally, by appointing Princivalle Fieschi, a man tied to the
Curia of Avignon, to the see of Brescia.21
The choice of a trusted figure could also be useful to destabilize political
contexts which were not securely under the control of the Guelphs, as we have
18
Gianni, ‘Prima di Concordia’, pp. 17–18.
19
See respectively Ughelli, Italia sacra, iv, col. 679; Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche
dall’età longobarda’, pp. 128–31.
20
Sambin, ‘Un amico del Petrarca’; Polonio, ‘Frati in cattedra’; Ragone, ‘Malaspina
Bernabò’; Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, pp. 131–32.
21
Pagnoni, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo, pp. 237–38.
seen in the examples of Milan and Cremona. This situation was replicated
elsewhere, as for instance in Luni, where in 1320 Bernabò Malaspina, a nephew
of the Cardinal Luca Fieschi, was chosen against the will of the Ghibelline lord
Castruccio Castracani, who aimed to establish a more malleable individual
in the see of Luni.22 In Pavia papal action was more subtle. In 1320, after the
excommunication of Isnardo Tacconi (who had close ties with the Visconti
family and for some time had acted as a real Ghibelline informant at the Avignon
court) the pope appointed Giovanni Beccaria, despite his provenance from
one of the main Ghibelline families of the city. This action was not only an
acknowledgement of the power achieved by the Beccaria family in Pavia, but also
an attempt to endorse their regime: in those years they had just inaugurated a
system of government in the city based on the inclusion of some of the major
Guelph families. The intention of the pope was therefore to encourage a
rapprochement with the Apostolic See, contributing to the containment of the
Milanese expansion in Lombardy.23
The Legation of Bertrand du Poujet and the Acute Stages of the Clash
(1320–1330)
After the failure of Bernard Guy and Bertrand de la Tour’s mission, John XXII
entrusted the legation in Italy to one of his closest collaborators, Bertrand du
Poujet. Appointed in 1319, he left for Piedmont in July 1320. For the campaign
against the Italian Ghibellines, he relied on papal finances and the military
support of a broad coalition.24 During his long mission, Bertrand played a crucial
role not only in the negotiations between Avignon and the main Italian political
players, but also in the selection of those who would have to occupy the episcopal
sees that became vacant from time to time. This situation was repeated in at least
four important dioceses in the general political arena. Bertrand rewarded the
loyalty of those families who supported the Guelph alliance by granting them
episcopal office. In Piacenza, where in 1322 Obizzo Landi had made a decisive
contribution to the end of the Visconti lordship, thus allowing Bertrand to enter
the city, the negotiations for the nomination of the bishop (the seat in Piacenza
had been vacant since 1317) led to the choice of Bernardo Cario, who was
22
Ragone, ‘Malaspina Bernabò’.
23
Majocchi, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Pavia nei secoli xiv e xv’, pp. 50–51; Rao, Signori
di popolo, p. 107.
24
Jugie and Jamme, ‘Poggetto, Bertrando del (Bertrand du Pouget)’.
related to Obizzo.25 Similarly, in Parma the consecration of the alliance between

the Church and the Rossi family, the new lords of the city, took place through
the promotion of Bishop Simone Saltarelli to the archdiocese of Pisa and the
nomination of Ugolino, brother of Rolando Rossi and a member of Bertrand du
Poujet’s family.26
The action of the papal legate was equally evident in the episcopate of Ivrea,
whose patrimony and jurisdictions were the main objective of the Marquises of
Monferrato and the Counts of Savoy. After the death of Bishop Alberto Gonzaga
in 1321, Bertrand oriented the choice towards Uberto di Santo Stefano who,
with the assistance of papal diplomacy, intervened as peacemaker in the disputes
that divided the episcopal vassals.27 At the moment of his death in 1326, the
mediation of Bertrand du Poujet favoured the appointment of Palaino, who
belonged to the Avogadro kinship from Vercelli and was a canon of that city.28
Like Ugolino Rossi and Bernardo Cario, Palaino was also careful regarding the
reorganization of the episcopal patrimony, and thanks to the particular bond
to the Curia in Avignon, he obtained certain freedoms of action on the vacant
benefices in his own diocese.29 Moreover, this second aspect allowed them to
practise extensive patronage and strengthen their local political bonds. Similarly
in Reggio in 1329, Bertrand du Poujet’s choice of Guido Roberti as successor of
Guido da Baiso followed his intention to reward a family that had not betrayed
the Church, even after the sedition of some important Guelph kinships, like the
Manfredi and the Fogliani.30
To sum up, in the harshest years of the war between the Church and the Italian
Ghibelline forces, it is possible to identify some correlation between the Guelph
project carried out by the papacy and some features of the episcopate in northern
Italy. In that decade, all the vacant sees of some strategic importance were given
to prelates involved in the papal political project. There were different channels
of selection and promotion: as it has been seen above, in Emilia (and in those
cities where Bertrand du Poujet managed to establish direct control) the prelates
25
Ponzini, ‘La vita religiosa a Piacenza nel basso medioevo’, p. 368. On Obizzo’s political
role within the city and his support to the military campaign of the Legate, see Angiolini, ‘Landi
Obizzo’, p. 404; ASV, Camera Apostolica, Introitus et exitus, 49, fol. 27v.
26
Pagnoni, ‘Rossi Ugolino’.
27
Andenna, ‘Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento’, pp. 333–34.
28
Ferraris, ‘I canonici della Cattedrale di Vercelli nel secolo xiv’, p. 291.
29
Andenna, ‘Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento’, pp. 348–61.
30
These families left the Guelph alliance and gave their support to Louis the Bavarian:
Gamberini, ‘Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento’, p. 189.
were mainly chosen amongst the most powerful families of the local aristocracy
in order to bolster the political connection between them and the Church.
In the Milanese ecclesiastical province, however, this aspect was more nuanced.
In fact, there, independent of the geographical origins of the candidates, it was
their commitment to the Apostolic See that played an important role in the
process of selection of the bishops. A key example of this is the case of Benedetto
de Asnago, magister Theologiae at the University of Paris, commissioned by
John XXII to several important missions (including visiting Dominican convents
in the Roman and Lombard provinces in order to investigate the presence of
friars suspected of Ghibelline sympathies), who was chosen as Bishop of Como
in 1328. The Ghibelline lord of that city, Franchino Rusca, had forced the chapter
to elect his brother Valeriano, but the nomination was rejected by the pope who
sent (not without difficulty) his faithful collaborator to Como.31 Although they
did not reach the high cultural and political profile of Benedetto de Asnago,
Carante Sannazari (appointed in 1323 in Pavia) and Lombardino della Torre
(appointed in Vercelli in 1328) also fit well in this category. Both were well
connected to the Avignon court and already had links with the dioceses to which
they were sent. However, it was the commitment to the papal cause in Italy that
made their choice possible. As in the case of Benedetto de Asnago, Lombardino
and Carante encountered considerable difficulties in taking possession of the
diocese due to the opposition of the local Ghibelline forces.32 This opposition
became particularly intense when the possibility of the expedition of Louis the
Bavarian emerged, which led the pontiff to focus on figures capable of posing a
tangible threat to the Ghibelline ambitions. There was a need for bishops to be
more active on the local scene and not resident in Avignon. In Cremona this state
of affairs forced the pope to ask for the resignation of Egidio Madalberti, who
refused to leave Avignon to take possession of the see, and to assign the episcopal
office to the Dominican Ugolino da San Marco from Parma. The new bishop was
expressly requested to take possession of the diocese as soon as possible.33
In some dioceses in northern Italy, mainly but not exclusively, in the immediate
subiectae to the Church, John XXII appointed bishops of French origin. This
31
Canobbio, ‘Tra episcopio e cattedrale’, pp. 262–63.
32
See Majocchi, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Pavia nei secoli xiv e xv’, pp. 52–53; Cadili,
Giovanni Visconti, p. 65; and Andenna, ‘Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento’, p. 361.
Outside Lombardy, it is worth mentioning here the case of Pace da Vedano, appointed as Bishop
of Trieste in 1330, who was a member of the entourage of Aicardo di Camodeia in the early
1320s (Cadili, Giovanni Visconti, p. 291).
33
Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, p. 137.
phenomenon was limited overall because of the meagreness of the Italian benefices
compared to the rich profits accruing from the transalpine ones, but undoubtedly
grew from this time onwards.34 In all these cases, they were clergymen strongly
involved in Italian affairs, as for instance Arnaud Sabatier, papal nuncio, chamber
collector, and officer responsible for controlling the expenses of the inquisitorial
offices, who was appointed in Bologna in 1322; Stephan Hugonet, chancellor
of Bertrand du Poujet, nominated in Bologna in 1330; Aymery de Châtelus,
rector et comes Romandiole, appointed in Ravenna in 1322; Arnaud de Rosette,
papal collector in Lombardy, chosen for the see of Asti in 1327; and Guillaume
de Villeneuve, a Minor repeatedly employed by the pope ‘circa directionem et
fulcimentum exercitus ecclesiae partium Lombardiae’ (for coordinating and
sustaining the papal army in Lombardy), who was appointed in Trieste in 1327.35
The End of the Pontificate: Making Peace with the Visconti (1331–1334)
The passage of the Visconti to the anti-imperial alliance in the spring of 1329
and the obedience to the Apostolic See in the following month of September
represented a decisive turning point in relations between the papacy and the lords
of Milan.36 The negotiations led to a phase of relaxation throughout northern
Italy, which is also reflected to some extent in the latter episcopal appointments
of John XXII and, subsequently, in those made by Benedict XII. The most
emblematic was certainly the one that interested the main Ghibelline seigniory
of the area: in 1331, Giovanni Visconti, uncle of the lord of Milan Azzone, was
appointed by the pope as Bishop of Novara. This designation was very important
for three reasons. Firstly, because during the negotiations with Avignon the
Visconti obtained broad concessions that favoured their relatives and partisans
and strengthened their ability to penetrate the diocesan ecclesiastical bodies,
and more generally the Milanese Church. Secondly, because the agreement with
34
Guilleman, La Politique bénéficiale du Pape Benoît XII, p. 55.
35
See respectively Vasina, ‘Chiesa e comunità dei fedeli nella diocesi di Bologna’,
pp. 154–55; Massacesi, ‘Da Avignone a Cesena a Ravenna’; Lettres communes de Jean XXII,
ed. by Mollat, nos 24802, 20352; ASV, Camera Apostolica, Introitus et exitus, 48, fol. 3 r.
Guillaume was already Bishop of Sagona, in Corsica, when the pope appointed him at Trieste:
Ughelli, Italia sacra, v, col. 504.
36
Biscaro, ‘Le relazioni dei Visconti con la Chiesa’. For a broader contextualization of
these facts in the history of Milanese expansion in Lombardy, see Cognasso, ‘L’unificazione
della Lombardia sotto Milano’, pp. 219–52, and Soldi Rondinini, ‘Chiesa Milanese e signoria
viscontea’.
the pope mentioned the possibility of subsequently promoting Giovanni to a

higher ecclesiastical status, postulating in this manner his future nomination
as Archbishop of Milan. Finally, because the nomination ratified the political
influence extended in those years by the Visconti family in the city of Novara,
where Giovanni acquired in addition to the title of episcopus, that of dominus.37
The Scaligeri family also benefited from the pacification. In 1332 the pope
assigned the vacant see of Verona to Nicola da Villanova, a Benedictine friar from
the Veronese monastery of San Zeno and a man linked to the Scaligeri.38 It should
be noted, however, that the lords of Verona had already developed their ability
to exert control over appointments in the episcopates subject to their political
influence. In 1321, for example, Francesco Temprarini, formerly Abbot of San
Zeno in Verona and a man particularly close to the court of the Scaligeri, was
nominated by the pope as Bishop of Vicenza.39
From 1331 to his death in December 1334, John XXII made only six
episcopal appointments in the dioceses of northern Italy. Despite the small
number, it is possible to draw an overall balance and identify trends which
his successor Benedict XII subsequently continued. In the first place, as it
has been said, the pacification with Avignon would favour the ambitions of
the Ghibelline lordships, because it facilitated the episcopal promotion of
persons who were appreciated or at least not completely unwelcome to the
episcopal seats. Secondly, political relaxation facilitated the active episcopal
government by those bishops who, previously appointed, had not yet been
able to exercise effective control over their own church.40 Thirdly, there had
been a significant change in the profile of the nominees, which no longer
corresponded (or at least not so visibly) to the political adherence that had
been one of the preferred channels of selection in the previous decade. All this
worked in the favour of people who were closely connected to the Apostolic
See, through their engagement in the offices of the government of Avignon as
well as in diplomatic missions on behalf of the pontiff. Rather eloquent was the
appointment of Bertrand de Saint-Geniès (papal chaplain, skilled diplomat,
37
Cadili, Giovanni Visconti, pp. 77–79; Andenna, ‘Una legislazione per legittimare e
mantenere una signoria politica’.
38
Varanini, ‘Signoria cittadina, vescovi e diocesi nel Trecento’, p. 879.
39
Varanini, ‘Signoria cittadina, vescovi e diocesi nel Trecento’; Gaffuri and Gallo, ‘Signoria
ed episcopato a Padova nel Trecento’.
40
At least at Luni, Brescia, Piacenza, and Como: Ragone, ‘Malaspina Bernabò’; Pagnoni,
L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo, pp. 254–57; Campi, Dell’historia ecclesiastica di
Piacenza, p. 79; Martinelli Perelli, ‘Abbondiolo de Asinago notaio in Como’, pp. 401–03.
and trusted member of the Curia) to the metropolitan see of Aquileia, made by
John XXII in 1334.41
The Italian Episcopate during the Papacy of John XXII: A Profile

The cases reported so far have shown the weight and influence that the political-
diplomatic affairs had in modifying both the selection process and the channels
of promotion to the episcopate during John XXII’s pontificate. At this point it is
necessary to try to understand who were these bishops, or in other words, to trace
an overall profile of the northern Italian episcopate at that time.
Between 1316 and 1334 there were fifty-four episcopal appointments in the
dioceses examined. Only in seven cases had those who were chosen already been
bishops in other dioceses, and this happened especially on the occasion of the
promotion to metropolitan sees.42 Of the forty-seven people promoted, thirteen
were recruited from amongst the Mendicant orders, six from the monastic orders,43
and the other twenty-eight from the secular clergy (many of them, at the time
of their episcopal consecration, had only minor orders).44 Amongst the latter, six
came from the cathedral chapter of the dioceses in which they were appointed.45
To a large extent, the bishops recruited from amongst the Mendicant orders
had already served the papacy in Italy. In addition to the brilliant Dominican
Benedict de Asnago, Bishop of Como, already mentioned above, it is important
to remember that Archbishop Aicardo of Milan was also a Franciscan. At the
time of Visconti’s excommunication, some of his most trusted collaborators were
Mendicant friars and were subsequently rewarded with an episcopal see.46 Several
41
Brunettin, Bertrando di SaintGeniès.
42
It is worth mentioning here Cassone della Torre, who was translated from Milan to
Aquileia in 1317; Pagano della Torre, from Padua to Aquileia in 1319; Guido Roberti, from
Reggio to Ravenna in 1332. See Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel.
43
Four of them were Benedictines; two came from the Cluniac order.
44
For example, Federico Cybo (Savona 1317), Egidio Madalberti (Cremona 1318), Ildebrandino
Conti (Padua 1319), Bernabò Malaspina (Luni 1320), and Palaino Avogadro (Ivrea 1326) who were
all ‘in minoribus constituti’. Ugolino Rossi (Parma 1323) and Bernardo Cario (Piacenza 1323) had not
reach the legal age of twenty-three when they were appointed; therefore they received a dispensation
‘super defectu aetatis et ordinis’. See Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel, pp. 214, 318, 385,
392; Lettres communes de Jean XXII, ed. by Mollat, nos 9603, 6770, 17074.
45
Of these six cases, four occurred before the declaration of the general reservation in 1322:
Concordia, Forlì, Turin, and Genoa. See above, note 8.
46
In addition to Pace da Vedano, the Dominican appointed at Trieste mentioned above,
it is worth mentioning another Dominican, Giordano da Montecucco, who was appointed
friars were nominated in the Ligurian dioceses, where since the second half of the
thirteenth century the designation of Mendicants to the episcopate had become
more and more frequent. As in the previous century, they were also appointed
at the beginning of the fourteenth century, especially in cases of controversial
elections by the local cathedral chapters, which often gave rise to irreconcilable
disputes.47 However, it is undeniable that between the 1320s and 1330s many of
the Mendicant friars were chosen for the important role they could play in relation
to papal politics in Italy. For this reason, they progressively lost the super partes
role within the civic political struggles that they had incarnated up to that time.
In this perspective, it is interesting to observe what happened at the time of the
Italian expedition of Louis the Bavarian in 1327. Relations between the pope and
the spiritual Franciscans deteriorated as a result of the conflict with the pretender
to the imperial crown. Marginalized by John XXII, the friars found support and
protection from Louis, who in 1328 declared the pontiff deposed and nominated
the spiritual Pietro Rainalducci da Corbara as the new pope, with the name of
Nicholas V.48 In order to give further support to the emperor’s Italian campaign,
several spiritual Franciscans were appointed bishops by Nicholas in the vacant
dioceses, often in opposition to Avignon’s choice. Perhaps the most emblematic
case concerns Cremona, where the Bishop Ugolino was declared dismissed in
1329 by Nicholas V, who nominated his chaplain, the Franciscan Dondino, in
Ugolino’s place. Subsequently, the antipope conferred Dondino the incomes of
the abbeys of San Lorenzo and San Tommaso, which had been confiscated from
the two legitimate abbots, who were active in the camp of John XXII.49
It is not easy to reconstruct the cultural context and the education of these
clerics, as biographical information is often scarce, except from a limited number
of cases. It is therefore difficult to make precise comparisons with other areas,
such as late medieval England where, during the first half of the fourteenth
century, one fifth of those who were promoted to the episcopate held a degree in
civil law.50 According to the available information, at the time of John XXII, the
at Bobbio in 1324, after the pope annulled the capitular election of Enrico Duranti (Cadili,
‘Governare dall’“esilio”’, p. 291, and Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel, p. 139).
47
Polonio, ‘Frati in cattedra’. Further analysis of this topic in Dal pulpito alla cattedra.
48
Schmidt, ‘Povertà e politica’; Tabacco, ‘Il papato avignonese’.
49
Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, p. 138. Other Franciscans
were appointed at Genoa (Berengario de’ Mari), Savona (Nicolosio), Novara (Giacomo de
Spanhay), and Vercelli. See Polonio, ‘Frati in cattedra’, p. 14; Eubel, ‘Der Gegenpapst Nikolaus V
und Seine Hierarchie’; Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, ed. by Eubel, passim. See also Benedetti,
‘Frati Minori e Inquisizione’, pp. 90–92.
50
Haines, ‘The Episcopate during the Reign of Edward II’, p. 671.
proportion of graduates in civil law and canon law was broadly balanced. Amongst
the main jurists who received an episcopal promotion, it is worth mentioning at
least two great professors in canon law, Egidio Madalberti (Bishop of Cremona)
and Guido de Guisis (Bishop of Concordia), whose libraries were already famous
at that time for the abundance of legal texts. The nomination of prelates with a
solid juridical preparation grew considerably under the two successive pontiffs,
Benedict XII and Clement VI.51
What seems clear is that a rather large group of bishops nominated by John XXII
held important positions at Avignon’s offices: chaplains, auditores causarum, papal
subdeacons, councillors, and ambassadors of the Apostolic See. Their number
increased further with the successors of John XXII, and by the middle of the
fourteenth century, this became probably the main channel of promotion to the
episcopate. The majority of these prelates came from the peninsula, but, as it has
been shown, Pope John also nominated some Frenchmen who were often close to
the Legate Bertrand du Poujet and were constantly involved in Italian affairs.
Conclusions
This overview of episcopal appointments in northern Italy in the first decades
of the fourteenth century has highlighted the importance of John XXII’s action
in encouraging changes that, at least partially, were already underway before his
advent to the pontifical throne. His interventions both in the juridical field and on
the practice of papal provisions accelerated the spread of the apostolic reservation
and, at the same time, led to significant changes in the general characteristics of
the Italian episcopate.
The adhesion to the Guelph and Angevin political project that John XXII
promoted in the peninsula represented for a long time the main channel of
promotion to the episcopate and entailed important transformations in the
profile of the prelates, such as the large number of curiales amongst those who
were appointed. Once these bishops came into possession of their dioceses, they
often stood out for the great attention they paid to the government of the local
Church, as for instance by encouraging the extensive use of documentation, by
trying to re-establish the episcopal authority, or by making important attempts to
restore episcopal properties, rights, and jurisdictions.52
51
Andenna, ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda’, p. 128; Gianni, ‘Prima di
Concordia’, p. 14. See also Stiaffini, ‘Dino da Radicofani’; Brunettin, Bertrando di SaintGeniès.
52
Pagnoni, ‘L’episcopato lombardo nell’età di Giovanni Visconti’.
Works Cited
Archival Sources
Città del Vaticano, Archivio Segreto [ASV]
Camera Apostolica, Introitus et exitus, 48
Camera Apostolica, Introitus et exitus, 49
Primary Sources
Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificum, S. R. E. cardinalium, ecclesiarum
antistitum series ab anno 1148 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documenti stabularii
praesertim vaticani collecta, digesta, edita, ed. by Konrad Eubel (Munster: sumptibus et
typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913)
Lettres communes de Jean XXII (1316–1334), ed. by Guillaume Mollat (Paris: de Boccard,
1904–46)
Les Registres de Benoît XI: Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après les manuscrits
originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. by Charles Grandjean (Paris: de Boccard, 1883–1905)
Les Registres de Boniface VIII: Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après les
manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. by George Digard, Maurice Faucon,
Antoine Thomas, and Robert Fawtier, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et
de Rome, 2nd série, 4, 4 vols (Paris: de Boccard, 1884–1935)
Ughelli, Ferdinando, Italia sacra sive de episcopis Italiae, et insularum adjacentium,
rebusque abiis praeclare gestis, vol. iv (Rome: ex Typographia Reverendae Camerae
Apostolicae, 1652)
—— , Italia sacra sive de episcopis Italiae, et insularum adjacentium, rebusque abiis praeclare
gestis, vol. v (Rome: ex Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, 1653)
Secondary Sources
Andenna, Giancarlo, ‘Episcopato e strutture diocesane nel Trecento’, in Storia della Chiesa di
Ivrea: Dalle origini al xv secolo, ed. by Giorgio Cracco (Rome: Viella, 1998), pp. 321–94
—— , ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche dall’età longobarda alla fine del xiv secolo’, in Storia di
Cremona, vol. v: Il Trecento, ed. by G. Andenna and G. Chittolini (Azzano San Paolo:
Bolis, 2007), pp. 2–169
—— , ‘Una legislazione per legittimare e mantenere una signoria politica’, in Statuti di
Novara del xiv secolo: Edizione critica, ed. by Gianmarco Cossandi and Marta Luigina
Mangini (Varese: Insubria University Press, 2012), pp. 361–77
—— , ‘The Lombard Church in the Late Middle Ages’, in A Companion to Late Medieval
and Early Modern Milan, ed. by Andrea Gamberini (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 69–92
Angiolini, Enrico, ‘Landi Obizzo (detto Verzuso, Vergiuso o Versuzio)’, in Dizionario
biografico degli Italiani, vol. lxiii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 2004),
pp. 403–05
Barraclough, Geoffrey, Papal Provisions: Aspects of Church History Constitutional, Legal

