Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century: A Study in Medieval Diplomacy 0198729154, 9780198729150

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N M E D I E VA L E U RO P E A N H I S TO RY General Editors joh n h . a rn old  pat r i c k j . ge a ry joh n wat ts

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century A Study in Medieval Diplomacy BARBARA BOMBI

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Barbara Bombi 2019 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2019 Impression: 1 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, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2018959209 ISBN 978–0–19–872915–0 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

To Matteo, Peter, and Olivia

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Acknowledgements This book has been in the making since 2012 and builds on my previous research on the representatives at the papal curia of the Teutonic Order and the kings of England, Edward II and Edward III. Its inspiration lies in the research on diplomatic and administrative practices by Cuttino and Chaplais, whom unfortunately I never had the privilege to meet. Throughout many years the participation and collaboration with two different clusters of scholars have been essential to develop the ideas argued in this book: first, the workshop ‘Negotiating Europe: Practices, Languages and Diplomacy in 13th–16th century’—organized in 2012 in Benasque (Spain) by Professor Isabella Lazzarini (Molise), Professor John Watts (Oxford), and Dr Stéphane Péquignot (École des Haute Études, Paris)—which saw the participation of an international group of scholars specializing in late Medieval and early Modern diplomacy;1 second, the international research network “Stilus curiae: Spielregeln der Konflikt- und Verhandlungsführung am Papsthof des Mittelalters (12.-15. Jahrhundert)”, funded by the DfG, which has met three times a year between 2014 and 2018 in Freiburg and Munich and has been organized by Dr Georg Strack (Munich) and Dr Jessika Nowak (Basel).2 Furthermore, a third international research network ‘Papal Communication and Authority in the Central Middle Ages’, funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research and directed by Professor Iben Fonnesberg-Schmidt, has helped me to develop and shape my thought.3 I am also most grateful for their help and support in the making of this book to other colleagues and friends, who have kindly and generously advised me throughout the years on specific points and through the organization of stimulating conferences and workshops on topics relevant to my current research: Professor Nicholas Vincent (UEA); Dr Malcolm Vale (Oxford); Professor Elizabeth Brown (New York); Professor Fabrice Delivré (Paris); Professor Hélène Millet (CNRS—LAMOP, Paris); Professor Christine Barralis (Metz); Professor Pascal Montaubin (Amiens); Professor Julian Gardner (Warwick); Professor Richard Sharpe (Oxford); Dr Peter Linehan (Cambridge); Dr Martin Brett (Cambridge); Dr Michael Haren (Dublin), who generously shared with me his research notes on the First Avignon Conference; Professor Armand Jamme (CNRS—Lyon); Dr Pierre Jugie (Archives Nationale); Professor Maria-Joao Branco (Lisbon); Professor Hermínia Vilar (Évora); Professor Robert Bartlett (St Andrews); Professor Othmar Hageneder (Vienna); Dr Herwig Weigl (Vienna); Dr Martin Bertram (DHI, Rome); Dr Andreas Rehberg (DHI—Rome); Professor Maria Pia Alberzoni (Milan); Professor Jochen Johrendt (Wuppertal). A special mention is reserved to Professor David D’Avray (UCL), who kindly encouraged me at the very beginning 1  See: http://benasque.org/2012negotiating/. 2  See: https://www.stiluscuriae.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/index.html. 3  See: https://www.en.cgs.aau.dk/research/projects/papal-communications/.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

viii Acknowledgements of this project and supported me throughout it acting as a referee and adviser on several occasions and ultimately as a reader of this book. The completion of this project has only been possible thanks to the British Academy Mid-Career Fellowship, which I was awarded in 2016/17. The latter allowed me to complete my research in Italian and French archives and gave me time free of teaching and administrative duties to complete the book. In this respect, I ought to thank Dr Emily Corran, who acted as my replacement at the University of Kent during the period of my fellowship, brilliantly relieving me from many duties and worries. I am also most grateful to my colleagues and the management of my department at the University of Kent, who have supported me in the completion of this project, granting me institutional study leaves. Alongside the already mentioned colleagues, two dearest friends very much deserve a special mention for reading drafts of this work and commenting on them: Patrick Zutshi (Cambridge) and Brenda Bolton (London). The archival research for this book has been mainly conducted in British, Italian and French archives and libraries, which I ought to thank for making their documentary and manuscript material readily available: The National Archives in London, where I am especially indebted to Dr Paul Dryburgh and Dr Sean Cunningham, who kindly made available for consultation Pierre Chaplais’s notes and transcriptions of the diplomatic miscellanea C 47; the staff of the British Library; the staff of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, especially Jane Gallagher, whom I came to know from her time as curator in Special Collections in the University of Kent Library at Canterbury; the staff of the archive of the Society of Antiquaries in London; the staff of the manuscript department of the Bibliothéque Nationale in Paris; the staff of the Archives Nationale in Paris, especially Dr Pierre Jugie, who generously helped me during my visits to this archive; the staff of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; and the staff and the Prefetto Padre Sergio Pagano of the Archivio Segreto Vaticano. Last but not least, I must thank Professor John Arnold, Professor John Watts, Professor Patrick Geary, editors of the series Oxford Studies in Medieval European History, who believed in this book and accepted it for publication, together with the OUP editors Stephanie Ireland and Cathryn Steele and the anonymous readers of my manuscript for their helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, a very special thank goes to the staff of the Oaks Nursery at the University of Kent, Canterbury, who brilliantly helped me with the childcare of my son, while I was working on this book (without their support, the book would not have been written), and to Arianna Zuberti, who helped me to organize my research trip to Rome. My love and gratitude are especially reserved to my friend Brenda Bolton; my parents, Giorgio e Marilena; my husband Peter Clarke, who always supported me, gave me time and space to work on this project and patiently read several drafts of this book (checking that my ‘canon law was in order!’); my small son Matteo, whose unconditional love keeps me grounded and makes me laugh against all the odds; and Olivia, who has patiently spent so many days under my desk waiting for some cuddles. This book is dedicated to them.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Contents List of Abbreviations

xi

Introduction

1

PA RT I .  M O D A L I T I E S O F M E D I E VA L DIPLOMACY 1. Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries

11

2. Chancery Practices in England and at the Papal Curia During the Fourteenth Century

32

3. The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

53

4. The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

76

5. Representatives and Proctors

102

PA RT I I .  C A S E S T U D I E S 6. The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

133

7. The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

154

8. Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

183

9. From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais: Administrative and Diplomatic Practice in England and at the Papal Curia

205

Conclusions Archival and Manuscript Sources Primary Sources Secondary Sources Index

225 229 233 237 259

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

List of Abbreviations AHP ASV Barbiche

Archivum Historiae Pontificiae. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Città del Vaticano. Les actes pontificaux originaux des Archives Nationales de Paris, ed. B. Barbiche, III (Città del Vaticano, 1975). BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Città del Vaticano. BL British Library, London. BRUO A biographical register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, ed. A.B. Emden, III (Oxford, 1958). Carte Catalogue des Rolles Gascons, Normans et François conservés dans les Archives de la Tour de Londres, ed. T. Carte, II (London, 1743). CCR Calendar of the Close Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office (London, 1892–1913). CCW Calendar of Chancery Warrants preserved in the Public