and Administrative in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1935)
Benedetti, Marina, ‘Frati Minori e Inquisizione: Alcuni casi nell’Italia medievale’, Revista
Territórios e fronteiras, 9.1 (2016), 83–96
Biscaro, Gerolamo, ‘Le relazioni dei Visconti con la Chiesa: Azzone, Giovanni e Luchino
Benedetto XII’, Archivio Storico Lombardo, 47 (1920), 193–271
Boldorini, Alberto, ‘Bartolomeo da Reggio’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani,
vol. vi (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1964), pp. 762–64
Brunettin, Giordano, Bertrando di SaintGeniès patriarca di Aquileia (1334–1350)
(Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2004)
Cadili, Alberto, Giovanni Visconti arcivescovo di Milano (1342–1354) (Milan: Biblioteca
Francescana, 2007)
—— , ‘Governare dall’“esilio”: Appunti su frate Aicardo da Camodeia arcivescovo di
Milano (1317–1339)’, Nuova rivista storica, 87 (2003), 267–324
Campi, Pier Maria, Dell’historia ecclesiastica di Piacenza di Pietro Maria Campi Canonico
di quella Catedrale, vol. iii (Placentia: Giovanni Bazachi stampatore camerale, 1662)
Canobbio, Elisabetta, ‘Tra episcopio e cattedrale: successo individuale, affermazione
famigliare e istituzioni ecclesiastiche a Como (sec. xiv–prima metà sec. xv)’, in
La mobilità sociale nel Medioevo italiano 2. Stato e istituzioni (secoli xiv–xv), ed. by
Andrea Gamberini (Rome: Viella, 2017), pp. 257–81
Cognasso, Francesco, ‘L’unificazione della Lombardia sotto Milano’, in Storia di Milano,
vol. v (Milan: Treccani, 1955), pp. 3–567
Covini, Maria Nadia, ‘Della Torre Tiberio’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. xxxvii
(Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1989), pp. 668–69
Dal pulpito alla cattedra: I vescovi degli ordini mendicanti nel ’200 e nel primo ’300
(Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2000)
De Sandre Gasparini, Giuseppina, ‘Chiese venete e signorie cittadine: vescovi e capitoli
frapressione politica e autonomia istituzionale’, in Il Veneto nel medioevo: Le
signorietrecentesche, ed. by Andrea Castagnetti and Gian Maria Varanini (Verona:
Banca popolare di Verona, 1995), pp. 313–56
Eubel, Konrad, ‘Der Gegenpapst Nikolaus V und Seine Hierarchie’, Historischer Jahrbuch,
12 (1891), 277–308
Fantoni, Giuliana, ‘Della Torre Cassone’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. xxxvii
Ferraris, Gianmario, ‘I canonici della Cattedrale di Vercelli nel secolo xiv: Linee di
ricerca’, in Vercelli nel secolo xiv: Atti del quinto congresso storico vercellese (Vercelli,
28–30novembre 2008), ed. by Alessandro Barbero and Rinaldo Comba (Vercelli:
Saviolo, 2010), pp. 245–92
Gaffuri, Laura, and Donato Gallo, ‘Signoria ed episcopato a Padova nel Trecento:
Spunti per unaricerca’, in Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo:
atti del VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987),
ed. by Giuseppina de Sandre Gasparini, Antonio Rigon, Francesco G. Trolese, and
Gian Maria Varanini, 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1990), ii, 923–56
Gamberini, Andrea, ‘Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento’, in Il

vescovo, la chiesa e la città di Reggio in età comunale, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna:
Patron, 2012), pp. 183–205
Gaudemet, Jean, ‘De l’élection à la nomination des évêques: Changement de procédure
et conséquences pastorales. L’exemple français (xiiie–xive siècles)’, in Il processo di
designazione dei vescovi: Storia, legislazione, prassi, ed. by Domingo J. Andrés Gutierrez
(Rome: Scuola tipografica San Pio X, 1996), pp. 137–56
Gianni, Luca, ‘La diocesi di Concordia in Friuli. Difesa delle temporalità e consolidamento
amministrativo: l’episcopato di Artico di Castello (1317–1331)’, in Vescovi Medievali,
ed. by Grado G. Merlo (Milan: Edizioni Biblioteca Francescana, 2003), pp. 165–206
—— , ‘Prima di Concordia: Gli anni emiliani del vescovo Guido Guizzi (1307–1334)’,
Atti dell’Accademia San Marco, 15 (2013), 9–24
Grillo, Paolo, Milano guelfa (1302–1310) (Rome: Viella, 2013)
Guillemain, Bernard, La Cour pontificale d’Avignon: Étude d’une société (Paris: De Boccard,
1966)
—— , La Politique bénéficiale du Pape Benoît XII (1334–1342) (Paris: H. Champion, 1952)
Haines, Roy Martin, ‘The Episcopate during the Reign of Edward II and the Regency of
Mortimer and Isabella’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 56 (2005), 657–709
Jamme, Armand, ‘Des usages de la démocratie: Deditio et contrôle politique des cités
lombardes dans le “grand projet” de Jean XXII’, in Papst Johannes XXII: Konzepte
und Verfahren seines Pontifikats, ed. by Hans J. Schmidt and Martin Rohde, Scrinium
Freiburgense, 32 (Berlin: De Guyter, 2014), pp. 279–342
Jugie, Pierre, and Armand Jamme, ‘Poggetto, Bertrando del (Bertrand du Pouget)’, in
Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. lxxxiv (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia
italiana, 2015), pp. 459–66
Majocchi, Piero, ‘Cronotassi dei vescovi di Pavia nei secoli xiv e xv’, in I vescovi dell’Italia
settentrionale nel basso medioevo: Cronotassi per le diocesi di Cremona, Pavia e Tortona
nei secoli xiv e xv, ed. by Piero Majocchi and Massimo Montanari (Pavia: Università
di Pavia, 2002), pp. 47–102
Manselli, Raoul, ‘Un papa in un età di contraddizione: Giovanni XXII’, Studi Romani,
22 (1974), 444–56
Martinelli Perelli, Liliana, ‘Abbondiolo de Asinago notaio in Como: I cartulari di un
professionista della prima metà del Trecento’, in L’età dei Visconti: Il dominio di Milano
fra xiii e xv secolo, ed. by Luisa Chiappa Mauri, Laura De Angelis Cappabianca, and
Patrizia Mainoni (Milan: La storia, 1993), pp. 393–406
Massacesi, Fabio, ‘Da Avignone a Cesena a Ravenna: Immagini e politica’, in Images and
Words in Exile: Avignon and Italy during the First Half of the 14th Century, ed. by Elisa
Brilli, Laura Fenelli, and Gerhard Wolf (Florence: Sismel, 2015), pp. 73–89
Mollat, Guillaume, La Collation des bénéfices ecclésiastiques à l’époque des papes d’Avignon
(1305–1378) (Paris: De Boccard, 1921)
Pagnoni, Fabrizio, L’episcopato di Brescia nel basso medioevo: Governo, scritture, patrimonio
(Rome: Viella, 2018)
—— , ‘L’episcopato lombardo nell’età di Giovanni Visconti (1331–1354): culture docu-
mentarie e di governo, intersezioni signorili’, Studi Storici, no. 1 (2018), 141–70
—— , ‘Rossi Ugolino’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. lxxxviii (Rome: Istituto
della Enciclopedia italiana, 2017), pp. 732–35
Parent, Sylvain, ‘Entre rébellion, hérésie, politique et idéologie: remarques sur les procès
de Jean XXII contre les rebelles italiens’, in L’età dei processi: Inchieste e condanne trà
politica e ideologia nel ’300, ed. by Antonio Rigon and Francesco Veronese (Rome:
Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2009), pp. 145–80
Piazzoni, Ambrogio Maria, ‘Concoregio, Rinaldo da’, in Dizionario biografico degli
Italiani, vol. xxvii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1982), pp. 747–51
Polonio, Valeria, ‘Frati in cattedra: I primi vescovi mendicanti (1244–1330)’, in Valeria Polonio,
Istituzioni ecclesiastiche della Liguria medievale (Rome: Herder, 2002), pp. 73–113
Ponzini, Domenico, ‘La vita religiosa a Piacenza nel basso medioevo’, in Storia della diocesi
di Piacenza, vol. ii: Dalla riforma gregoriana alla vigilia della riforma protestante,
ed. by Pierre Racine (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2009), pp. 345–403
Ragone, Franca, ‘Malaspina Bernabò’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. lxvii
Rando, Daniela, ‘Le elezioni vescovili nei secoli xii–xiv: uomini, poteri, procedure’, in
Storia di Treviso, vol. ii: Il Medioevo, ed. by Daniela Rando and Gian Maria Varanini
(Venice: Marsilio, 1991), pp. 375–97
Rao, Riccardo, Signori di popolo: signoria cittadina e società comunale nell’Italia nord
occidentale, 1275–1350 (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2011)
Rigon, Antonio, ‘Le elezioni vescovili nel processo di sviluppo delle istituzioni ecclesiastiche
a Padova’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. MoyenAge, Temps modernes, 89.1
(1977), 371–409
Ronzani, Mauro, ‘Un aspetto della circolazione degli ecclesiastici: i trasferimenti dei
vescovi (Italia comunale, secoli xiii–xiv)’, in Circolazione di uomini e scambi culturali
tra città (secoli xii–xiv): Ventitreesimo Convegno internazionale di studi (Pistoia,
13–16 maggio 2011) (Rome: Viella, 2013), pp. 221–41
Sambin, Paolo, ‘Un amico del Petrarca: Ildebrandino Conti e la sua attività spirituale
e culturale’, in Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Venezie, vol. viii (Venice: La
Deputazione, 1952), pp. 4–56
Schmidt, Hans-Joachim, ‘Povertà e politica: I frati degli Ordini mendicanti alla corte
imperiale nel xiv secolo’, in Ordini religiosi e società politica in Italia e Germania nei secoli
xiv e xv, ed. by. G. Chittolini and K. Elm (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2001), pp. 373–417
Soldi Rondinini, Gigliola, ‘Chiesa Milanese e signoria viscontea’, in Storia religiosa
della Lombardia: Diocesi di Milano, ed. by Adriano Caprioli, Antonio Rimoldi, and
Luciano Vaccaro (Brescia: La Scuola, 1990), pp. 285–311
Stiaffini, Daniela, ‘Dino da Radicofani’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. xl
Tabacco, Giovanni, La casa di Francia nell’azione politica di papa Giovanni XXII (Roma:
Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1953)
—— , ‘Il papato avignonese nella crisi del francescanesimo’, in Giovanni Tabacco,
Spiritualità e cultura nel Medioevo: Dodici percorsi nei territori del potere e della fede
(Napoli: Liguori, 1993), pp. 119–49
—— , ‘Programmi di politica italiana in età avignonese’, in Aspetti culturali della società

italiana nel periodo del papato avignonese, Centro di studi sulla spiritualità medievale,
19 (Todi: Accademia tudertina, 1981), pp. 49–75
Varanini, Gian Maria, ‘Signoria cittadina, vescovi e diocesi nel Trecento’, in Vescovi e diocesi
in Italia dal xiv alla metà del xvi secolo: atti del VII Convegno di storia della Chiesa
in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987), ed. by Giuseppina de Sandre Gasparini,
Antonio Rigon, Francesco G. Trolese, and Gian Maria Varanini (Rome: Herder,
1990), ii, 869–921
Vasina, Augusto, ‘Chiesa e comunità dei fedeli nella diocesi di Bologna dal xii al xv
secolo’, in Storia della Chiesa di Bologna, vol. i, ed. by Paolo Prodi and Lorenzo Paolini
(Bologna: Istituto per la storia della chiesa di Bologna, 1997), pp. 97–204
Zanke, Sebastian, ‘Imagined Spaces? The Papal Registers in the Pontificate of John XXII
(1316–1334)’, in Images and Words in Exile: Avignon and Italy during the First Half of
the 14th Century, ed. by Elisa Brilli, Laura Fenelli, and Gerhard Wolf (Florence: Sismel,
2015), pp. 457–74
Episcopal Appointments and Careers of
the Archbishops of Split (1294–1426)
Mišo Petrović
S
plit was the oldest diocese encompassing much of medieval Croatia-
Dalmatia which carried with it considerable weight and importance.
Officially the elections of the archbishops of Split were carried out by the
cathedral chapter — pending papal confirmation — but the practice differed
and depended on the influences, pressures, and power of the various ecclesiastical
authorities (pope, chapter, clergy) and secular ones (ruler, communes, rural
nobility). Although the period is usually depicted as that of change from the free
capitular elections to the system of papal provisions,1 my primary focus will be
on observing the individual cases of elections of archbishops and situating them
in the context, development, and interests of those competing for control of the
elections.
The archbishop wielded authority both in his city and in the wider region. The
appointment of the archbishop was therefore often contested and troubled by
1
See the selection of the growing literature: Ganzer, Papsttum und Bistumsbesitzungen in
der Zeit von Gregor IX bis Boniface VIII; Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England; Fonseca,
‘Vescovi, capitoli cattedrali e canoniche regolari (sec. xiv–xvi)’; Barraclough, ‘The Making of
a Bishop in the Middle Ages’; Barraclough, Papal Provisions; Pennington, Pope and Bishops,
pp. 115–53.
Mišo Petrović (Petrovic_Miso@phd.ceu.edu) is a doctoral candidate at CEU in Budapest; his

PhD studies the development of the episcopal office in fourteenth-century Croatia-Dalmatia.
His publications include ‘The Church of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia and the Struggle for
the Throne of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia (1290–1301)’ and ‘The “Contested” Prelates
of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia during the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of
Hungary (1382–1409)’.
264 Mišo Petrović
frequent political changes in the region. In the period prior to 1290 Split was part
of the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia ruled by the Árpád dynasty (1102–1301).
The local oligarchs, the Šubići, used the interregnum between the dying out of the
Árpáds and the arrival of the new dynasty, the Neapolitan Angevins (1301–95),
to increase their influence over Croatia-Dalmatia, which diminished during the
1320s when the region, including Split, accepted the suzerainty of Venice.
By 1356 the territories of Croatia-Dalmatia were reclaimed by the Hungarian
kings, but the death of the last male Angevin king in 1382,2 combined with the
Western Schism (1378–1417), caused considerable ecclesiastical and political
problems in the region. Between 1398 and 1402 Split was in the midst of civil
war when one noble faction backed by the archbishop claimed the city, expelling
their opponents. This weakened Split came under the control of King Ladislas of
Naples (1377–1414) who in 1403 invaded the kingdom in the hopes of claiming
the throne, but by 1409 was forced to sell his possessions to Venice. The true ruler
of Split became Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić (c. 1350–1416), a Bosnian nobleman
who acted as Ladislas’s regent in the region and firmly ruled over Split as its duke
(1403–13). Hrvoje’s ousting from Split and war between Venice and Hungary
led Split to again recognize Venetian control in 1420.
The thirteenth-century chronicler Thomas, the Archdeacon of Split
(c. 1200–68), wrote that the archbishops of Split were elected due to their close
connections with the royal dynasty, explaining how the diocese would benefit
from electing somebody close to the court.3 These pressures were comparable to
the ones exerted over the city by Venice after 1420. The Republic wanted control
over all aspects of civic and religious life in the city by accepting only Venetian
citizens as archbishops.4 My focus therefore lies in the period in between, which
shows changes and disputes of who wields authority over the elections. Curiously,
it was also a period of weak control over the region by the secular polities and
the full communal development. The fragmentation of power on the local level
was contemporary with the centralizing tendencies within the Apostolic See.
2
Louis the Great (r. 1342–82) was succeeded by his daughter, Mary (r. 1382–95), who
married Sigismund of Luxemburg (r. 1387–1437), which led to a change in the ruling dynasty.
3
HS, pp. 120–21. As Mladen Ančić pointed out, from fourteen elections mentioned by
Thomas in only three cases were the archbishops elected through papal intervention. He also
warned about reading Thomas in simple terms, instead concentrating on understanding the
context and various interests of those involved in elections. Ančić, ‘Image of Royal Power in the
Work of Thomas Archdeacon’, pp. 38–40.
4
Meaning somebody elected from the clergy from Venice (from Grado to Capo d’Argine).
For a different interpretation of the events, see Neralić, ‘Svi papini ljudi’.
episcopal appointments and careers of the archbishops of split 265
During this period the popes started to impose their control over the episcopal
appointments by involving themselves in rejecting capitular elections, responding
to secular and individual petitions, and using the legal framework regarding
ecclesiastical disputes.
A Multitude of Interests
Royal influence was probably crucial for the election of Archbishop John Buzad
(r. 1266–94), a Dominican friar from Hungary.5 Yet by the time of John’s death
the situation had changed. Although we lack sources for the exact date of John’s
death, by September 1294 the archdeacon of the cathedral chapter, James, was
elected.6 He was listed as the elected (archielectus) in the source. To reinforce
his position the cathedral chapter appointed him the procurator et vicarius7 of
the chapter meaning he could perform all his duties in the diocese except those
reserved to the confirmed archbishop.8 By 1297 the pope stated that James had
not sought proper confirmation in time; subsequently James gave his letter of
resignation to Cardinal Gerard Bianchi, the titular Bishop of Santa Sabina,9
while the pope provided the archbishopric to Peter (r. 1297–1324), the chaplain
of Queen Mary of Naples.10
James was the archdeacon, the highest official in the cathedral chapter,
and the canons would have consulted the books regarding the proper election
procedure,11 so it is strange that they were unaware of the requirement to seek
5
He belonged to the Hahót-Buzád noble family, which during the thirteenth century
produced several bans and bishops. His family background and connections associated him with
the royal court. On the appointments in Split before the 1290s, see Kovačić, ‘Toma Arhiđakon’.
6
CDC, vii, 184–85, 1 September 1294.
7
CDC, vii, 184, 1 September 1294.
8
The archbishop had to receive papal confirmation and the pallium, a piece of cloth which
symbolized his ecclesiastical powers. Upon this the archbishop was to oversee and administer
discipline within his province, convene provincial synods, and confirm the elections of his
suffragan-bishops and consecrate them. Benson, The BishopElect, p. 168.
9
Cardinal Bianchi served as the papal legate in helping the Neapolitan Angevins reobtain
Sicily, depicting the close contacts between the Angevins and the Apostolic See through the
reign of several popes. The connection points to a more important role of Bianchi in the removal
of James and the appointment of Peter, which is not at first evident from the preserved sources.
See Silanos, Gerardo Bianchi da Parma, pp. 151–332.
10
Queen Mary descended from the Hungarian Árpádian royal dynasty. CDC, vii, 277–78,
10 May 1297.
11
Archdeacon Thomas described in detail his election in 1244. He wrote that the necessary
266 Mišo Petrović
papal confirmation.12 Until recently the removal of James and the appointment
of Peter was simply understood as a way for the pope to help the Neapolitan
Angevins to establish their support in the kingdom,13 while other historians
contested this view stating that the popes started to directly intervene in the
episcopal appointments in favour of Neapolitan contender Charles Robert only
after 1301.14 These views either omitted the importance of the local oligarchy, the
Šubići, who controlled most of Croatia-Dalmatia, or completely disregarded the
importance of papal-Angevin actions in Croatia-Dalmatia prior to 1301.
I took on a different approach by observing the interests and benefits of all
involved parties at the end of the thirteenth century.15 Although the appointment
of Peter was a concession by Pope Boniface VIII (r. 1294–1303) to an important
ally, during the thirteenth century the Apostolic See started to expand its
prerogatives by involving itself in disputed elections — often called upon to do
so from within the dioceses — and appoint individuals close to the Curia.16 The
Angevins had a claim to the throne of Hungary-Croatia and were interested in
attracting support from the local nobility. During the 1270s the Šubići rose in
power. Paul (r. 1270–1312) obtained the title of the ban (viceroy) of Croatia
while his brothers were appointed counts in Split, Šibenik, and Trogir.17 It does
not seem that the Angevins were able to provide the noble clan — through
grants of lands, personal gifts, titles — anything that the Šubići did not already
books were consulted quoting the decisions of the Fourth Lateran (1215). For the election, see
HS, pp. 274–79. Compare with Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. by Tanner,
p. 203, pp. 246–48.
12
Another possibility is presented by problems within the Apostolic See itself. James was
appointed in 1294, probably during the short reign of Celestine V ( July–December 1294)
which was preceded by two years of papal vacancy.
13
Tkalčić, ‘Borba naroda hrvatskoga za anzovinsku kuću proti ugarskomu kralju
Arpadovcu’; Szentgyörgy, Borba Anžuvinaca; Dokoza, ‘Papinska diplomacija’.
14
Kosztolnyik, ‘Did the Curia Intervene in the Struggle for the Hungarian Throne during
the 1290s?’; Kiessewetter, ‘L’intervento di Niccolò, Celestno V e Bonifacio VIII’, pp. 162–65.
15
Petrović, ‘Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders’.
16
In my article I concentrated on the papal involvement in Zadar and its subordinated dioceses
as well as close connections between the mendicant orders and the popes since those appointed were
mostly Franciscans. Petrović, ‘Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders’, pp. 14–19.
17
Although the cities were to a degree semi-autonomous, the relationship between the
communes and their counts was a complex one often fraught with conflicts. The communes
wanted to limit the position of the counts. Also, the Šubići’s authority varied from city to city,
being strongest in Šibenik and weakest in Trogir. For more, see Karbić, ‘The Šubići of Bribir’,
pp. 46–58.
have.18 Yet the Šubići wanted to reform the ecclesiastical organization in their
territory, including the elevation of the parish of Šibenik to a rank of a bishopric.
The Šubići used different tactics in their attempts to elevate Šibenik to the status
of a bishopric. They exerted pressure on Šibenik’s superior, the Bishop of Trogir,
negotiated with the Archbishop of Split, and even cultivated good contacts with
the Apostolic See.19 Yet the contacts with the Neapolitan Angevins were the ones
which finally facilitated the changes. Immediately following Peter’s appointment,
the bishopric of Šibenik was finally established in 1298 by Pope Boniface VIII
and on the instigation of the Šubići and the Angevin court in Naples.20 As the
communication between the Šubići and the royal court intensified, the plans for
Charles Robert’s departure for Hungary-Croatia were set in motion.21
Although conflicts between the clergy and the laity of Šibenik and their
spiritual superior, the Bishop of Trogir, over the incomes lasted for a century, the
quarrel intensified in the 1270s with calls for a separate diocese of Šibenik.22 The
Šubići contribution can be seen not only in the timing of this escalation, but also
in the behaviour of the metropolitan Archbishop of Split. In 1274 Archbishop
John Buzad confirmed the establishment of the new diocese, but in 1287 he
retracted it. He stated that the secular authorities forced him to recognize the
independent bishopric. Although he does not name those who threatened him,
the Šubići involvement is clear from the context.23 The archbishop’s statements
were influenced by the enmity between Split and Trogir and the growing power
of the Šubići, backed by allies from Split. John recognized Šibenik during the
war between Trogir on the one side and the alliance of the Šubići and Split on
the other, but fearing the growing power of the noble family the archbishop later
retracted his confirmation.24
In 1288 the pope appointed a three-member committee to solve another
conflict between Šibenik and the Bishop of Trogir. One person appointed
was Archdeacon James which points to the conclusion that he was a familiar
clergyman at the Roman Curia already several years prior to his election as the
18
Klaić, ‘Paulus de Berberio’, pp. 416–17.
19
Karbić, ‘Crkvena politika Šubića’, pp. 137–39.
20
IS, iv, 458–60.
21
For Charles’s ascension to the throne, see Engel, The Realm of St Stephen, pp. 110–11, 128–32.
22
Dujmović, ‘Postanak i razvoj Šibenika od 1066. do 1409. godine’; Barbarić, ‘Šibenik,
šibenska biskupija i šibenski biskupi’.
23
CDC, vi, 580–82, 20 March 1287; IS, iii, 292–93; IS, iv, 355; Karbić, ‘The Šubići of
Bribir’, pp. 336–37; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, i, 202–309.
24
Karbić, ‘The Šubići of Bribir’, p. 337; Novak, Povijest Splita, pp. 180–89.
268 Mišo Petrović
Archbishop of Split.25 The committee realized that the clergy of Šibenik, backed
by the pressure by the Šubići on the Bishop of Trogir, manufactured some
evidence to have the pope grant the parish of Šibenik the status of bishopric. The
actions of John and James revealed that the key members of the archbishopric
of Split opposed the plans of the Šubići to establish the bishopric of Šibenik.
A more compliant archbishop was needed.
Peter was a Franciscan friar, a native of Hungary, and the chaplain of Queen
Mary.26 The Angevin dynasty, which had well-established affinity for the Fran-
ciscans, helped Peter to become the archbishop by directly petitioning the pope.27
Peter was officially appointed in May 1297,28 but only received his pallium after a
year in May 1298.29 During this period Peter used the title per sedem apostolicam
electus, confirmatus et consecratus to show that while he still did not have the
pallium — confirming his powers as the archbishop — he was still properly
appointed by the pope.30
The Apostolic See required from elected (arch)bishops directly subordinated
to the pope to go to Rome for confirmation while the consecrations were usually
conducted by either the pope or the suffragan-bishops. With papal permission
Peter could be consecrated by any bishop which was done by the Archbishop of
Naples before Peter’s trip to Split.31 This would point to the speed and the care
25
On the background of the conflict in 1288, see Barbarić, ‘Šibenik, šibenska biskupija i
šibenski biskupi’, p. 91.
26
Petrus de Ungaria Ordinis Minorum Capellanus appeared in the charter from 1294 in
the context of Charles Martel’s — the son of Queen Mary and the father of Charles Robert
— planned invasion of Hungary. Since Martel died in 1295, this Peter may have been Mary’s
chaplain as both were from Hungary. This adds a new layer to Peter’s appointment to Split.
It would mean that he was viewed as a suitable candidate because he was a Franciscan friar,
familiar of Mary, and from Hungary. Magyar diplomácziai, ed. by Wenzel, p. 116.
27
Three more Franciscans obtained episcopal appointments due to their connections with
the Neapolitan court. Toynbee, St Louis of Toulouse, p. 106.
28
CDC, vii, 277–78, 10 May 1297.
29
CDC, vii, 305–06, 18 May 1298.
30
CDC, vii, 295–97, 11 February 1298. Compare with James who did not have the
pallium or the papal confirmation. Peter’s title was also used in Zadar by Alexander of Elpidio
(1312–14) who was elected but did not receive the pallium. Also, compare with Benson, The
BishopElect, pp. 177–79, and the attempt by archbishops in Germany in the thirteenth century
to create an official title humilis minister depicting a prelate who was confirmed by the pope but
who still did not receive his pallium.
31
The permission was issued only eleven days after the appointment. CDC, vii, 281,
21 May 1297; also see Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 45–47.
with which Peter was dispatched to Split as it seems that it was important to
obtain quick consecration so he could perform his episcopal duties.
Peter’s first major task was to oversee the establishment of the bishopric
of Šibenik and the appointment of its first bishop. The strong contacts with
the Šubići continued as Peter represented Ban Paul Šubić in 1309 during the
coronation of Charles Robert as the King of Hungary-Croatia,32 and further
consolidated the Šubići’s reign by the establishment of new bishoprics which
followed the Šubići’s expansion.33 But in 1311 Peter was excommunicated during
a case between him and the commune of Split which was presided by Cardinal-
Legate Gentile.34 During this period the statute of the city of Split was re-edited
(1312). In the case of episcopal vacancy, the podestà should convene the Great
Council which would ask the canons and the cathedral chapter to appoint a
suitable person, ‘friend of the commune’, to manage the Church of Split and to
live with the commune in peace.35 While it is hard to say if this was the direct
consequence of Peter’s actions, the conflict between the commune and its arch-
bishop had left a mark in the contemporary sources. In 1315 the commune
copied Gentile’s excommunication after which Peter publicly read his defence
which revealed a very corrupt prelate who mishandled financial income and the
episcopal prerogatives of his office.36 The event would point to a further conflict
with the commune, but the fact that Peter continued to exhibit his metropolitan
authority, despite being excommunicated, indicates that in the conflict with the
commune Peter relied on support from the Šubići. This would merit further
consideration which is beyond the scope of this work.
32
Antoljak, ‘Ban Pavao Bribirski’, p. 58, 15 June 1309.
33
He established Duvno and Makarska which marked the directions in which the Šubići
expanded their influence. Karbić, ‘The Šubići of Bribir’, p. 340.
34
Gentile was sent by the pope to secure Charles’s coronation. See Kiss, ‘The Protection
of the Church by Hungarian Royal Decrees’, p. 324. For Peter’s trial and excommunication, see
CDC, vii, 247, 22 March 1309; CDC, viii, 289–90, 13 August 1311.
35
In a similar fashion the Great Council would seek audience with the archbishop,
cathedral chapter, and other priests to ask them not to appoint foreigners to empty benefices in
the diocese, but only those from Split. Statut grada Splita, ed. by Cvitanić, Liber I, cap. 11–12.
36
CDC, viii, 378–81, 8 January 1315; Dokoza, ‘Papinski legat Gentil i Split’.
270 Mišo Petrović
The Avignon Papacy

Major changes occurred on the local and international level which excluded
external secular pressure — from the royal court or local oligarchs — and
led to episcopal appointments being decided between the local communities
and the popes. The influence of the Šubići over Split deteriorated, and from
1323 the two were at odds, with the commune of Split accepting Venetian rule
in 1327, meaning that the noble clan had no influence on further episcopal
appointments. The Avignon period of the papacy (1305–78) brought changes
at the Curia with popes expanding their rights of collation of benefices
by directly involving themselves in episcopal appointments. The growing
requirements of papal political engagement — particularly to pacify the Papal
States — combined with the expansion of the papal administration led the
Curia to try and obtain new sources of income.37 Common services (servitia
communia), paid by papally appointed episcopate, became an important source
of income for the Curia.38
Following the death of Peter, who died at the Apostolic See, the pope reserved
the see of Split,39 which was his right when an incumbent died at the Curia.40 The
pope provided Balian,41 the Archbishop of Rhodes, translating him (translatio)
to the diocese of Split in 1324.42 Since the relationship between the bishop and
his diocese was seen in terms of marriage, only the pope had the right to absolve
this union and translate the prelate.43
37
The centralization of the Church is followed in Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, pp. 319–42.
For the fiscalization of appointments to ecclesiastical offices, see Partner, The Lands of Saint
Peter, pp. 263–85; Lunt, Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages, pp. 81–107.
38
The sources for Peter were not preserved, while from Balian the payments are regular for
Split. See MVC.
39
‘per obitum Petri apud Sedem Apostolicam mediante reservation vacantem’, IS, iii,
308–09; ‘provisionem ipsius ecclesie ea vice dispositioni nostre ac sedis apostolice duximus
specialiter reservandam’, CDC, ix, 205–06, 26 September 1324.
40
The pope would forbid the capitular election, either while the see was still occupied or
while it was vacant, reserving the appointment for himself. Silano, ‘Episcopal Elections and the
Apostolic See’, pp. 173–74.
41
From Baruh, near Acre (Akko) in the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
42
Madijev, Historija, ed. by Morović and Gligo, p. 181. The archiepiscopo Colosensi often
confused historians who mixed Rhodes with Kalocsa which is in Hungary. CDC, ix, 205–06,
26 September 1324.
43
A person should not be translated to a see of lesser importance but only to a diocese of
comparable size or to a higher dignity. Pennington, Pope and Bishops, pp. 85–100.
Based on Balian’s appearance in the sources, he was the Archbishop of

Rhodes between 1321 and 1324.44 The reasons for the move are unclear, but
the contemporary chronicler Miha wrote that the pope, on the request of the
Grand Master of the Hospitaller Order, removed Balian and translated him to
Split.45 The dispute that Balian had with the Hospitaller Order was regarding
the income rights which the order owed to the archbishop.46 To improve his
position Balian went to Avignon and received papal privileges which improved
his economic status. The previous decision was still not fully enforced, and the
pope granted Balian certain privileges to improve his financial situation. The
income which Balian was to enjoy at Rhodes (1231 gold florins) was considerably
more than that earned by the Archbishop of Split at the time (around 600), so
his translation was a significant downgrade of his position, intended to mitigate
Balian’s conflict with the Grand Master.47 But an additional reason for his
transfer can be suggested. While in Avignon, Balian may have come into contact
with Bertrand du Pouget, a powerful cardinal sent to Italy by the pope during
the 1320s to reclaim the papal lands. Immediately after his appointment as the
Archbishop of Split, Balian was tasked to assist the legate in Arezzo (Tuscany)
against the supporters of Louis the Bavarian. Although primarily centred in Italy,
the legate’s jurisdiction also expanded to Dalmatia, and since the pope relied on
Bertrand for his detailed knowledge about the local clergy, it is possible that it
was Bertrand who initially suggested Balian’s transfer to Split. Therefore, Balian’s
appointment shows how clerics with good ecclesiastical contacts could benefit
from the expansion of papal powers and how the popes appointed trusted clergy
to a position of local power.48
According to Miha, the contemporary chronicler of Split, Balian died on
28 January 1328 and was buried in the cathedral.49 The election of his successor
shows that the popes did not necessarily meddle in the affairs of local dioceses —
at least into the ones the pope did not have direct personal interest in — but were
44
An unnamed archbishop was mentioned in 1317 after which the sources are silent until
Balian in 1322. Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, p. 101, n. 366; IS, iii, 308.
45
Madijev, Historija, ed. by Morović and Gligo, p. 181.
46
For the dispute, see Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, pp. 101–03, pp. 199–202.
47
Luttrell, The Town of Rhodes, pp. 101–03, pp. 199–202. For Split, see HC, p. 459.
48
It should be added that in Italy Bertrand actively exercised control over the episcopal
appointment in order to ensure the selection of pro-papal candidates. Pope John XXII, Lettres
communes, ed. by Mollat, no. 21382, 14 January 1325. Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, pp. 76–110.
Gamberini, ‘Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento’, pp. 188–91.
49
Madijev, Historija, ed. by Morović and Gligo, p. 181.
272 Mišo Petrović
reacting to the petitions from ecclesiastical and secular parties.50 Split’s cathedral
chapter was divided between Archdeacon Dominic and Bosolo of Parma,
the papal chaplain and canon in Tournay.51 Both petitioned Pope John XXII
(r. 1316–34).
Dominic is an interesting example of an ambitious offspring of local urban
nobility who gradually advanced in the ranks. He came from a noble family of
Lucari that was active in the political and everyday life of Split.52 Dominic was
mentioned as early as 1311 as a member of the cathedral chapter while from 1324
he was the archdeacon.53 What shows his importance in everyday political life
and the support and confidence he had from the commune is that, while still the
archdeacon, he was one of two ambassadors selected by the council of Split to
represent the city in peace talks during which the commune recognized Venetian
suzerainty.54 Dominic’s importance in Split shows that the episcopal power
and the communes were entwined with the municipalities, often relying on the
authority and the skills of the archbishops.55
Dominic was personally present in Avignon where he and Bosolo, through
a representative, renounced their election and left the decision to the pope who
summoned a hearing and consulted with some of the cardinals after which
the pope appointed Dominic as the archbishop and had him consecrated and
provided with the pallium.56 The new archbishop nevertheless remained in
Avignon until at least the end of November in order to receive various privileges
from the pope.57 It would seem that Dominic’s personal presence in Avignon
impressed the pope while his knowledge of the workings at the Curia helped him
50
On the development of the system of petition, see Smith, ‘The Development of Papal
Provisions in Medieval Europe’, p. 115; Zutshi, ‘Petitioners, Popes, Proctors’.
51
An experienced jurist and one of the longest serving auditors at the papal Curia who
was often sent on delicate missions for the Apostolic See. On his career, see Krämer, Dämonen,
Prälaten und gottlose Menschen, pp. 370–71.
52
Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 205; Ivanišević, ‘Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari u Splitu i
Lukarević u Dubrovniku’, pp. 12–13.
53
Nikolić Jakus, ‘The Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility’, pp. 114–15.
54
CDC, ix, 363–65, 3 October 1327; Listine, i, 368–72.
55
Franco, ‘Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State’, p. 255.
56
CDC, ix, 420–22, 17 October 1328; IS, iii, 313, 16 November 1328.
57
He was allowed to remain in the possession of his previous benefices, to give to successors
of his choosing some churches which served him as a source of income, a position of a canon
to a person of his choosing, and to make a last will. CDC, ix, 429–35, 21 October 1328 –
21 November 1328.
to obtain several privileges for himself. The pope could have viewed Dominic as
a respected and important prelate to maintain papal control on the local level.58
To corroborate this view is the fact that the pope did not press the matter of
electing Bosolo, a cleric with close ties with the Roman Curia whose appoint-
ment could have been a reward for Bosolo’s hard work as papal legate and
administrator at the Avignon Curia. I believe that the event reveals a bit of
John’s personal touch and the development within the papacy. The pope did
not want to impose his appointments.59 By surrendering their right to election
the individuals would obtain their position while at the same time reaffirming
papal prerogatives. Dominic was in the end not elected but provided with his
archdiocese by the pope. The elections in Trogir and Zadar during the pontificate
of John XXII were also similar as the pope would allow the election of a native
but would acquire control over the process itself.60 Dominic’s knowledge and
experience in the way the papal Curia operated during this period should not
be downplayed. He effectively used both during a turbulent time in his diocese.
Also, his attempt to install his nephew, Dominic,61 as the Bishop of Knin shows
that the archbishop understood that the papal appointment was the surest way
to the episcopal office, so he tried to garner support from the local communes
and the Venetian authorities in order to strengthen his nephew’s petition to the
Curia.62
Further development of papal control over episcopal appointments can
be observed from the appointment and the removal of Archbishop Hugolin
(r. 1349–88). Archbishop Dominic died on 22 March 1348,63 and already on
58
Compare with Beattie, ‘Local Reality and Papal Policy’, p. 133.
59
In cases where we lack sources which tells us about curial motives, it is possible that
the pope wanted to avoid dissension in the city while upholding papal prerogatives regarding
episcopal appointments. For a similar case in Perugia, see Silano, ‘The Apostolic See and the
Elections of the Bishops of Perugia’, pp. 504–05.
60
In 1319 Lampredius in Trogir was elected, but the pope later provided him with his see,
Nikolić Jakus, ‘The Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility’, pp. 117–18. During 1230–32
John Butovan’s election in Zadar was disputed, but after a hearing the pope confirmed John’s
appointment. Brunelli, Storia dellacittà di Zara, p. 444. Both events helped the succeeding
popes to appoint their successors.
61
Dominic Younger was the nephew of Archbishop Dominic’s nephew, and with the
archbishop’s help first became a canon in 1338 and several years later the archdeacon in Split.
He also became an important person in the ecclesiastical and political life of his city, but never
obtained the position of the (arch)bishop. Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu, p. 56.
62
IS, iii, 323–24.
63
Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 214, wrote that Dominic died from plague.
274 Mišo Petrović
14 April a new archbishop elect, Pelegrinus, probably elected by the cathedral

chapter, was mentioned in the city charters.64 Later in April 1348 the Venetians,
who ruled Split, contacted their representative in Avignon to enlist the support
of two important cardinals — Gozzio Battaglia65 and Hugues Roger66 — in
order to petition the pope to appoint a Venetian citizen to the archbishopric.67
While Venice had its own unnamed candidate, Pelegrinus was the vicar-general
of the Franciscan Order in Bosnia backed by Ban Stephen II Kotromanić. The
Bosnian ruler utilized his growing regional influence and contacts with the
cathedral chapter in Split to ensure Pelegrinus’s election and was promoting his
appointment at the Apostolic See. But the rulers of both Bosnia and Venice were
unsuccessful.68
Less than two months after Dominic’s death the pope appointed the Bishop
of Senj, John of Pisa, as the new archbishop. In similar fashion as in the case
of Balian, the pope reserved the see after the archbishop’s death and provided
John with a translation from Senj to Split.69 While the rapidity of the papal
appointment shows the speed with which the news travelled from Split to
Avignon and points to papal disregard for the local candidates as the election
of Pelegrinus was not mentioned, it is possible that the two events happened at
approximately same time.
In 1333 Pope John XXII had appointed John of Pisa as the Bishop of Senj,
where the new bishop met resistance from the local clergy and commune who
supported their local candidate, even confirmed by the Archbishop of Split.70
Although his appointment shows that he already had good contacts with the
Curia, his continual presence at the Curia probably helped him to get appointed
after Dominic’s death in 1348. The pope stated in his bull that John’s appointment
was a reward for faithful service in leading his diocese. Here the pope considerably
stretched the facts since John spent most of his Senj episcopacy in Avignon, due
64
IS, iii, 325, 14 April 1348. Fratrus Pelegrinus Dei gratia Archielecti.
65
He rose to power during the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334–42), who also appointed
Gozzio as the titular patriarch of Constantinople and entrusted him the legation in the papal
conflict with the King of Aragon over the island of Sicily. Cardella, Memorie storiche de cardinali
della santa Romana chiesa, pp. 145–46.
66
Brother of Pope Clement VI (1342–52) and in 1362 elected as pope but refused due to
his advanced age. Wood, Clement VI, p. 62, pp. 98–99.
67
Listine, iii, 77, 26 April 1348.
68
Ančić, Na rubu Zapada, pp. 210–11.
69
CDC, xi, 461–62, 30 May 1348.
70
Kosanović, ‘Državina krčkih knezova’, pp. 94–95.
to continual resistance in Senj.71 This points to the need to carefully evaluate the
papal bulls of appointment.
John never went to Split, whose authorities only listed Pelegrinus in the local
charters,72 instead spending time in Pisa where he died in March 1349.73 Already in
April Pope Clement VI (r. 1342–52) appointed Hugolin as the archbishop,74 who
in June personally obliged himself to pay for his confirmation.75 An anonymous
contemporary chronicler described Hugolin as a monk of the Benedictine
monastery of Saint Peter in Perugia, adding that he also came from a rich and
noble family de Brancha from Gubbio in the Papal States. Despite being a humble
Benedictine monk, Hugolin did not shy away from using his material wealth in
showing the splendour of his episcopal authority by organizing a magnificent
adventus to the city.76 In my opinion the examples of John and Hugolin would
suggest that both used papal influence to improve their careers and that the popes
already had a list of supplicants who petitioned the Curia for better positions.
The Western Schism

From 1378 the Apostolic See was divided between Avignon and Rome whose
desire to destroy each other made both of them more susceptible to secular
backers. Less visible was the fact that the diminishing of papal power affected the
decrease in episcopal authority.77
71
HC, p. 450.
72
For the last time in IS, iii, 325, 25 January 1349. Seeing that the pope cannot confirm
Pelegrinus in Split, the Bosnian ban changed his approach and instead aimed at influencing a
nearby bishopric. On the suggestion of the Bosnian ban, the pope appointed Pelegrinus as the
Bishop of Bosnia on 28 January 1349, after which Pelegrinus is no longer mentioned in sources
in Split. Batinić, Djelovanje Franjevaca, pp. 58–59. The appointment of elected candidates to
other dioceses in favour of the papally appointed archbishop was one of the methods used by
the papacy when met with strong local opposition. Candidates of the Šubići in Šibenik (1298)
and Zadar (1314) were translated to other dioceses in favour of the papal appointees. Petrović,
‘Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders’, p. 29.
73
Williman, ‘The Right of Spoil of the Popes of Avignon’, p. 155.
74
The bull of appointment was not preserved. In this charter Hugolin received papal
permission to take the spiritual and temporal possession of his archdiocese. CDC, xi, 526–27,
30 April 1349. The consecration and the pallium came several days later. Priručnik za istraživanje
hrvatske povijesti, ii, 681, 10 May 1349.
75
MVC, p. 122; HC, p. 459, 25 June 1349.
76
‘Cutheis’, pp. 194–95.
77
Canning, ‘The Power Crisis during the Great Schism’.
276 Mišo Petrović
Judging by the available sources, Hugolin’s long reign in Split was

unproblematic until its very end.78 In 1388 in the context of the growing
political (civil war) and ecclesiastical (Western Schism) problems, Hugolin came
into conflict with the commune of Split. The communal authorities had limited
options when clashing with their own archbishop. Before appealing to the pope,
the city council decided to obtain backing from King Sigismund (r. 1387–1437),
who was informed about the rebellion in the kingdom, and asked to procure a
royal letter which would be sent to the pope. The pope was asked to translate
Hugolin and appoint a new archbishop, one with whom the commune could live
without controversies.79
The communal efforts were successful as Hugolin resigned, but this event can
show us the forces at the papal Curia influencing the appointments.80 Hugolin
gave his letter of resignation to the papal scribe and Hugolin’s procurator in
Rome, Anthony Gualdo, who was able to provide the see of Split for his relative
or compatriot, Andrew Benzi of Gualdo.81 Andrew was the rector of the church
of Saint Leonard in the diocese of Nocera (near Perugia). In May 1389 he was in
Rome where he promised to pay for his appointment,82 and by November he had
arrived in Split.
In 1402 Andrew was forced into exile. This was due to a very problematic
political situation, emphasized by domestic problems in Split83 and the invasion
by Ladislas of Naples (r. 1386–1414) — a Roman pope–backed pretender to the
throne of Hungary-Croatia. The change in the city occurred during December
when Andrew’s opponents took the city. In a matter of days Andrew was
removed while Archdeacon Marin de Cutheis became the archbishop elect.84
As a top-ranking prelate in the city, communal notary, and a member of a rich
and reputable family, Marin was acceptable to both the Church and the warring
78
‘Cutheis’, p. 195.
79
CDC, xvii, 124–27, 19 January 1388; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, ii, 746;
CDC, xvii, 152–54, 10 June 1388; Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, ii, 751.
80
On the influence of important officials of the Curia on the pope and their role in the
Papal States, see Lind, ‘Great Friends and Small Friends’, p. 127.
81
IS, iii, 332–33.
82
MVC, no. 392, 30 May 1389.
83
Andrew was involved in the civil war in Split during which he supported the winning
faction of the warring noblemen. The exiled noblemen aligned themselves with Ladislas
of Naples and upon his invasion were able to reclaim Split and exile Andrew. For more, see
Petrović, ‘Politicized Religion’, pp. 45–47.
84
‘Serie’, pp. 143–44, 6 December 1402; 24 December 1402.
factions of citizens.85 After several years of political division, his election could
have been intended to stabilize the divided community.86 The citizens of Split
decided to obtain the support for their political and ecclesiastical goals from the
surrounding political powers and work on having Marin officially recognized.87 In
an unratified treaty with Bosnian King Ostoja (d. 1418), an ally of King Ladislas,
the citizens demanded that they never again be forced to take another ‘foreigner’,
meaning not that they were necessarily against foreigners but that they wanted to
control the appointment of the archbishop.88
The pope in Rome heavily relied on Ladislas of Naples, so he rejected Marin
and on the king’s suggestion appointed Peregrin of Aragon on 18 April 1403.89
Andrew did not renounce his archbishopric but was instead translated to Samaria,
which was a titular church in Palestine.90 Andrew was therefore exiled by both
the citizens of Split and the pope in Rome. This event in fact showed the division
in understanding who oversaw the episcopal election during the Western Schism.
The pope, with the actual power and sometimes backed by the secular authority,
often rejected the chapter’s choices and appointed his own candidates. The local
communes and the clergy demanded control of the elections and believed that
they still had the right to appoint their spiritual leader.
In 1403 papal support of Ladislas’s bid for the Hungarian throne created a
rupture in the relationship between the pope and Sigismund which, among
other things, came down to the question of who has the right to appoint the
episcopates of the kingdom. Before the rupture both the pope and the king
respected each other’s zones of influence, and the pope regularly confirmed
Sigismund’s candidates while the pope appointed archbishops in Split and Zadar.
In 1404 Sigismund published his Decretum which curtailed the papal rights
as Sigismund claimed the title of the patron and defender of all the churches
in the kingdom.91 Sigismund would keep the dioceses of his political enemies
vacant, appointing instead governors and collecting diocesan incomes, while
85
IS, iii, 357–58.
86
Beattie, ‘Local Reality and Papal Policy’, p. 134.
87
IS, iii, 357; Novak, Povijest Splita, p. 323.
88
Brković, ‘Srednjovjekovne isprave bosansko-humskih vladara Splitu’, pp. 380–84,
15 December 1402.
89
Lučić, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru, ii, 840.
90
IS, iii, 354–56; Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu, p. 25; HC, p. 459.
91
The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, ed. by Bak, pp. 29–30; Bárd, ‘The Break
of 1404 between the Hungarian Church and Rome’.
278 Mišo Petrović
rarely appointing bishops directly.92 In royal documents the dioceses in Croatia-

Dalmatia not controlled by the king were listed as vacant or had names of
Sigismund’s candidates.93
Sigismund never recognized Peregrin, who was Ladislas’s candidate. After
Peregrin’s death (before 8 May 1409)94 three individuals, backed by secular
and/or ecclesiastical powers, claimed the position for themselves. By December
1409 the cathedral chapter elected its archdeacon, Duimus,95 who in 1410
obtained confirmation from the Pisan Pope John XXIII.96 In the next year the
pope revoked the confirmation and instead promoted his own candidate, Peter
of Pag, as the new archbishop. Peter was resisted in Split by Sigismund and
the commune, so instead stayed at the Apostolic See and obtained a position
there.97 Peter, a Franciscan friar, doctor of theology, and the Bishop of Faenza in
Romagna (1406–11), participated at the Council of Pisa in 1409, which created
the Pisan papacy, and from there he probably came into contact with future Pope
John XXIII or the two already knew each other from before.98
Some historians presumed that the inconsistent papal actions came about
because of opposition from Sigismund, but the pope did not appoint Sigismund’s
candidate, Andrew Benzi, but rather his own.99 Benzi was the former archbishop
who found shelter at the royal court and actively served Sigismund as royal
governor of vacant dioceses and chief royal diplomat. John XXIII knew about
Sigismund’s opposition, so on the same day as the pope confirmed Duimus,
he appointed Andrew as the Archbishop of Thebes, probably in order to stop
Andrew from trying to reclaim Split.100 I think that these events show the
complete disarray within papal politics as the pope first recognized Duimus and
92
Hunyadi, ‘The Western Schism and Hungary’, pp. 51–52.
93
For instance, as the Archbishop of Split Andrew was still listed, without mentioning
Peregrin. ‘Nekoliko isprava s početka 15. stoljeća’, ed. by Šišić, p. 250, 15 April 1405; p. 262,
28 November 1405; p. 267, 22 April 1406; p. 314, 14 November 1408.
94
‘Serie’, pp. 44–45, 8 May 1409.
95
Duimus de Judicibus or Domnius Giudici from the family of Lucari from Split, which
would mean that he was very distant relative of Archbishop Dominic Lucari. Bellwald,
Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo, p. 43, 24 December 1409.
96
Today referred to as Antipope John XXIII (Baldassare Cossa).
97
HC, p. 460, 11 August 1410; p. 460, 19 October 1411: ‘Cubicularius Summi Pontificis et
registrator signatarum’. Neralić, Put do crkvene nadarbine, p. 269.
98
Neralić, ‘Udio Hrvata u papinoj diplomaciji’, p. 95.
99
For the opinion, see Neralić, ‘Udio Hrvata u papinoj diplomaciji’, p. 95.
100
HC, p. 460; Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo, p. 44, 11 August 1410.
opposed the royal candidate, and then decided to oppose both the royal and local
candidates in order to promote his own.
As mentioned, King Sigismund tried to have Andrew reinstated, and in
February 1412 the king invoked his patronage rights over the Church in an
attempt to force the citizens of Split to renounce Peter of Pag and Duimus and
to reinstate Andrew, but with no success.101 By August Sigismund decided to
take a different approach by backing Duimus as the archbishop, as Duimus was
listed as the archbishop in the Hungarian royal charters.102 Due to Sigismund’s
rapprochement with Pope John XXIII the pope had Andrew appointed as the
Archbishop of Kalocsa-Bács, the second most important archdiocese in the
kingdom.103
Although Duimus lacked papal and royal support, he could count on
local ecclesiastical and secular authorities in backing his reign and was able to
obtain royal support. Between 1403 and 1413 the true ruler of Split was Duke
Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić.104 Hrvoje wanted to be a mediator between Venice
and Sigismund, in order to preserve his territorial expansion and privileges
between the king, to whom Hrvoje was often unloyal, and Venice, which after
1409 expanded its possessions in Dalmatia and presented serious threat to
both Hrvoje and Split. Duimus had the duke’s support and acted as his main
diplomat.105 Curiously, several months after Sigismund reinstated Duimus, on
royal instigation the commune of Split overthrew Hrvoje ( June 1413) which
would suggest that the king viewed acceptance of Duimus as a way to approach
the commune and persuade them to return to the royal authority. Duimus
remained as a chief communal envoy to the court of the king.106 It should be
stated again that Duimus was not only influential as the archbishop of the city
but as a member of an important noble family.
Due to papal opposition Duimus could not officially be invested with
his diocese. The cathedral chapter, in order to strengthen Duimus’s position,
101
Ančić, ‘Liber Bullarum’, pp. 247–48, 14 February 1412; Guerrieri, ‘Andrea di Pietro di
Gionta dei Benzi da Gualdo’, pp. 501–02; Bellwald, Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo, p. 45.
102
Until 1435, but this is because Sigismund completely lost Split to Venice several years
after this, but he kept referring to Duimus as the archbishop until his death, stating officially the
Hungarian claim on Split. Engel, Magyarország világi archontológiája, p. 84.
103
HC, p. 197, 4 January 1413.
104
Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba, pp. 159–237.
105
Listine, vi, 78–82, 8 April 1410; p. 135, 22 January 1411.
106
Šišić, Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba, p. 226; Lučić, Povijesna
svjedočanstva o Trogiru, ii, 857–61.
280 Mišo Petrović
appointed him as the vicar of the diocese meaning that he was performing all the
duties of the archbishop but had no right to wield the archbishop’s title.107 The
papal resistance and the decision by the chapter are the probable reasons why
between 1409 and 1416 the position of the archbishop in the city charters was
always listed as vacant. From December 1415 Duimus reappeared in the papal
records,108 and from January 1416 he was regularly mentioned as the archbishop
in Split.109 The change occurred in the context of the Council of Constance
(1414–18) where all popes were dethroned and Christendom was unified. The
dominant position was maintained by King Sigismund, elected German emperor
in 1411, who summoned the council. Sigismund obtained consent from the
gathered cardinals for royal patronage over all the ecclesiastical appointments on
Sigismund’s territories, while the pope would only confirm royal candidates.110 As
we have seen, Duimus had the support of Duke Hrvoje, the Church of Split, the
citizens, and in time was able to obtain the support of King Sigismund.
From September 1418 another war between Hungary-Croatia and Venice
broke out as the Venetians targeted Split and Trogir, which they conquered by
mid-1420. In July 1420 the city council of Split sent several representatives to
Venice to offer terms of surrender to the Serenissima. The goal was to preserve
privileges that Split obtained under the Kingdom of Hungary-Croatia, but two
requests dealt with the position of the archbishop. The council asked Venice to
allow Duimus to remain in his position as the archbishop while the cathedral
chapter added a clause that the election of the Archbishop of Split be done by
the clergy and the citizens of Split (‘per clerum et nobiles dicte civitatis’).111 The
decision shows the intertwining between lay and secular power as the sons of
the noble families of the city occupied important positions in the cathedral
chapter. The local nobility did not necessarily use the opportunity to intervene
in ecclesiastical affairs, but this connection led to the chapter and the commune
sharing common interests regarding episcopal elections.112 The change reflected
107
‘Dominus Duymus electus Spalatensis et Vicarius per Capitulum dictae ecclesiae
deputatus, et Gubernator Ecclesiae supradictae et ipsum Capitulum Spalatense’, IS, iii, 361.
108
Promising to pay for his servitia. MVC, no. 494, 11 December 1415; no. 575, 9 August
1419.
109
‘Serie’, pp. 44–45, 8 May 1409; pp. 127–28, 28 January 1416.
110
Hoensch, Kaiser Sigismund, pp. 191–278; Mályusz, Das Konstanzer Konzil, p. 8; Stump,
The Reforms of the Council of Constance, pp. 39–40.
111
Listine, viii, 24–29, 9 July 1420; Novak, Povijest Splita, pp. 350–56.
112
See Ostojić, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu, pp. 46–84; Ronzani, ‘Vescovi, capitoli e
strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’.
the way in which the medieval communes operated as the leading citizens saw
that it was their sole right to administer the city, while excluding the rest of the
population from political and ecclesiastical questions. A similar clause was found
in Šibenik whose citizens demanded the same thing in 1412.113
Venice rejected both requests. The main reason for the rejections was the
desire by Venice to match their political power with their ecclesiastical control.
La Serenissima placed the citizens of Venice as administrators in the Dalmatian
cities, and they wanted the same with the bishops. Bishops opposing Venice
were forced to go into exile, such as Duimus and Simon Dominis of Trogir
(r. 1403–23), both finding shelter with Sigismund after Venice occupied their
cities.114 On the other hand, those bishops who were amicable towards the
Venetian authorities were left in power, such as Bogdan of Šibenik (r. 1402–36)
and Luke of Zadar (r. 1400–20) while Peter of Pag (r. 1411–26) was welcomed
to Split by the new Venetian authority and even described as faithful to Venice
by the Venetians themselves.115 Yet in both situations, once the amicable bishops
died or when exiled bishops left their dioceses, Venice would appoint as bishops
individuals coming from the Venetian citizenry, and this practice remained,
with few exceptions, throughout most of the fifteenth century.116 The Venetian
takeover therefore represented the defeat of the local and papal interests in the
appointment, and the victory of the political considerations.
Conclusion
Twelve individuals were elected or appointed as the archbishops of Split during
the period researched.117 Only nine were able to become archbishops. Five
individuals were elected by the chapter, but not a single person was confirmed
by the pope. Dominic (1328) renounced his election releasing the right into the
papal hand, while the pope at first confirmed Duimus (1409) but then tried to
replace him with a papal candidate. Local candidates were rejected because of
royal/local opposition or show papal disregard for local elections citing papal
113
Barbarić, ‘Šibenik, šibenska biskupija i šibenski biskupi’, p. 108.
114
Neralić, ‘Udio Hrvata u papinoj diplomaciji’, p. 95; Novak, Povijest Splita, pp. 354–55.
115
Listine, viii, 62, 64, 30 December 1420.
116
Pederin, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika u Dalmaciji, p. 32.
117
James (1294–97), Peter (1297–1324), Balian (1324–28), Dominic Lucari (1328–48),
Pelegrin (1348–49), John of Pisa (1348–49), Hugolin Branca (1348–88), Andrew Benzi
(1389–1402), Marin Cutheis (1402–03), Peregrin of Aragon (r. 1403–09), Duimus Lucari
(1409–35), Peter of Pag (1410–26).
282 Mišo Petrović
prerogatives. Only two individuals were appointed on royal instigation.118 This

occurred when the interests of the papacy and the secular rulers aligned, as is
evident with the popes and the Neapolitan Angevins.
Consequently, most candidates were appointed due to their contacts with
the Apostolic See. Split was too far from the Apostolic See (or unimportant)
for the popes to pursue any political programme. Instead, the popes responded
to petitions from groups and individuals weighing in the strengths of the local
communities and secular polities. The papal candidates show a wide variety of
backgrounds, originating from both within and outside of the Papal States,119
reflecting the appeal which the Apostolic See had for ambitious prelates who
hoped that an appointment by the pope would propel the prelate’s career.
In the background of these developments and with the gradual diminishing
of episcopal authority, the local municipalities gradually developed their ideas
of control over the episcopal elections. First the commune demanded that the
‘friends of the commune’ be appointed. With the Western Schism papal authority
weakened while the communes became bolder. The connections between the
communal elites and the cathedral chapter must be emphasized. Almost all
locally elected candidates were the chapter’s archdeacons and came from the
urban nobility.120 These examples show the firm connections between the leading
families whose junior members filled the ranks of the cathedral chapter, therefore
linking the chapter’s interests with those of the leading strata. While the junior
members of these elites filled the highest ranks of the chapter, the family of Lucari
had considerable influence over the chapter providing the archdiocese with two
archbishops and other members of the chapter, more than other families, which
would merit a further investigation. But this intertwining of the elites and the
chapter also meant that both institutions had a common goal: to control the local
Church by controlling the episcopal elections.
118
Peter in 1297 and Peregrin of Aragon in 1403.
119
Balian of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1324, John of Pisa in 1348, Peter of Pag in 1411,
while Hugolin de Brancha in 1449 and Andrew Benzi in 1489 came from the Papal States.
120
Except Pelegrinus in 1348, they were James (1294), Dominic Lucari (1328) (and his
nephew), Marin Cutheis (1402–03), and Duimus Lucari (1409).
Works Cited
Primary Sources
CDC: Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae: Diplomatički zbornik
Kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije, ed. by Tadija Smičiklas, Marko Kostrenčić,
and Emilij Laszowski, vols i–xviii (Zagreb: JAZU, 1843–1990)
‘Cutheis’: ‘A Cutheis Tabula’, in Legende i kronike [Legends and Chronicles], ed. by Hrvoje
Morović and Vedran Gligo (Split: Čakavski sabor, 1977), pp. 187–202
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. i: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. and trans. by Norman
Tanner (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990)
Engel, Pál, Magyarország világi archontológiája, 1301–1457 [The secular archontology of
Hungary], vol. i (Budapest: MTA Történettudományi Intézete, 1986)
HC: Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificium, ed. by Konrad Eubel,
vol. i (Munster: Typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913)
HS: Toma Arhiđakon, Historia Salonitana, trans. by Olga Perić, ed. by Mirjana Matijević
Sokol (Split: Književni krug Split, 2003)
IS: Daniele Farlati, Illyricum sacrum, vols iii–iv (Venice: Apud Sebastianum Coleti, 1765–69)
Pope John XXII, Lettres communes, analysées d’après les registres dits d’Avignon et du
Vatican, ed. by G. Mollat, 16 vols (Paris, 1904–47)
The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary, ed. by János Bak, vol. ii: 1301–1457 (Salt
Lake City: Schlacks, 1992)
Listine: Listine o odnošajih izmedju južnoga Slavenstva i Mletačke Republike [Charters
about the relationship between South Slavs and the Venetian Republic], ed. by Šime
Ljubić, vols i–x (Zagreb: JAZU, 1868–91)
Madijev, Miha de Barbezanis, Historija [History], in Legende i kronike [Legends and
Chronicles], ed. by Hrvoje Morović and Vedran Gligo (Split: Čakavski sabor, 1977),
pp. 153–84
Magyar diplomácziai emlékek az Anjoukorból, ed. by Gusztáv Wenzel, vol. i (Budapest:
Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Történelmi Bizottsága, 1874)
MVC: Monumenta Vaticana Croatica: Camera apostolica; Obligationes et solutiones; Camerale
primo (1299–1560), ed. by Josip Barbarić, vol. i (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 1996)
‘Nekoliko isprava s početka 15. stoljeća’ [Several charters from the beginning of the
fifteenth century], ed. by Ferdo Šišić, Starine, 39 (1938), 129–320
Priručnik za istraživanje hrvatske povijesti u tajnom vatikanskom arhivu od ranog srednjeg
vijeka do sredine xviii. stoljeca (Schedario Garampi) [Manual for researching Croatian
history in the Vatican secret archives], ed. by Jadranka Neralić, vols i–ii (Zagreb:
Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2000)
‘Serie’: ‘Serie dei reggitori di Spalato’, Bullettino di archeologia e storia Dalmata, 13 (1890),
pp. 16–168
Statut grada Splita [Statute of Split], ed. by Antun Cvitanić (Split: Književni krug, 1987)
284 Mišo Petrović
Secondary Sources
Ančić, Mladen, ‘Image of Royal Power in the Work of Thomas Archdeacon’, Povijesni
prilozi, 22 (2002), 29–40
—— , ‘Liber Bullarum’, Fontes: izvori za hrvatsku povijest, 20 (2014), 231–48
—— , Na rubu Zapada: tri stoljeća srednjovjekovne Bosne [On the fringe of the West: Three
centuries of the Medieval Bosnia] (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2001)
Antoljak, Stjepan, ‘Ban Pavao Bribirski “roatorum dominus”’ [Ban Paul of Bribir], Radovi
JAZU u Zadru, 19 (1972), 5–62
Barbarić, Josip, ‘Šibenik, šibenska biskupija i šibenski biskupi’ [Šibenik, its diocese and
its bishops], in Sedam stoljeća šibenske biskupije, ed. by Vilijam Lakić (Šibenik: GK
‘J. Šižgorić’, 2001), pp. 79–164
Bárd, Imre, ‘The Break of 1404 between the Hungarian Church and Rome’, Ungarn
Jahrbuch, 10 (1979), 59–65
Barraclough, Geoffrey, ‘The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages: The Part of the Pope
in Law and Fact’, Catholic Historical Review, 19 (1933), 275–319
—— , Papal Provisions: Aspects of Church History, Constitutional, Legal and Administrative
in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1935)
Batinić, Mijo Vjenceslav, Djelovanje Franjevaca u Bosni za prvih šest viekova njihova
boravka [The Franciscans in Bosnia during their first six centuries there] (Zagreb:
Dionička tiskara, 1881)
Beattie, Blake, ‘Local Reality and Papal Policy: Papal Provision and the Church of Arezzo,
1248–1327’, Mediaeval Studies, 57 (1995), 131–53
Bellwald, Hans, Erzbischof Andreas bei Benzi von Gualdo: Ein Helfer Kaiser Sigismunds
im großen Schisma (Gossau: J. Brücker, 1957)
Benson, Robert, The BishopElect: A Study in Medieval Ecclesiastical Office (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1968)
Brković, Milko, ‘Srednjovjekovne isprave bosansko-humskih vladara Splitu’ [Medieval charters
that rulers of Bosnia and Hum gave to Split], Starohrvatska prosvjeta, 36 (2009), 371–402
Brunelli, Vitaliano, Storia dellacittà di Zara (Venice: Istituto Veneto di Arti Grafiche,
1913)
Canning, Joseph, ‘The Power Crisis during the Great Schism (1378–1417)’, in Ideas of
Power in the Late Middle Ages, 1296–1417 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2011), pp. 165–90
Cardella, Lorenzo, Memorie storiche de cardinali della santa Romana chiesa, vol. ii (Rome:
Pagliarini, 1793)
Dokoza, Serđo, ‘Papinska diplomacija i dolazak anžuvinske dinastije na hrvatsko-ugarsko
prijestolje’ [Papal diplomacy and the arrival of the Angevin dynasty on the Croatian-
Hungarian throne], in Hrvatska srednjovjekovna diplomacija [Croatian medieval
diplomacy], ed. by Mladen Andrlić and Mirko Valentić (Zagreb: Diplomatska aka-
demija Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Hrvatske, 1999), pp. 271–84
—— , ‘Papinski legat Gentil i Split’ [Legate Gentile and Split], Kulturna baština, 31
(2002), 79–98
Dujmović, Frane, ‘Postanak i razvoj Šibenika od 1066. do 1409. godine’ [Foundation

and development of Šibenik from 1066 to 1409], in Šibenik: spomenzbornik o 900.
obljetnici (Šibenik: Muzej grada Šibenika, 1976), pp. 88–99
Engel, Pál, The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526 (London:
I. B. Tauris, 2001)
Fonseca, Cosimo Damiano, ‘Vescovi, capitoli cattedrali e canoniche regolari (sec. xiv–
xvi)’, in Vescovi e diocesi in Italia dal xiv alla meta del xvi secolo: atti del VII Convegno
di storia della Chiesa in Italia (Brescia, 21–25 settembre 1987), ed. by Giuseppina de
Sandre Gasparini and others, 2 vols (Rome: Herder, 1990), i, 83–98
Franco, Bradley R., ‘Episcopal Power and the Late Medieval State: Siena’s Bishops and the
Government of the Nine ’, Viator, 45 (2014), 255–70
Gamberini, Andrea, ‘Chiesa vescovile e società politica a Reggio nel Trecento’, in Il
vescovo, la chiesa e la città di Reggio in età comunale, ed. by Lorenzo Paolini (Bologna:
Patron, 2012), pp. 183–205
Ganzer, Klaus, Papsttum und Bistumsbesetzungen in der Zeit von Gregor IX. bis
Bonifaz VIII.: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Reservationen, Forschungen
zu kirchlichen Rechtsgeschichte und zum Kirchenrecht, 9 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1968)
Guerrieri, Ruggero, ‘Andrea di Pietro di Gionta dei Benzi da Gualdo, vescovo di Spalato e
di Sion arcivescovo di Colocza e l’opera sua alla corte di re Sigismondo ed al Concilio
di Costanza’, Bollettino per l’Umbria, 18 (1912), 497–512
Hoensch, Jörg, Kaiser Sigismund, Herrscher an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit, 1368–1437
(Munich: Beck, 1996)
Hunyadi, Zsolt, ‘The Western Schism and Hungary: From Louis I to Sigismund of
Luxembourg’, Chronica, 13 (2017), 45–53
Ivanišević, Milan, ‘Promišljanje o rodovima Lukari u Splitu i Lukarević u Dubrovniku’
[Some thoughts on the nobility of Lukari in Split and Dubrovnik], Kulturna
sadašnjost, 41 (2015), 5–40
Karbić, Damir, ‘Crkvena politika Šubića Bribirskih do sloma Kliške grane u 1356’
[Ecclesiastical policy of the Šubići of Bribir until the fall of the branch of the counts
of Klis (1356)], in Humanitas et litterae: Zbornik u čast Franje Šanjeka, ed. by Lovorka
Čoralić and Slavko Slišković (Zagreb: Dominikanska naklada Istina; Kršćanska
sadašnjost, 2009), pp. 137–58
—— , ‘The Šubići of Bribir: A Case Study of a Croatian Medieval Kindred’ (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Central European University, Budapest, 2000)
Kiessewetter, Andreas, ‘L’intervento di Niccolò, Celestno V e Bonifacio VIII nella lotta
per il trono ungherese (1290–1303)’, in Bonifacio VIII: Ideologia e azione politica,
ed. by Ilaria Bonincontro (Rome: Instituti storico italiano, 2006), pp. 139–98
Kiss, Gergely, ‘The Protection of the Church by Hungarian Royal Decrees’, in Ecclesia
et Violentia: Violence against the Church and Violence within the Church in the
Middle Ages, ed. by Radosław Kotecki and Jacek Maciejewski (Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), pp. 313–32
286 Mišo Petrović
Klaić, Nada, ‘Paulus de Berberio, banus Croatorum dominus et Bosne’, Arhivski vjesnik,
17/18 (1974/75), 409–23
Kosanović, Ozren, ‘Državina krčkih knezova – Vinodol, Senj i Krk od početka 14. Stoljeća
do 1420. godine’ [The lands of counts of Krk – Vinodol, Senj and Krk from the
beginning of the fourteenth century until 1420] (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Zagreb, 2012)
Kosztolnyik, Zoltán, ‘Did the Curia Intervene in the Struggle for the Hungarian
Throne during the 1290s?’, in Régi és új peregrináció: Magyarok külföldön, külföldiek
Magyarországon, vol. i, ed. by Imre Békési (Budapest: Nemzetközi Hungarológiai
Kongresszuson, 1993), pp. 140–58
Kovačić, Slavko, ‘Toma Arhiđakon, promicatelj crkvene obnove i splitski nadbiskupi,
osobito njegovi suvremenici’ [Thomas the Archdeacon, promoter of ecclesiastical
reform, and the archbishops of Split, particularly his contemporaries], in Toma
Arhiđakon i njegovo doba [Thomas the Archdeacon and his time], ed. by Mirjana
Matijević Sokol and Olga Perić (Split: Književni krug, 2004), pp. 46–55
Krämer, Thomas, Dämonen, Prälaten und gottlose Menschen: Konflikte und ihre Beilegung
im Umfeld der geistlichen Ritterorden (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2015)
Lind, Gunner, ‘Great Friends and Small Friends: Clienteles and the Power Elite’, in Power
Elites and State Building, ed. by Wolfgang Reinhard (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996), pp. 123–48
Lučić, Ivan, Povijesna svjedočanstva o Trogiru [Historical Accounts about Trogir], vols i–
ii (Split: Čakavski sabor, 1979)
Lunt, William, Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages, vol. i (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1934)
Luttrell, Anthony, The Town of Rhodes, 1306–1356 (Rhodes: Techne, 2003)
Mályusz, Elemér, Das Konstanzer Konzil und das königliche Patronatsrecht in Ungarn
(Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959)
Mollat, Guillaume, The Popes at Avignon: 1305–1378 (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1965)
Neralić, Jadranka, Put do crkvene nadarbine: Rimska kurija i Dalmacija u 15. stoljeću [The
road to the ecclesiastical benefice: The Roman Curia and Dalmatia in the fifteenth
century] (Split: Književni krug, 2007)
—— , ‘Svi papini ljudi: dalmatinska biskupska sjedišta u 15. stoljeću između Rima i
Venecije’ [All the papal men: Dalmatian bishopric seats in the 15th century between
Rome and Venice], Historijski zapisi, 84 (2016), 53–82
—— , ‘Udio Hrvata u papinoj diplomaciji’ [The activities of Croats in the papal diplomacy],
in Hrvatska srednjovjekovna diplomacija [Medieval Croatian diplomacy], ed. by
Mladen Andrlić and Mirko Valentić (Zagreb: Diplomatska akademija Ministarstva
vanjskih poslova Republike Hrvatske, 1999), pp. 89–118
Nikolić Jakus, Zrinka, ‘The Formation of Dalmatian Urban Nobility: Examples of Split,
Trogir and Zadar’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central European University,
Budapest, 2004)
Novak, Grga, Povijest Splita [History of Split], vol. i (Split: Čakavski sabor, 1978)
Ostojić, Ivan, Metropolitanski kaptol u Splitu [Metropolitan chapter in Split] (Zagreb:
Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1975)
Partner, Peter, The Lands of Saint Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages and Early
Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972)
Pederin, Ivan, Mletačka uprava, privreda i politika u Dalmaciji (1409–1797) [The Venetian
administration, economy, and politics in Dalmatia] (Dubrovnik: Časopis ‘Dubrovnik’, 1990)
Pennington, Kenneth, Pope and Bishops: The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth
Centuries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1984)
Petrović, Mišo, ‘Papal Power, Local Communities and Pretenders: The Church of Croatia,
Dalmatia and Slavonia and the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hungary-
Croatia (1290–1301)’, Banatica, 26 (2016), 11–31
—— , ‘Politicized Religion: The “Contested” Prelates of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia
during the Struggle for the Throne of the Kingdom of Hungary (1382–1409)’, in Papers
and Proceedings of the Third Medieval Workshop in Rijeka, ed. by Kosana Jovanović and
Suzana Miljan (Rijeka: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka,
2018), pp. 37–53
Ronzani, Mauro, ‘Vescovi, capitoli e strategie famigliari nell’Italia comunale’, in Storia
d’Italia. Annali, vol. ix: La Chiesa e il potere politico dal Medioevo all’età contemporanea,
ed. by Giorgio Chittolini and Giovanni Miccoli (Turin: Einaudi, 1986), pp. 99–146
Silano, Giulio, ‘The Apostolic See and the Elections of the Bishops of Perugia in the
Duecento and Trecento’, Mediaeval Studies, 50 (1988), 488–511
—— , ‘Episcopal Elections and the Apostolic See: The Case of Aquileia, 1251–1420’, in
Diritto e Potere Nella Storia Europea, vol. i (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1982), pp. 163–94
Silanos, Pietro, Gerardo Bianchi da Parma: La biografia di un cardinalelegato duecentesco
(Rome: Herder editrice e libreria, 2010)
Smith, Thomas W., ‘The Development of Papal Provisions in Medieval Europe’, History
Compass, 13 (2015), 110–21
Stump, Philip, The Reforms of the Council of Constance (1414–1418) (Leiden: Brill, 1994)
Szentgyörgy, Šandor, Borba Anžuvinaca za prijestolje ugarskohrvatsko do prve krunidbe
Karla Roberta [The Angevin struggle for the throne of Hungary-Croatia until the first
coronation of Charles Robert] (Zagreb: C. Albrechta, 1893)
Šišić, Ferdo, Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i njegovo doba [Duke Hrvoje and his time]
(Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 1902)
Tkalčić, Ivan, ‘Borba naroda hrvatskoga za anzovinsku kuću proti ugarskomu kralju
Arpadovcu, Andriji III’ [The fight of the Croatian people for the house of Angevin
against the Hungarian King of the Arpads, Andrew III], Rad JAZU, 34 (1876), 1–34
Toynbee, Margaret, St Louis of Toulouse and the Process of Canonisation in the Fourteenth
Century (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1929)
Williman, Daniel, ‘The Right of Spoil of the Popes of Avignon, 1316–1415’, Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society, 78 (1988)
Wood, Diana, Clement VI: The Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989)
Zutshi, Patrick, ‘Petitioners, Popes, Proctors: The Development of Curial Institutions,
c. 1150–1250’, in Pensiero e sperimentazioni istituzionali nella ‘Societas Christiana’
(1046–1250), ed. by Giancarlo Andenna (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 2007), pp. 265–93
Between Uppsala and Rome:
Swedish Bishops’ Contacts with the
Papal Curia in the Late Middle Ages
Kirsi Salonen
T
his article examines the late medieval Swedish bishops’ visits to the papal
Curia in Rome. The analysis concentrates on the two most significant
reasons for bishops to travel to the Holy See: the episcopal appointment
process and consecration as well as the ad limina visits of the bishops. The
discussion is limited to the late medieval period. It begins from c. the 1450s,
when the popes had returned to Rome after the Great Schism and the period
of councils, and continues until the Swedish Reformation, which officially took
place in 1527 and caused the split of the Swedish Church from the Catholic
Church in Rome. The article is based on medieval papal documentation.
From Far North – the Province of Uppsala

The Swedish Church province of Uppsala was one of the largest ecclesiastical
provinces in the whole of Christendom.1 The province was divided into the
archbishop’s diocese of Uppsala and six suffragan dioceses: Linköping, Skara,
Strängnäs, Turku, Västerås, and Växjö. Despite its vast territory, the number
1
The province of Uppsala covered most of the territory of present-day Sweden (excluding
the most southern parts, Skåne and Blekinge, and the western coastal counties, Halland and
Bohoslän, which belonged to the Danish church province of Lund) and Finland.
Kirsi Salonen (kirsi.l.salonen@utu.fi) is Professor of European and World History at the

University of Turku and leader of the Turku Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Studies,
Finland.
290 Kirsi Salonen
of inhabitants in the province of Uppsala was relatively small: the population

of the Swedish mainland has been estimated between 650,000 and 750,000,
while the Finnish population varied between 150,000 and 300,000.2 Thus the
Swedish bishops ruled huge geographical territories with only a small number
of Christians. In practice, this meant that for fulfilling their obligation to visit
all parishes in their dioceses, the Swedish bishops had to spend a considerable
amount of time in travelling from one remote place to another. The Swedish
bishops were not only busy with the ecclesiastical administration of their
dioceses, but they also belonged to the secular elite. All Swedish bishops were
automatically members of the state council, and in that role they were involved in
civil administration and even dragged to warfare. The state obligations impeded
the Swedish elite, for example, from undertaking long and frequent journeys
abroad. This means that we have relatively little information about the Swedish
bishops’ travelling in the late Middle Ages. There were, however, certain kinds of
situations that required visits to the Holy See, and the Swedish bishops also had
to respect these obligations.
The sources in the Vatican Apostolic Archives as well as in the collections
of other papal archives, such as the Apostolic Penitentiary, distinguish clearly
a certain number of central reasons for bishops to have contact with the papal
Curia. Some of them — the episcopal appointment process and consecration
as well as the obligatory regular visits to the Holy See (visita ad limina) —
required frequent contacts between the Swedish bishoprics and the papal Curia.
There were also some other important matters of the dioceses, which required
the presence of local representatives in the papal Curia, such as the renewal
of diocesan statutes. In addition to the administrative reasons, some bishops
travelled to Rome also for private reasons: pilgrimage, privileges, or need of papal
pardon.3 The following discussion focuses upon the first two reasons, episcopal
appointments and the ad limina visits, because the surviving medieval sources do
not offer much information about the latter ones.4
2
Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages, pp. 218–22.
3
About this categorization, see Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 435–36.
4
The Swedish Penitentiary documentation does not contain any petitions from Swedish
bishops — see Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages, passim.
Similarly, there is extremely little direct information about the pilgrimages of the late medieval
Swedish bishops.
Between Uppsala and Rome 291
Episcopal Appointments
The most significant personal reason for a bishop to pay a visit to the papal Curia
must have been his episcopal appointment. In the second half of the fifteenth
century, the Swedish Church province followed in episcopal appointments the
principles agreed by the German nation in the Council of Vienna in 1448.5
According to this agreement, the cathedral chapters could freely elect a suitable
candidate for a vacant episcopal see without the pope’s intervention.6 According
to the appointment practice, a person who had officially been elected by a
cathedral chapter became a bishop elect if he consented to the election and if
he was found competent to the position. Before a bishop elect could receive his
episcopal consecration, the election had to be confirmed by the pope within a
certain time limit from the election. In order to receive a papal confirmation,
the election documentation had to be presented to the pope, who (together
with his cardinals in the consistory) made a decision about the appointment.
If the election seemed to be correct and the bishop elect competent, it was
a rule that the pontiff approved the election.7 When the pope had given his
approval, the official appointment letters had to be composed, the payments
related to the appointment procedure had to be paid to the Apostolic Chamber,
and the bishop had to take an oath, in which he promised, among other things,
obedience to the pontiff. After that the newly appointed bishop could receive
the episcopal consecration, after which he could act with full episcopal powers
in his diocese.
Unlike archbishops — whose presence in the Curia was normally required
at the moment of their appointment because they had to receive their
archiepiscopal pallium from the pontiff — the bishop elect did not have to
travel personally to the papal Curia for obtaining the papal confirmation for his
election, but a representative of the chapter and/or the bishop elect could take
care of the appointment process. In these cases the appointed bishop normally
received his episcopal consecration by one or more of his local peers to whom
the pope had entrusted the task. At that occasion the newly appointed bishop
had to take the oath of obedience to the pope. If the elect, instead, was present in
the papal Curia, he could take the oath of obedience there and be consecrated in
the Curia. The popes very rarely performed these acts personally but entrusted
5
Meyer, ‘Das Wiener Konkordat von 1448’.
6
The text of the concordat is edited in Raccolta di concordati, ed. by Mercati, pp. 177–81.
7
About the developments in appointment practices in the papal Curia, see Harvey,
Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 133–48.
292 Kirsi Salonen
the task to others: sometimes to cardinals but most often to bishops residing in
the Curia.8
Thus, it was not obligatory for the Swedish bishops to travel to Rome for
their episcopal appointments, but they could entrust the process to the hands
of representatives. But what do the late medieval sources tell about the eagerness
of the Swedish bishops elect to travel to the papal Curia? How often had they
been personally present at the papal Curia at the moment of their episcopal
confirmation? How many of them had received the episcopal consecration in
Rome? And how many had, instead, used the services of a representative? We
have relatively good knowledge about the presence of the late medieval Swedish
bishops in Rome on these occasions, since this information can relatively easily
be found in the pages of the papal cameral registers, which recorded the different
payments related to the episcopal appointments.9
Let us begin with the Swedish archbishops, whose presence in the Curia was
— at least in theory — required for receiving the pallium. From the mid-fifteenth
century onwards until the Swedish Reformation in 1527, three men were elected
to the archiepiscopal see of Uppsala: Jöns Bengtsson in 1449, Jakob Ulvsson
in 1469, and Gustav Trolle in 1515.10 We know that the two last ones, Jakob
Ulvsson and Gustav Trolle, had both been personally in the Curia when the pope
confirmed their elections as archbishops of Uppsala. Jöns Bengtsson, instead, had
done this through a representative.11
The Swedish suffragan bishops in their turn travelled to the papal Curia
for the confirmation of their episcopacies more rarely. From 1449 until 1527,
thirty-five men were appointed to the seven episcopal seats in Sweden.12 Table
8
9
About the different payments, see for example Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’,
pp. 435–38; Harvey, Episcopal Appointments in England, pp. 145–47.
10
Carlsson, ‘Gustav Eriksson Trolle’; Gillingstam, ‘Jöns Bengtsson (Oxenstierna)’; Olsson,
‘Jakob Ulvsson’. Brilioth, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, pp. 194–95, 200, 208–09.
11
Brilioth, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, pp. 194–95, 200, 208–09; Salonen, The
Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages, p. 427.
12
Kettil Karlsson (Vasa), Henrik Tidemansson, Jacobus de Serra, and Hans Brask to
the see of Linköping; Bengt Gustavsson, Hans Markvardsson, Brynolf Gerlaksson, Vincent
Henningson, and Johannes Franciscus de Potentia to the see of Skara; Sigge Ulvsson, Hans
Magnusson, Kort Rogge, and Mats Gregersson to the see of Strängnäs; Olavus Magni, Kort
Bitz, Magnus Nicolai (Särkilahti), Laurentius Suurpää, Johannes Olavi, and Arvidus Kurck to
the see of Turku; Peter Månsson, Olof Gunnarsson, Bengt Knutsson, Birger Månsson, Lydeke
Abelsson, Olof Andersson, Otto Olafsson, and Peder Månsson to the see of Västerås; and
Gudmund Nilsson, Nils Olsson, and Ingemar Petersson to the see of Växjö. Additionally, there
13.1 lists the Swedish dioceses and shows how many (arch)bishops elect were
personally present in the Curia and how many of them acted through either a
local or a foreign representative. The table uses the following categorization: (1)
number of Swedish bishops who travelled to the Curia for their appointment,
(2) number of curialists appointed to the Swedish episcopal sees, who were
naturally present in the Curia, (3) number of Swedish bishops who acted through
a local representative, (4) number of Swedish bishops who used the services of a
foreign representative, (5) number of Swedish bishops who remained elect and
never received a papal approval, and (6) number of Swedish bishops from whose
appointment process we do not have any information.
Table 13.1. The presence of the Swedish bishops at the papal Curia during their appointment.
Personally
Diocese Curialists Local repr. Foreign repr. Electus ?
in Curia
Uppsala (3) 2 0 1 0 0 0
Linköping (5) 0 1 3 0 1 0
Skara (5) 1 1 2 0 0 1
Strängnäs (4) 0 0 1 3 0 0
Turku/Åbo (6) 2 0 3 1 0 0
Västerås (9) 2 0 3 3 1 0
Växjö (3) 0 0 2 0 0 1
Total (35) 7 2 15 7 2 2
% 20% 6% 42% 20% 6% 6%
Source: Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages, pp. 427–28
As the numbers in this table show, only nine out of the thirty-five late medieval
Swedish bishops elect had been present in the Curia when their episcopal election
was confirmed. This means that only one out of three Swedish bishops had been
personally present in the papal Curia for this important occasion. If we look at
the situation even more closely, we notice that only seven Swedish bishops were
in Rome for their consecration. Six of them travelled to the papal Curia for the
occasion, while one of them, Peder Månsson, the administrator of the Birgittan
were two bishops elect who never received papal confirmation: Hemming Gadh for the diocese
of Linköping and Peder Jakobsson for the diocese of Västerås. See Eubel, ii, 77, 95, 178, 232,
242, 260, 266, and Eubel, iii, 91, 118, 225, 294, 304, 323, 332.
294 Kirsi Salonen
house in Rome, did not have to travel there because he was residing in the Eternal
City when he was appointed to the see of Västerås in 1523, and he received his
consecration the following year.13 In two cases, instead, there is a question of non-
Swedish curialists who had received an appointment to a Swedish episcopal seat:
Jacobus de Serra in 1501 to the see of Linköping and Johannes Franciscus de
Potentia in 1523 to the see of Skara.14 These men were residing permanently in
Rome and thus did not have to make a long journey to the pope — actually they
never travelled to their dioceses but stayed in Rome instead.
The presence in the Curia during the approval process and consecration was
obvious for the men living in Rome, but six Swedish bishops elect made the
decision to travel to Rome for the event. Two of them were the already mentioned
Archbishops of Uppsala, Jakob Ulvsson and Gustav Trolle, who went to Rome
to receive their pallium.15 In addition to them, Bishop Olavus Magni of Turku
in February 1450,16 Bishop Kort Bitz of Turku in July 1460,17 Birger Månsson of
Västerås in March 1463,18 and Bishop Hans Markvardsson of Skara in June 146519
visited Rome and received their appointment and consecration by the Holy See.
There is not much information about the visits of the above-mentioned bishops
in Rome, because the typical documentation preserved is the appointment letter
as well as information about the payments related to the episcopal appointments
in the cameral register series. In some cases it is, however, possible to say
something more about the presence of the bishop elect in the papal Curia. There
is, for example, enough information about the appointment and consecration of
Bishop Olavus Magni of Turku,20 who travelled to Rome in January 1450.
If we consider his motives to leave for the Holy See, it becomes evident that
he had more reasons to be personally present at the papal Curia than only his
episcopal confirmation and consecration, which took place on 4 February and
13
Piltz, ‘Peder Månsson’.
14
Eubel, ii, 178 ( Jacobus de Serra); Eubel, iii, 294 ( Johannes Franciscus de Potentia).
15
Brilioth, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, pp. 200, 209.
16
v. Törne, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök’, pp. 204–05; FMU, iii, 2825–29.
17
v. Törne, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök’, pp. 204–05; FMU, iv, 3122–23. Kort
Bitz, however, did not receive his consecration in Rome but in Siena, where Pope Pius II was
spending the hot summer months.
18
Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 297–98; AC,
ii, 1333, 1335.
19
AC, ii, 1361.
20
About Olavus Magni, see Palola, Maunu Tavast ja Olavi Maununpoika, pp. 111–16,
123–39, 147–51, 157–64.
8 February. I have already earlier argued that the main reason for his presence
in Rome — in addition to the fact that the year 1450 was a jubilee and thus
attracted many pilgrims — was the fact that his election to the see of Turku was
not a typical one. In fact, his predecessor, Magnus Tavast, who at that moment
was already at an advanced age, decided to resign his position in favour of
Olavus. Resignation of one’s ecclesiastical position because of old age was an
unusual act in the Middle Ages, and according to the regulations of canon law,
it had to be done at ‘the hands of the pontiff ’ (in manibus papae).21 Since the
regulations of the papal Curia allowed the pope to reserve to himself the right to
appoint candidates to positions which had become vacant by the Holy See, it was
important for the Finnish ecclesiastical authorities to have their own candidate
present in Rome when the pope received the resignation. In this way they could
ensure that the pope would not appoint to the position anyone else than the local
favourite. The chapter of Turku must have thought that it was wisest if the local
favourite, Olavus Magni, were personally present in the Curia.
In fact, the appointment process went as the Turku chapter had hoped for, and
Olavus Magni was appointed as the new Bishop of Turku. The Vatican sources
contain information about the papal appointment through different register
entries regarding the payments related to the appointment (communi servitia and
minuta servitia) that had been paid to the Apostolic Chamber.22 After all these
practicalities had been done, it was time for the neo-elect Olavus to receive his
episcopal consecration.
Very often, no written evidence is left about these celebrations in Rome. Also
in this case we have no evidence about the festivities themselves, but luckily a
small note from the eighteenth century which lists the costs of the consecration
of Olavus Magni in Rome in 1450 has survived to our days. According to this
note, Olavus had to pay four ducats for the consecrators (whose names are
unfortunately not given in the note) as well as two ducats for the clerics who
had participated in the ceremony. This was not the only consecration cost for
the neo-bishop, but the note also tells that Olavus bought new clothes for the
occasion for twenty-seven ducats and that the celebration lunch afterwards cost
him ten ducats. New clothes and a meal indicate that Olavus had celebrated his
consecration properly with a larger group of friends, and the sums mentioned also
indicate that he did not try to save money. Of course the mentioned costs were
only a small part of the overall sum Olavus had to pay for his appointment, since,
if the official appointment payments to the Holy See are also included, the whole
21
Salonen, ‘What Happened to Aged Priests in the Late Middle Ages?’, pp. 185–87, 189–91.
22
FMU, iii, 2825. Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 436–37.
296 Kirsi Salonen
sum Olavus had to pay for his episcopal appointment amounts to 354 ducats and
9 carlins.23 On top of this came the travel costs, accommodation, food, and other
expenses. It was not cheap to become a bishop, and therefore it is understandable
that not all Swedish bishops elect wanted to travel to Rome.
Twenty-two Swedish bishops elect had, in fact, not personally travelled to Rome
but had used a representative, who travelled to the papal Curia and took care of the
confirmation process. Fifteen of them entrusted the confirmation process of their
promotion to the hands of a local representative. One of them was Archbishop Jöns
Bengtsson of Uppsala. He was elected to his position while the Council of Basel
was ongoing, and the Swedish Church sent a representative both to Basel and to
Rome, where Pope Nicholas V resided, to gain approval for the election. The pope
confirmed the appointment on 28 February 1448, and the respective payments
were made by Birger Månsson, a Swede who was resident in Rome at that time.24
The other Swedish bishops who had sent a representative to the pope to
take care of their appointment processes and the related payments were Sigge
Ulvsson of Strängnäs in 1449,25 Bengt Gustavsson of Skara in 1449,26 Peder
Månsson of Västerås in 1453,27 Olof Gunnarsson of Västerås in 1454,28 Kettil
Karlsson of Linköping in 1459,29 Lydeke Abelsson of Västerås in 1465,30 Henrik
23
‘Anno 1470 (= 1450) tempore jubilæi per dominum Olauum Magni, electum Aboensem
exposita: primo procuratori xx ducat., cubiculariis xii ducat., nuntianti confirmationem viii,
famulis commissarii ii, notario xiv, cardinali xxx, pro vestibus xxvii, pro literis extrahendis
x, pro annata cc, pro sollicitatore et aliis minutis serviciis xi duc. et ix carolinos, et famulis
domini papæ iv duc., consecratoribus iv duc., clerico ceremoniarum ii duc., pro prandio in die
consecrationis x duc.’, edited in FMU, iii, 2860.
24
Brilioth, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, pp. 194–95; AC, ii, 1207.
25
AC, ii, 1212. Canon Birgerus Hammar from Strängnäs acted as the representative of
Bishop Sigge in the papal Curia in July 1449.
26
AC, ii, 1224. The administrator of the Birgittan house in Rome, Henricus, paid the fees
on behalf of Bishop Bengt to the apostolic chamber in November 1450.
27
AC, ii, 1238–41. Canon Halvards Petri from Västerås acted as the representative of
Bishop Peder in the papal Curia in September 1453.
28
AC, ii, 1246–49. Canons Lydechinus Abel and Henricus Laurentii from Västerås acted
as the representatives of Bishop Olof in the papal Curia in January 1455. Canon Lydeke was
later himself appointed to the see of Västerås.
29
AC, ii, 1292–94. Canon Johannes Huderman from Linköping acted as the representative
of Bishop Kettil in the papal Curia in October 1459.
30
AC, ii, 1371–72. Petrus Johannis, parish priest of Björskog from the diocese of Västerås
acted as the representative of Bishop Lydeke in the papal Curia in July 1466.
Tidemansson of Linköping in 1466,31 Gudmund Nilsson of Växjö in 1468,32

Nils Olsson of Växjö in 1475,33 Brynolf Gerlaksson of Skara in 1478,34 Magnus
Nicolai of Turku in 1489,35 Johannes Olavi of Turku in 1507,36 Arvidus Kurki of
Turku in 1511,37 and Hans Brask of Linköping in 1513.38
Seven Swedish bishops used the services of foreign clerics in getting their
appointment confirmed and/or the payments sent to the papal Curia. They were
Bengt Knutsson of Västerås in 1462,39 Hans Magnusson of Strängnäs in 1464,40
Kort Rogge of Strängnäs in 1479,41 Olof Andersson of Västerås in 1487,42 Lauri
31
AC, ii, 1375, 1378–79. Canon Simon Gudmundi from Linköping acted as the
representative of Bishop Henrik in the papal Curia in July 1466.
32
AC, ii, 1384–87. Canon Jakob Ulfsson from Uppsala acted as the representative of
Bishop Gudmund in the papal Curia in December 1468. A year later Jakob was appointed to
the see of Uppsala.
33
AC, ii, 1431. Priest Gudmundus Ragvaldi from the diocese of Växjö acted as the
representative of Bishop Nils in the papal Curia in August 1475.
34
AC, ii, 1438. Canon Olaus Svenonis from Skara acted as the representative of Bishop
Brynolf in the papal Curia in August 1478.
35
AC, ii, 1518–19; FMU, v, 4247–53. Canon Mathias Nicolai from Turku acted as the
representative of Bishop Magnus in the papal Curia in July 1489.
36
FMU, vi, 5254–55. Canon Nicolaus Johannis from Turku acted as the representative
of Bishop Johannes in the papal Curia in July 1507, but the payments were sent through a
cleric from Lübeck, Georgius Vinnestad. Pirinen, Turun tuomiokapituli keskiajan lopulla,
pp. 300–301.
37
FMU, vii, 5523. Canon Conradus Philippi from Turku acted as the representative of
Bishop Arvidus in the papal Curia in March 1511, but the payments were sent through the
banker-house of Fugger in May of the same year. Pirinen, Turun tuomiokapituli keskiajan lopulla,
pp. 301–02.
38
The appointment process of Bishop Hans is described in Schück, Ecclesia lincopensis,
pp. 132–34. The Swedish representative who took care of the matter in the papal Curia in spring
1513 was canon Jöns Månsson of Linköping.
39
AC, ii, 1317–18. The payments to the Curia on behalf of Bishop Bengt went via the
banker-house of Medici in January 1462.
40
AC, ii, 1351–54. The payments to the Curia on behalf of Bishop Hans went via the
banker Leonardus de Spinellis in March 1464.
41
AC, ii, 1451–52. Curialist Stefanus de Cazziis, litterarum apostolicarum abbreviator,
acted as the representative of Bishop Kort in the papal Curia in November 1479.
42
AC, ii, 1503–04. The payments to the Curia went via the banker Stephanus de Ghinutiis
from Siena in December 1487.
298 Kirsi Salonen
Suurpää of Turku in 1500,43 Mats Gregersson of Strängnäs in 1501,44 and Otto

Olafsson of Västerås in 1501.45
In addition to these, we have two cases in which we have no information at
all about who had taken care of the confirmation process due to lack of precise
information in the papal archives. These two Swedish bishops were Ingemar
Petersson of Växjö who was appointed in 149446 and Vincent Henningsson of
Skara who was appointed in 1505.47
Two of the Swedish bishops elect remained elect and did not receive a papal
confirmation at all. One of them was Elect Hemming Gadh of Linköping in 1501,
and the other Elect Peder Jakobsson of Västerås. The first remained at the see of
Linköping in the status of elect for thirteen years despite the official appointment
of Jacobus de Serra, who never visited his bishopric. In the second case, however,
the Elect Peder Jakobsson gave way to another person, Peder Månsson, whom the
pope appointed to the see of Västerås in April 1523.48
All in all the analysis of the documentation related to the episcopal
appointments demonstrated very clearly that very few Swedish bishops elect
travelled personally to Rome to take care of their appointment processes, but
instead they normally entrusted the task to a representative. The Swedish bishops
43
FMU, vi, 4878. The payments to the Curia went via the Florentine banker Jacobus
de Doffis, but it is unknown who acted as the representative of Bishop Laurentius in August
1500. v. Törne and Pirinen have suggested as representative Swedish Hans Brask, who resided
in Rome at that time. v. Törne, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök’, pp. 215–16; Pirinen,
Turun tuomiokapituli keskiajan lopulla, pp. 299–300.
44
RA, Bååthska samlingen, Obligationes 1297–1524, 4 September 1501. Proctor Leander
de Perusia acted as the representative of Bishop Mats and took care of the payments to the papal
Curia in September 1501.
45
RA, Bååthska samlingen, Obligationes 1297–1524, 4 September 1501. Proctor Leander
de Perusia acted as the representative of Bishop Otto and took care of the payments to the papal
Curia in September 1501.
46
RA, Bååthska samlingen, Obligationes 1297–1524, 28 March 1494. In the document,
there is an empty space at the place where the name of the representative should be. Thus it is
impossible to know who had taken care of the appointment of Bishop Ingemar.
47
RA, K. H. Karlssons avskrifter 7, Introitus et Exitus, 17 August 1505. The document
states that the payments for Bishop Vincent’s appointment were paid by Rigi Aucharii et
fratrum; RA, Suppliker 1492–1510, 8 August 1505. Another document from the papal copy
books reveals that two canons from Skara, Johan Johansson and Åke Jakobsson, received in
August 1505 papal provisions, and it is possible that one or both of them had been to the papal
Curia for taking care of the appointment process of Bishop Vincent.
48
About Hemming Gadh, see Carlsson, Hemming Gadh; about Peder Jakobsson’s short
career as Elect of Västerås, see Stensson, Peder Jakobsson Sunnanväder, pp. 21, 248–55.
preferred to use local representatives because it must have been easier to trust
these important matters to the hands of a person who was known as reliable.
If this for some reason was not possible, the Swedish bishops elect used foreign
representatives at least to take care of the payments, as the notes in the papal
cameral registers reveal. It is, however, possible that a local representative — such
as the head of the Swedish Birgitta house in Rome — could have in these cases
supervised the appointment process in the Curia without his name appearing in
any of the papal sources.
Visita ad limina
One of the promises the newly appointed bishops had to make to the pontiff
in their episcopal oath was about visiting the papal Curia at regular intervals
to inform the head of the Church of the matters in their dioceses. These visits
are called visita ad limina sanctorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli — or just visita
ad limina. The name of these visits derives originally from bishops’ practice to
visit the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome on their saints’ day, 29 June.
Until the end of the twelfth century, the bishops just visited the tombs, but later
on, the visits began also to include reporting to the pope on the affairs of their
dioceses.49
How often a bishop had to make these visits depended on how far away from
the papal Curia his diocese was located. Bishops from the territories with good
connections to the Holy See, the Apennine peninsula for example, were obliged
to visit the papal Curia once per year. Those bishops who resided on the other
side of the Alps, in Latin the so-called ultramontani, had to pay a visit to the pope
every second year, while the ultramarini, that is those who lived even further
away or overseas, had to visit the papal Curia every third or even every fifth year.
The Swedish bishops, due to the long distance from the papal Curia, belonged to
the last group of ultramarini and typically had to promise to visit the papal see
every third year.50
In the late Middle Ages, the bishops did not have to pay these visits personally,
but they could send their representative to Rome, who informed the papal Curia
about the situation in their dioceses and paid to the Apostolic Chamber the
obligatory payments related to these visits. Let us now see what is known about
the ad limina visits of the Swedish bishops. This matter has been investigated by
49
Paravicini-Bagliani, ‘Ad limina’, p. 14; Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im
mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 285–87.
50
Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 286–88.
300 Kirsi Salonen
three scholars: Per Olof v. Törne regarding the Finnish bishops as well as Yngve
Brilioth and Göran Inger concerning the whole Swedish ecclesiastical province.51
All scholars conclude that there are very few traces of the Swedish bishops’ ad
limina visits from the times prior to the period of the Avignon papacy, while from
the Avignon period onwards the documentation is a little bit more numerous.
According to the Vatican sources, the Swedish bishops did not seem to have been
very keen on respecting this part of their episcopal oaths. The archbishops of
Uppsala had been slightly more active in this respect than the Swedish suffragan
bishops. According to Inger, the visitation frequency had been more or less the three
years typical for the ultramarini. The same trend continued also during the Great
Schism as well as during the period of councils until the mid-fifteenth century.52
But what happened from the 1450s onwards? The answer to this question
does not differ much from what happened before that. The papal documentation
does not include traces about more frequent visits to the papal Curia by the
Swedish bishops. As in the earlier periods, the archbishops of Uppsala had been
the most faithful visitors in the later Middle Ages. The earliest information
about the Swedish bishops’ visits to the Holy See after 1450 are from 1463, when
Bishop Birger Månsson of Västerås personally visited the Holy See and received
his episcopal consecration. During this occasion in March 1463 he fulfilled the
visiting obligation on behalf of Archbishop Jöns Bengtsson of Uppsala for two
three-year periods.53 At the same time, March 1463, the canon of Linköping,
Ericus Wastonis, acted as the representative of the Linköping Bishop Kettil
Karlsson and visited the papal Curia for one three-year period.54 Since the two
representatives were in the Curia at the same time, we can assume that the two
men must have travelled together because it was typical for the Swedes to travel
to Rome in groups.
It took ten years before a Swedish bishop visited the papal Curia for the ad
limina visits for the next time, since from the year 1473 we have evidence about
the fact that someone visited the papal Curia in June on behalf of Bishop Kort
51
v. Törne, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök’, passim; Brilioth, ‘De svenska
medeltidsbiskoparnas visitationes’, passim. Göran Inger has summarized these studies in Inger,
Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 285–305. About the Finnish
ad limina visits, see also Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 436–43.
52
53
AC, ii, 1340. Inger assumes that Bishop Birger could have paid the obligatory visit also
on his own behalf, but there are no documentary testimonies about this. Inger, Das kirchliche
Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, pp. 297–98.
54
AC, ii, 1341.
Bitz of Turku.55 After that, it took as long as until the 1480s before the next
Swedish bishops’ representative appeared in Curia. Canon Ragvaldus Ingemundi
from Uppsala paid in October 1480 the ad limina visits on behalf of Archbishop
Jakob Ulvsson for four three-year periods and on behalf of Bishop Kort Rogge
of Strängnäs for two three-year periods.56 Over four years later, in January 1485,
Canon Jacobus Ghislonis from Uppsala paid one three-year period visit on behalf
of his archbishop.57 The last mention of such visits in the papal sources is from
1494, when Canon Henrik Wenne from Turku paid the ad limina visit for two
three-year periods on behalf of Bishop Magnus of Turku.58 We know nothing
about such visits in the sixteenth century.59
All in all, there is evidence about seven ad limina visits the various Swedish
bishops completed at the papal Curia in the second half of the fifteenth century
and in the first decades of the sixteenth century. For a church province with seven
dioceses, seven recorded visits from the 1450s until the 1520s is certainly too few.
The archbishops of Uppsala had been most faithful to the popes, since two of the
three Swedish archbishops had fulfilled this obligation, Jakob Ulvsson even twice.
One out of five bishops of Linköping paid his visit, as had one out of four bishops
of Strängnäs and two out of six bishops of Turku, while there is no trace of the ad
limina visits of the five bishops of Skara, the nine bishops of Västerås, and the three
bishops of Växjö. Additionally, as the above examples showed, the Swedish bishops
never fulfilled their ad limina visits in person but always used a representative.
Thus we can only conclude that the Swedish bishops had not been very eager to
take care of this obligation and they had not considered it important to personally
travel to Rome for this purpose. Furthermore, the Swedish bishops typically
used the possibility to pay the visits for more one three-year period at a time.
It is curious how little information is available about these visits, even though
they in principle were obligatory. This curiosity has led to the question whether
the Vatican sources simply could be lacunose in this respect and the bishops
had actually taken care of their obligations much more frequently than what
the existing sources reveal. It is not possible to gain an answer to this question
from the Vatican source material, but another reason to doubt the completeness
55
FMU, iv, 3547, 3549. Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, p. 439.
56
AC, ii, 1456–57. Inger, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden,
p. 299.
57
AC, ii, 1482. Brilioth, ‘De svenska medeltidsbiskoparnas visitationes’, pp. 214–15; Inger,
Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, p. 299.
58
FMU, v, 4536. Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, p. 440.
59
302 Kirsi Salonen
of the recording of the visits is that other late medieval Vatican sources contain
frequent references to the practice that the papal Curia was actually checking
that the bishops regularly paid these visits to the Curia. And, as the following
example case from the diocese of Turku shows, the bishops who did not fulfil
their obligations faced sanctions at the papal Curia.
The documentation related to the visit of the representative of Bishop Kort
Bitz of Turku in 1473 offers interesting information upon the question of what
happened to bishops who ignored their obligation to regularly visit the papal
Curia. Bishop Kort received his episcopal confirmation from the Piccolomini
Pope Pius II in 1460 in Siena, and on this occasion he made an oath that he would
visit the Holy See every third year. It took, however, almost thirteen years before
he sent — for the first time — his representative to Rome and Pope Sixtus IV
in 1473. When the bishop’s representative, whose identity remains unknown,
approached the pontiff, he was informed that the pope considered Bishop Kort
guilty of perjury because he had ignored his promise to pay ad limina visits every
third year. This was not the only accusation against the Bishop of Turku, who was
also guilty of bloodshed and overstepping his powers, and the pontiff considered
Bishop Kort excommunicated and irregular. In order to continue in his episcopal
office, the bishop needed to apply for a papal absolution and dispensation. And
so the representative of Bishop Kort presented a petition to the pope on 4 June
1473 applying for absolution and dispensation because of what the bishop had
done wrong as well as for a license that would allow him to visit the Holy See
only with ten-year intervals. Pope Sixtus conceded to the bishop’s absolution
and dispensation but refused to diminish the visitation frequency. 60 The
representative of the bishop was not content with the pontiff ’s answer and tried
again eleven days later. This time the petition was formulated more moderately
asking only for absolution and dispensation without a mention about the visits.
The pope appreciated more the new and more modest request, since he granted
— in addition to the requested absolution and dispensation — a license allowing
Bishop Kort to visit the papal Curia only every fifth year, adding that he was
even excused from the visit of the first five-year period.61 Thus the following ad
limina visit of Bishop Kort should have taken place in 1483. The Vatican sources,
however, do not contain any traces of that even though the bishop remained in
his office until 1489.62
60
FMU, iv, 3547.
61
FMU, iv, 3549.
62
Salonen, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi’, pp. 439–40.
As was presented above, the records from the papal archives do not reveal
much about the ad limina visits of the late medieval Swedish bishops. This and
the fact that they never fulfilled these visits in person means that the Swedish
bishops had not taken very seriously their promises about frequently visiting the
Curia. Indeed, they seem to have taken care of the obligation only occasionally.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the possible lack of sources may
have made the situation look worse than it was in reality.
Conclusions
As the examples have shown, the Swedish bishops were not very eager to have
frequent personal contacts with the Holy See in the late Middle Ages. Some
of them travelled to Rome to take care of their appointment procedure and to
receive their episcopal consecration. The archbishops of Uppsala were more
active in this respect, since they typically could not receive their pallium from
anyone else than the pope. The Swedish suffragan bishops in their turn much
more rarely travelled to Rome for receiving their consecration. In fact, it seems
that the elects only did so in special circumstances when they wanted to make
sure that their appointment processes would take place as planned.
If the Swedish bishops did not bother to visit the papal Curia for their
appointments, they did not care much more for the obligatory ad limina visits
either. As was shown, the Swedish bishops (especially the archbishops) did
occasionally pay these visits to the papal Curia, but this typically took place
through a representative and not personally. The existing documentation
regarding these visits in the papal archival material offer us information on
only a very few such visits. According to the sources, the Swedish bishops were
expected to visit the papal Curia with the interval of three years, but in reality
the bishops did not observe this rule, and the representatives who came to Rome
on the bishops’ behalf often paid the visits for more three-year periods at the
same time. And as the case of Bishop Kort Bitz of Turku demonstrated, some
Swedish bishops ignored this obligation and encountered severe ecclesiastical
punishments.
All in all, the medieval papal documentation demonstrates that the Swedish
bishops had surprisingly few connections to the papal Curia in the late Middle
Ages. The reasons for the Swedish bishops’ disinterest in travelling to Rome are
probably many, and there are no direct sources telling us about them. But we must
assume that the constant wars between the Danish Union kings and the Swedish
rulers from the second half of the fifteenth century onwards must have caused
a lot of turbulence in Sweden, which must have prevented the bishops from
304 Kirsi Salonen
leaving their dioceses for longer periods. It was not only because of the dangers of
travel caused by the wars, but the role of the Swedish bishops as members of the
state council meant that the bishops were often deeply involved in the country’s
political activities. On top of that, we should remember that the Swedish
bishoprics were very large, and the bishops used a lot of time in travelling around
their dioceses for various episcopal duties. If a bishop wanted to leave for Rome,
there was a question about a journey which took many months, and some bishops
did not want to or could not be absent from their dioceses for so long a time.
The need to be personally present in their dioceses must also have resulted
in the fact that the Swedish bishops mainly used representatives when they had
some business to do in the papal Curia. In many cases, it must have been easier
to use the services of persons who were familiar with the curial practices and
had contacts there, rather than trying to do things personally. The papal sources
demonstrated clearly that the Swedes preferred to use local representatives instead
of foreign ones if this was possible.
Some medieval Swedish bishops might have preferred to use representatives
because they did not have personal experience of dealing with the papal
administration. But this was not the case with all Swedish bishops. Some of them
had indeed long experience from the papal Curia. The example par excellence of
such a Swedish bishop is Elect Hemming Gadh of Linköping, who lived in Rome
for an entire decade, during which he established excellent contacts and networks
within the Curia and with people working there.63 Similarly, Archbishops Jakob
Ulvsson and Gustav Trolle had also spent time in Rome taking care of different
matters at the Curia on their own and on other Swedes’ behalf, which experience
must have taught them the ways to proceed in the curial labyrinth. Also some
suffragan bishops, like Hans Brask of Linköping, Peder Månsson of Västerås, and
Magnus Särkilahti of Turku, shared the same experience. These men would not
have had any difficulties with personally taking care of their issues in the Curia
because others had been using them as their representatives in different matters.
In fact, acting as bishops’ representative in the Curia often functioned as a step
towards episcopacy, since so many of the Swedish episcopal representatives were
later appointed bishops.
63
Carlsson, Hemming Gadh, passim.
Works Cited
Archival Sources
Stockholm, Riksarkivet [RA]
Bååthska samlingen, Obligationes 1297–1524
K. H. Karlssons avskrifter, 7, Introitus et Exitus
Suppliker 1492–1510
Primary Sources
AC, ii: Diplomatarium Svecanum, Appendix. Acta Pontificum Svecica I, Acta Cameralia,
vol. ii, ed. by Ludwig Magnus Bååth (Stockholm: Norstedt, 1957)
Eubel: Hierarchia catholica medii aevi, sive Summorum pontificium, ed. by Konrad Eubel,
vols ii–iii, 2nd edn (Munster: Libreria regensbergiana, 1914–23)
FMU: Finlands medeltidsurkunder, vols iii–vii, ed. by Reinhold Hausen (Helsingfors:
Statsrådets tryckerie, 1921–33)
Raccolta di concordati su materie ecclesiastiche tra la Santa Sede e le autorità civili, vol. i,
ed. by Angelo Mercati (Rome: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1919)
Secondary Sources
Brilioth, Yngve, Handbok i svensk kyrkohistoria, vol. i: Medeltiden (Stockholm: Svenska
kyrkans diakonistyrelse, 1948)
—— , ‘De svenska medeltidsbiskoparnas visitationes liminum ss. Apostolorum’, Kyrkohis
torisk Årsskrift, 14 (1913), 205–19
Carlsson, Gottfrid, ‘Gustav Eriksson Trolle’, in Nordisk familjebok, vol. xxix (Stockholm:
Nordisk familjeboks förlag, 1919), pp. 823–26
—— , Hemming Gadh: En statsman och prelat från sturetiden: Biografisk studie (Uppsala:
Askerberg, 1915)
Gillingstam, Hans, ‘Jöns Bengtsson (Oxenstierna)’, in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon,
vol. xxviii (Stockholm: Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, 1992), p. 496
Inger, Göran, Das kirchliche Visitationsinstitut im mittelalterlichen Schweden, Bibliotheca
Theologiae Practicae, 11 (Lund: Gleerup, 1961)
Meyer, Andreas, ‘Das Wiener Konkordat von 1448 – eine erfolgreiche Reform des
Spätmittelalters’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,
66 (1986), 108–52
Olsson, Gunnar, ‘Jakob Ulvsson’, in Svenskt biografiskt lexicon, vol. xx (Stockholm: Nor-
stedts, 1975), p. 97
306 Kirsi Salonen
Palola, Ari-Pekka, Maunu Tavast ja Olavi Maununpoika – Turun piispat 1412–1460,

Suomen Kirkkohistoriallisen Seuran Toimituksia, 178 (Helsinki: Suomen Kirkko-
historiallinen Seura, 1997)
Paravicini-Bagliani, Agostino, ‘Ad limina’, in Dizionario enciclopedico del medioevo, vol. i
(Rome: Città Nuova, 1998), p. 14
Piltz, Anders, ‘Peder Månsson’, in Svenskt biografiskt lexicon, vol. xxviii (Stockholm:
Svenskt biografiskt lexikon, 1992), p. 786
Pirinen, Kauko, Turun tuomiokapituli keskiajan lopulla, Suomen Kirkkohistoriallisen
Seuran Toimituksia, 58 (Helsinki: Suomen Kirkkohistoriallinen Seura, 1956)
Salonen, Kirsi, ‘Benefici, omicidi, pellegrinaggi: I finlandesi nella Curia nel tardo
medioevo’, in Kurie und Region: Festschrift für Brigide Schwarz zum 65. Geburtstag,
ed. by Brigitte Flug, Michael Matheus, and Andreas Rehberg, Geschichtliche
Landesgunde, 59 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2005), pp. 435–50
—— , The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages: The Example of the Province
of Uppsala, 1448–1527, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Humaniora, 313
(Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 2001)
—— , ‘What Happened to Aged Priests in the Late Middle Ages?’, in On Old Age:
Approaching Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. by Christian Krötzl and
Katariina Mustakallio, The History of Daily Life, 2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011),
pp. 183–95
Schück, Herman, Ecclesia lincopensis: Studier om linköpingskyrkan under medeltiden och
Gustav Vasa, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Stockholm Studies in History, 4
(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1959)
Stensson, Rune, Peder Jakobsson Sunnanväder och maktkampen i Sverige 1504–1527
(Uppsala: Almquvist & Wiksell, 1947)
v. Törne, Per Olof, ‘De finska medeltidsbiskoparnas besök vid den påfliga kurian’, in
Historiska uppsatser tillegnade M. G. Schybergson, Skrifter utg. af Svenska littera-
tursällskap i Finland, 100 (Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskap i Finland, 1911),
pp. 198–296
Index
Asti, bishops canons: 22, 46, 55, 74, 87 n. 8, 88, 159, 161,
Baldracco Malabaila: 73, 74, 75 165–66, 168, 169, 181, 207, 296 n. 29,
Arnaud de Rosette: 252 297 n. 32
Canterbury, archbishops
Benevento, Battle: 181, 186 Hubert Walter: 15, 16, 26, 32
Bertrand du Poujet Ralph Neville: 16, 19, 22, 25
Legation: 249, 250, 252, 256 Stephen Langton: 16
bishops Theobald: 24
royal service: 2, 9, 10, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, Thomas Becket: 22, 24, 27, 29, 32
24, 25, 26, 27–32, 46, 60, 87, 92 Canterbury, archdeacons
courtier bishops (see royal service) Simon Langton: 16
Braga, archbishops: 40, 43, 50 cardinals
Martinho Geraldes: 44, 45 Bernardino López de Carvajal: 125, 126,
Pedro Juliães: 45, 45 n. 26 127, 133, 134, 138, 147
Friar Telo, Franciscan: 58 Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros: 130,
Burgos: 223–24 135 n. 104
Power struggle between the city and Gerard Bianchi: 265, 265 n. 9
governors: 229–30 Gil Torres: 202, 234 n.41
Burgos, bishops Luca Fieschi: 249
Luis de Acuña: 223, 225, 225 nn. 7 and 8, Nicolaus Brekespeare: 162
226, 226 nn. 10, 12, 227 nn. 16 and Ottaviano Ubaldini: 179, 183, 185, 186,
19, 228, 229, 230, 231, 231 nn. 31 194
and 32, 232 n. 35, 233, 233 nn. 37, Pedro González de Mendoza: 125, 126,
39 and 40, 234, 234 nn. 42 and 43, 127, 132, 133, 134, 137, 145, 147
236 n. 52 William of Sabina: 158
family origins: 225 Castile, kingdom
kinship network: 225–26, 234–35 Afonso X: 41, 42, 49, 57
patronage network: 227–28, 235 Alfonso VI: 122, 201
punishments for false conversions: 236 Alfonso X: 123
reforms: 231–32, 235 Alfonso VII: 121, 207
Uniformity of the Mass: 236 Alfonso XI: 201 n. 3, 207, 208, 213
library: 237 Cardinal Mendoza: see Cardinals
308 Index
Bernandino López de Carvajal: see England, kings

Cardinals Edward I: 17, 18
Enrique II: 225 Henry III: 16, 17, 18, 22
Enrique III: 225 Évora, bishops: 38, 44, 55
Enrique IV: 224, 225, 225 n. 7, 229, 229 Durando Pais: 37, 51 n. 50, 52, 53, 59,
n. 25, 230 60
Fernando III: 209 Martinho Pires: 44, 48
Fernando IV: 206, 207, 208, 210, 215 Évora, chapter: 55, 59
Pedro I: 208, 225 Martinho Pires: 59
Sancho IV: 206
Castile, queens Faeroes (Kirkjubøur), bishops: 155, 163,
Beatriz: 40 n. 9, 41, 46 164, 172
Dowager queen María de Molina: 205, Erlend: 163, 172
206, 207, 208, 210, 216 Hallgeir: 172
Isabel: 226 n. 13, 230 France, kings
Chichester, bishops Louis VII: 95 n. 30
Robert Passelewe: 28 Philip Augustus: 5, 95, 95 n. 30, 100
Coimbra, bishops Philip the Fair: 89, 92, 95, 95 n. 27
D. Egas Fafes de Lanhoso: 44, 46 Franciscan friars: 37, 48, 53, 54, 58, 60,
Mateus Martins: (see Viseu, bishops) 254, 255, 268, 268 n. 26, 274, 278
Aymeric d’Ébrard, first prelate of French Friar Nicholas Hispanus: 37, 48, 50, 51, 56
origin: 58
Coimbra, chapter Gangalandi, counts: 183, 183 n. 10, 184,
João Martins de Soalhães: 59 186, 187, 188, 188 n. 20
Coimbra, Santa Cruz monastery: 43, 46 Gerald of Wales: 15, 18
Colle Valdelsa, Battle: 181, 188 Ghibellines: 7, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186,
Council of Lyon: 39 187, 188, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250,
Cracow, bishops 251, 252 253
Bodzęta of Września: 112, 113 Gniezno, archbishops: 110, 115, 116
Iwo Odrowąż: 110 n. 11 Vincentius Niałek: 111
Jan Muscata: 9, 116 Guarda, bishops
Gedko: 109 D. Rodrigo Fernandes: 44, 47–48
Croatia–Dalmatia: 263, 264, 266, 278 Friar Vasco: 48
Gubbio, bishops
Dominican friars: 24, 37, 53, 60, 169, 203, Pietro dei Gabrielli: 73
204, 251, 254, 265 Guelph alliance: 186, 187, 244, 246, 247,
Durham, bishop: 18 248, 249, 250, 256
Antony Bek: 23, 26
Nicholas Farnham: 20 Hamar, bishops
Ranulf Flambard: 30 Gilbert, formerly archdeacon of
Shetland: 160, 161
electoral disputes: 17, 29, 32, 47, 59, 94, 98, Hólar, bishops: 165–66, 167, 169, 171
111, 115, 185, 248 Brandr Jónsson: 166
election by cathedral chapters: 8, 9, Jörundr Þorsteinsson: 165
16–17, 20, 28, 31, 47, 92–94, Guðmundur Arason: 157
95 n. 27, 96–97, 98, 107, 108, 110, Laurentius Kálfsson: 167, 168
114, 116–117, 161, 166, 168, 173, Audun Þorbergsson: 168
188, 205, 244, 245, 248, 265, Hungary–Croatia: 264, 266, 267, 269,
270 n. 40, 271, 277, 280, 291, 276, 280
Index 309
Árpád dynasty: 264 Jean de Poinci: 88 n. 11, 91, 93

Conflict with Venice: 280–81 Jean de Garlande: 87 n. 8, 91, 93
Sigismund: 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 Jean de la Grange: 91, 93
Šubici oligarchs: 264, 266–68, 269, 270 Jean de Meulan: 87 n. 10, 90, 91, 93,
attempt to elevate Šibenik parish to a 98 n. 50
bishopric: 266 Jean de Montrolles: 87 n.9, 91, 93, 95
creation of diocese: see Šibenik Jean de Pierrepont: 91, 94, 98 n. 50
Jean de Sains: 91, 93, 98 n. 50, 99
ideal election Jean du Drac: 91, 94
divine intervention: 31 Jean L’Huillier: 91, 94, 98 n. 50
Jean Royer: 91, 93, 98 n. 50
Lamego, bishops: 38, 44, 44 n. 22, 58 Louis de Melun: 91, 94, 98, 99
Diego Fernández: 211, 215, 216 Nicolas Volé or de Châlons: 91, 93, 96
appointment as bishop of Zamora: Pasquier de Vaux: 91, 94, 96, 97
212–13 Phillippe de Vitry: 89 n. 14, 91, 93, 98
possible tomb in Old Cathedral of n. 50
Salamanca: 214, 217–18 Pierre Fresnel: 87 n. 8, 91, 93, 98 n. 50,
João: 59 99, 99 n. 56
Pedro Eanes: 44, 48 Pierre de Jean: 90, 91, 93, 98 n. 51
Lebus, bishops Pierre de Versailles: 87 n. 8, 88 n. 12, 90,
Wilhelm of Nysa: 111 91, 94, 98 n. 51
Linköping, bishops Pierre de Cuisy: 91, 92 n. 22, 93
Henrik Tidemansson: 297 Robert de Girême: 91, 93
Hans Brask: 292 n. 12, 297, 298 n. 43, 304 Simon Festu: 89, 91, 93, 96
Kettil Karlsson: 292 n. 12, 296, 300 translations: 91
Lisbon, bishops: 53 Tristan de Salazar: 90, 91, 94, 98 n. 50, 99
D. Mateus: 44, 47, 60 Milan, archbishops
Lorvão, monastery: 43 Aicardo: 254
Caassone della Torre: 247, 254 n. 42
Malavolti family, Siena: 70, 71, 76 Giovanni Visconti: 252–53
(see also bishops Siena) monks: 20, 27, 165, 166, 169, 275
Matthew Paris, chronicler: 22, 29 Monroy, Nuño Pérez de: 205, 205 n. 15,
Meaux, bishops: 10, 87 206, 206 n. 18, 207, 208, 216
Adam de Vaudoi: 91, 93 Montaperti, Battle: 181, 182, 186
age at appointment: 90 Montecastelli in Valdicecina, castle:
Aleaume de Cuisy: 91, 93 180 n. 2, 184
Amaury: 91, 92 n. 22, 93 Montevoltraio, castle: 183, 187
Anseau or Anselme: 87 n. 8, 88 n. 11, 91,
93, 95 nepotism: 4, 9, 65–68, 74
Durand de Saint-Pourçain: 87 n. 8, 91, 93, episcopal nepotism: 69, 70, 72, 73,
98 n. 51 75, 76
educational standards: 87–89 Papal supremacy: 76–77
election: 95–98 in Poland: 110–11, 112
Geoffroi de Tressi: 88 n. 11, 91, 93 Sigüenza: 129–132, 138
Guillaume de Dormans: 91, 93, 99 network history: 4
Guillaume de Brosse: 91, 93 Nidaros, archbishops
Jean de Boiry: 89, 91, 93, 94, 98 n. 50 Øystein Erlendsson: 157, 158, 168,
Jean Le Meunier: 87 n. 8, 88, 88 n. 12, 170–71
91, 94 Aslak Bolt: 164, 172
310 Index
consecration of suffragan bishops: 163, Papal reservation: 96, 97, 113, 215, 244,
165 245, 256, 270
control of episcopal appointments in Parma, bishops
Iceland: 158 Ugolino Rossi: 72, 250, 254 n. 44
Eilif Arneson: 165, 168 Passignano, monastery: 179, 183
Guttorm: 159 Pisa, archbishops
Jørund: 165, 167, 168 Simone Saltarelli: 69, 250
Jon the Red: 164, 171 transfer from Parma to Pisa: 69
nationality of bishops: 159, 165–66, 169 Płock, bishops
Sigurd: 158, 159 n. 14, 165, 171 Bernard: 116
Nidaros clerical milieu: 166–69 Gedko: 109
Northern Italian episcopate: 254 Wit: 109
ecclesiastical origins: 254 Poland, kings
educational attainment: 256 Kazimierz the Great: 108, 114, 115, 116
geographical origins: 252 Władysław: 114
positions at Avignon: 256 popes
Norway: 6, 153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 165, Alexander III: 157, 169
166, 167, 169, 170, 171 Alexander IV: 40 n. 9, 43, 45, 46, 181
Norway, kings: 162 Alexander V: 233
Erik: 162 Alexander VI: 137, 233 n. 40
involvement in episcopal appointments: Anastasius: 154, 157
164 Benedict XII: 252, 253, 256, 274 n. 65
Håkon IV Håkonsson: 158 Boniface VIII: 86 n. 4, 94, 122, 179, 180
Håkon VI Magnusson: 162 n. 1, 209, 244, 266, 267
Sverre: 159 Callixtus II: 202
Clement IV: 41, 45, 46, 50 n. 49, 184
Orderic Vitalis, chronicler: 30, 31 Licet Ecclesiarum: 8, 244
Orkney, bishops Clement V: 203, 205, 209, 210, 211, 212,
Bjarne Kolbeinsson: 159 215, 216, 244
connections to the earls: 159 Clement VI: 115, 156, 256, 274 n. 66,
Heinrek: 161 275
Jofrey: 159, 160 Clement VII: 96
William the Old: 159 Eugene IV: 97, 122 n. 2
William II: 159 Gregory X: 50 n. 50, 51, 56, 60, 188
William Tulloch: 161, 162 Honorius IV: 59
Oslo, bishops Innocent III: 109 n. 5, 154 n. 3
Andres: 161 Innocent IV: 39, 43, 46 nn. 29 and 31,
181, 209, 234
Padua, bishops Innocent V: 51
Ildebrandino Conti: 68–69, 248, 254 Innocent VIII: 132, 133, 233, 234 n. 43
n. 44 John XXI: 37, 45, 45 n. 26, 50, 51, 53,
Papal bulls 54, 55, 60
Licet Ecclesiarum (1265): see Popes, John XXII: 86 n. 4, 243, 244, 245, 246,
Clement IV 247, 249, 251, 253, 254, 255, 256,
Occurrit nostrae considerationis (1289): 272, 273, 274, 278
56 appointment of bishops: 250–51
Papal provisions: 3, 8, 96, 107, 113, 114, geographical origins: 251–52
115–16, 174, 244, 256, 263, John XXIII: 278, 279
298 n. 47 Nicholas III: 57, 58
Index 311
Nicholas V: 255, 296 Salamanca, university: 135 n. 104, 214

Paul III: 65 secular clergy: 32, 87, 231, 254
Pius II: 294 n. 17, 302 Siena, bishops
Sixtus IV: 137, 234 n. 43, 302 Azzolino Malavolti: 71
Urban II: 232 n. 36 Donosdeo Malavolti: 71
Urban IV: 40, 191 Dominian bishop, Ruggeri: 70
Porto, bishops: 40, 43, 44 n. 22 Šibenik, diocese: 267, 268, 269

Vicente Mendes: 44, 45 Sigüenza, bishops
Portugal Alonso Carrillo de Acuña: 125, 130, 137
1258 Inquisitiones: 41, 42 n. 14, 56 Bernardino López de Carvajal: see
1289 Agreements: 39, 46 Cardinals
currency devaluation: 42 Diego López de Madrid: 131
royal income: 42 Fernando de Luján: 131, 137
Portugal, kings Gonzalo de Santa María: 131, 137
Afonso III: 37, 38, 39, 40, 40 n. 8, 41, 42, Pedro González de Mendoza: see
43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 50 n. Cardinals
50, 52, 52 n. 53, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, Simón Girón de Cisneros: 137
58, 59, 60 Sigüenza, cathedral chapter: 121, 122, 123,
Dinis: 37, 38, 45, 55, 56, 57, 60, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132,
Sancho II: 39, 40, 40 n. 8, 43, 48 133, 135, 136, 137, 138
Silves, bishop
Poznań, bishops: 108, 112 Bartolomeu: 45, 58
Jan Doliwa of Lutogniew: 114 Silves, diocese: 55, 58
Nicholas of Kórnik: 108 Skálholt, bishops: 158, 165–66, 169, 171
prosopography: 2–4, 128 Þorlákur Þórhallson: 157, 170
Pulicciano, castle: 181, 181 n. 4, 185, Árni Þorláksson: 166–67, 171, 172
185 n. 15, 191, 193 Árni Helgason: 167
reconciliation over its control: 185 Jon Halldorsson: 169
Skara, bishops
Salamanca, Cathedral: 7, 199, 202, 211, 216, Bengt Gustavsson: 292 n. 12, 296
217 Hans Markvardsson: 292 n. 12, 294
Salamanca, bishopric Vincent Henningsson: 298
historiography: 202–03 social network analysis: 4–6, 128–29, 134,
Salamanca, bishops 135 n. 104, 136
Alfonso de las Asturias: 209, 211, 212, 216 social origins: 86
Pedro Pérez de Monroy Sodor, bishops: 156, 162, 163, 165, 173
Archdeacon of Plasencia: 207 Mark: 172
Brother, Fernán Pérez de Monroy: 205, papal appointments: 162
207 Ragnvald: 162
Brother, Nuño Pérez de Monroy Split, archbishops
Abbot of Santander: 205 Andrew Benzi of Gualdo: 276, 276 n. 83,
Chancellor of Queen Maríade Molina: 277, 278, 278 n. 93
216 Balian: 270, 271
family origins: 201, 205 translation from archbishopric of
promotion to Salamanca: 209–211 Rhodes: 270, 271
seal: 204 Dominic: 272, 273, 273 n. 61
tomb in chapel of San Nicolás: 199, 200, Duimus: 279, 279 n. 102, 280
216–17 Hugolin: 275–76
312 Index
John Buzad: 265, 267 Canon law: 88, 167, 169, 256
John of Pisa: 274–75 Civil law: 256
Marin de Cutheis: 276 Masters of arts: 88
Peter: 268, 268 n. 26, 269, 278 Theology: 88, 251
Pelegrinus: 274, 275, 275 n. 72 university destinations
Split, cathedral chapter Bologna: 169
disputed election: 272 Paris: 89, 169, 251
James, archdeacon: 265, 267 Uppsala, archbishops: 289–90, 300, 301,
Thomas, archdeacon: 264 303
Strängnäs, bishops Gustav Trolle: 292, 294, 304
Sigge Ulvsson: 292 n. 12, 296 Jöns Bengtsson: 292, 296, 300
Hans Magnusson: 292 n. 12, 297 Jakob Ulvsson: 292, 294, 297 n. 32, 301,
Kort Rogge: 292 n. 12, 297, 301 304
Mats Gregersson: 292 n. 12, 298
Sweden, bishops Västerås, bishops
bishops who failed to get papal Bengt Knutsson: 292 n. 12, 297
confirmation Birger Månsson: 292 n. 12, 294, 296,
Hemming Gadh of Linköping: 300
293 n. 12, 298, 298 n. 48, 304 Lydeke Abelsson: 292 n. 12, 296
Peder Jakobsson: 293 n. 12, 298, Olof Andersson: 292 n. 12, 297
298 n. 48 Olof Gunnarsson: 292 n. 12, 296
confirmation by pope: 291 Otto Olafsson: 292 n. 12, 298
election by cathedral chapter: 291 Peder Månsson: 292 n. 12, 293 296,
presence of Swedish bishops 298, 304
at the Curia: 293, 299–302 Växjö, bishops
Gudmund Nilsson: 292 n. 12, 297
Toledo, archbishops: 122, 126, 137, 138, Ingemar Petersson: 292 n. 12, 298
145 Nils Olsson: 292 n. 12, 297
Alonso Carrillo de Acuña: 130 Viseu, bishops
Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros: 130, 147 D. Mateus Martins: 44, 46, 47
Treaty of Perth (1266): 161, 173 Volterra, lordship: 180, 181, 186
Turku, bishops Volterra, bishops
Arvidus Kurki: 297 Alberto Scolari: 179, 181, 185, 191, 193
Johannes Olavi: 292 n. 12, 297 Relatives: 181, 183, 188
Kort Bitz: 9, 292 nn. 12 and 17, 294, Florentine bishops: 182
301, 302, 303
Lauri Suurpää: 292 n. 12, 298 Włocławek, bishops: 112, 113
Olavus Magni: 292 n. 12, 294, 295 Gerward of Ostrowo: 112,
Magnus Särkilahti: 304 Wrocław, bishops
Magnus Tavast: 295, 301 Tomasz I: 111
university education: 87–89, 255–56 Tomasz II: 111
Medieval Church Studies
All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic
grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned
by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the
screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive
texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being
approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to
the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in
the field.
Titles in Series
Megan Cassidy-Welch, Monastic Spaces and their Meanings: ThirteenthCentury English
Cistercian Monasteries (2001)
Elizabeth Freeman, Narratives of a New Order: Cistercian Historical Writing in England,
1150–1220 (2002)
The Study of the Bible in the Carolingian Era, ed. by Celia Chazelle and Burton Van Name
Edwards (2003)
Text and Controversy from Wyclif to Bale: Essays in Honour of Anne Hudson, ed. by Helen
Barr and Ann M. Hutchison (2005)
Lena Roos, ‘God Wants It!’: The Ideolog y of Martyrdom in the Hebrew Crusade Chronicles
and its Jewish and Christian Background (2006)
Emilia Jamroziak, Rievaulx Abbey and its Social Context, 1132–1300: Memory, Locality,
and Networks (2004)
The Voice of Silence: Women’s Literacy in a Men’s Church, ed. by Thérèse de Hemptinne
and María Eugenia Góngora (2004)
Perspectives for an Architecture of Solitude: Essays on Cistercians, Art and Architecture in
Honour of Peter Fergusson, ed. by Terryl N. Kinder (2004)
Saints, Scholars, and Politicians: Gender as a Tool in Medieval Studies, ed. by Mathilde van
Dijk and Renée Nip (2005)
Manuscripts and Monastic Culture: Reform and Renewal in TwelfthCentury Germany, ed.
by Alison I. Beach (2007)
Weaving, Veiling, and Dressing : Textiles and their Metaphors in the Late Middle Ages, ed.
by Kathryn M. Rudy and Barbara Baert (2007)
James J. Boyce, Carmelite Liturgy and Spiritual Identity: The Choir Books of Kraków (2008)
Studies in Carthusian Monasticism in the Late Middle Ages, ed. by Julian M. Luxford (2009)
Kevin J. Alban, The Teaching and Impact of the ‘Doctrinale’ of Thomas Netter of Walden (c.
1374–1430) (2010)
Gunilla Iversen, Laus angelica: Poetry in the Medieval Mass, ed. by Jane Flynn, trans. by
William Flynn (2010)
Kriston R. Rennie, Law and Practice in the Age of Reform: The Legatine Work of Hugh of
Die (1073–1106) (2010)
After Arundel: Religious Writing in FifteenthCentury England, ed. by Vincent Gillespie
and Kantik Ghosh (2011)
Federico Botana, The Works of Mercy in Italian Medieval Art (c. 1050–c. 1400) (2011)
The Regular Canons in the Medieval British Isles, ed. by Janet Burton and Karen Stöber
(2011)
Wycliffite Controversies, ed. by Mishtooni Bose and J. Patrick Hornbeck II (2011)
Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis, The Latin Religious Orders in Medieval Greece, 1204–1500
(2012)
Nikolaos G. Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece: A Study of ByzantineWestern
Relations and Attitudes, 1204–1282 (2012)
Demetrio S. Yocum, Petrarch’s Humanist Writing and Carthusian Monasticism: The Secret
Language of the Self (2013)
The PseudoBonaventuran Lives of Christ: Exploring the Middle English Tradition, ed. by
Ian Johnson and Allan F. Westphall (2013)
Alice Chapman, Sacred Authority and Temporal Power in the Writings of Bernard of
Clairvaux (2013)
Religious Controversy in Europe, 1378–1536: Textual Transmission and Networks of
Readership, ed. by Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup (2013)
Ian Johnson, The Middle English Life of Christ: Academic Discourse, Translation, and
Vernacular Theology (2013)
Monasteries on the Borders of Medieval Europe: Conflict and Cultural Interaction, ed. by
Emilia Jamroziak and Karen Stöber (2014)
M. J. Toswell, The AngloSaxon Psalter (2014)
Envisioning the Bishop: Images and the Episcopacy in the Middle Ages, ed. by Sigrid
Danielson and Evan A. Gatti (2014)
Kathleen E. Kennedy, The Courtly and Commercial Art of the Wycliffite Bible (2014)
David N. Bell, The Library of the Abbey of La Trappe: A Study of its History from the Twelfth
Century to the French Revolution, with an Annotated Edition of the 1752 Catalogue (2014)
Patronage, Production, and Transmission of Texts in Medieval and Early Modern Jewish
Cultures, ed. by Esperanza Alfonso and Jonathan Decter (2014)
Devotional Culture in Late Medieval England and Europe: Diverse Imaginations of Christ’s
Life, edited by Stephen Kelly and Ryan Perry (2014)
Matthew Cheung Salisbury, The Secular Liturgical Office in Late Medieval England (2015)
From Hus to Luther: Visual Culture in the Bohemian Reformation (1380–1620), ed. by
Kateřina Horníčková and Michal Šroněk (2016)
Medieval Liège at the Crossroads of Europe: Monastic Society and Culture, 1000–1300, ed.
by Steven Vanderputten, Tjamke Snijders, and Jay Diehl (2017)
Episcopal Power and Local Society in Medieval Europe, 900–1400, ed. by Peter Coss, Chris
Dennis, Melissa Julian-Jones, and Angelo Silvestri (2017)
Saints of NorthEast England, 600–1500, ed. by Margaret Coombe, Anne Mouron, and
Christiania Whitehead (2017)
Tamás Karáth, Richard Rolle: The FifteenthCentury Translations (2017)
Late Medieval Devotional Compilations in England, ed. by Marleen Cré, Diana Denissen,
and Denis Renevey (2020)
Episcopal Power and Personality in Medieval Europe, 900–1480, ed. by Peter Coss, Chris
Dennis, Melissa Julian-Jones, and Angelo Silvestri (2020)
Inwardness, Individualization, and Religious Agency in the Late Medieval Low Countries:
Studies in the Devotio Moderna and its Contents, ed. by Rijcklof Hofman, Charles
Caspers, Peter Nissen, Mathilde van Dijk, and Johan Oosterman (2020)
In Preparation
Wycliffism and Hussitism: Methods of Thinking, Writing, and Persuasion c. 1360–c. 1460,
ed. by Kantik Ghosh and Pavel Soukup

Bishops' Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe (Medieval Church Studies, 44) - Brepols Publishers (2021)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bishops' Identities, Careers, and Networks in Medieval Europe (Medieval Church Studies, 44) - Brepols Publishers (2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bishops’ Identities, Careers, and

Networks in Medieval Europe

Editorial Board under the auspices of the

© 2021, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

List of Illustrations vii

Part I. Cohorts of Bishops

Bishops, Kings, and Grievances in Medieval

Bishops, Nepotism, and Social Mobility in Central and

The Bishops of Meaux, 1197–1510: From Chapter’s Men

Part II. Episcopal Networks

Bishop, Chapter, and Social Networks in Castile:

The Nidaros Church and the Insular Parts of its Province:

Part III. Individual Bishops

Power, Culture, and Ecclesiastical Reform in Late Medieval

Part IV. Bishops and the Papacy

Episcopal Appointments and Careers of the

Between Uppsala and Rome: Swedish Bishops’ Contacts

Diagram 6.2, p. 136. Bernardino López de Carvajal’s Social Network.

Diagram 10.1, p. 228. Bishop Acuña’s kinship and patronage networks.

Figure 9.4, p. 208. ‘Castle of the Monroy family’, Monroy (Cáceres).

Map 6.1, p. 124. Diocesan Hispanic Geography, 1250–1500.

Table 4.1, p. 91. Translations to and from the see of Meaux.

Table 4.2, p. 93. Appointments of the Bishops of Meaux.

Table 6.1, p. 140. Types of Appointment.

Table 6.2, p. 142. Interventions by the Bishops.

Table 6.3, p. 144. Joint Bishop and Chapter Intervention.

Table 6.4, p. 147. Bishops and Relatives in the Chapter.

Table 6.5, p. 148. Mendoza's Social Network: Ties of blood/Artificial Kinship.

Table 6.6, p. 148. Bernardino López de Carvajal's Social Network: Ties of

Table 7.1, pp. 165–166. Appointments of bishops to Hólar, Skálholt,

Sarah Thomas (sarahthomaseditorial@gmail.com) is an academic copy-editor and a

of the activities of minor papal penitentiaries in Scandinavia and Michael Frost’s

Considering an individual’s friendship and patronage networks allows scholars

through the life of Catharine Beecher.23 In the 1970s, historical biographies

Katherine Harvey (k.harvey@bbk.ac.uk) is a research fellow at Birkbeck, University of

Given such unsatisfactory training, it was, Gerald suggested, unsurprising that

Contemporary cynicism about courtier bishops has been shared by most

Many previous interpretations of medieval ecclesiastical elections have

to being bishop of a much smaller French or Italian diocese, or of a much poorer

In practical terms, the value placed on administrative experience is reflected in

Peter of Blois, Archdeacon of Bath, was not an uncritical commentator on the

to Herbert of Bosham, some of those who elected Thomas Becket as Archbishop

the office of archdeacon).42 In an age before the widespread production and

of vacant churches). Moreover, he fulfilled one of the most important duties of a

He named a series of biblical figures ( Joseph, Daniel, David) in support of his

Fraser, Constance, ‘Antony Bek’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, <https://

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar*

Hermínia Vasconcelos Vilar (hmav@uevora.pt) is assistant professor at University of Évora –

Witnesses present at this gathering, apparently the last encounter between

Departure of the Bishops

drawn under the diaphanous veil of political collaboration is a set of initiatives

representatives. The Bishop of Silves, Bartolomeu, was torn by split loyalties

accepted by Afonso, and he was never referred to as Bishop of Coimbra in royal

The ‘Enterprise’ of Friar Nicholas Hispanus in Portugal

In the context of these somewhat troubled relations, Gregory X’s bull De

some holding roles as king’s clerics or advisors, and a significant number of

From Grievances to Agreements: A Possible Closure?

Ferreira, José Augusto, Memorias archeologico­historicas da cidade do Porto (Braga: Cruz

Pizarro, José Augusto P. de Sotomaior, D. Dinis, Reis de Portugal, 6 (Lisboa: Círculo de

Stefano G. Magni (s.magni@lettere.uniroma2.it) is a postdoctoral researcher at the University

These considerations bring us to the last point of my introduction. I am

Episcopal nepotism in the local ecclesiastical institutions was more generally

Ferreira, José Augusto, Memorias archeologicohistoricas da cidade do Porto (Braga: Cruz

Śliwiński, Błażej, Pogranicze kujawskopomorskie w xii–xiii w.: Z dziejów Bydgoskiego i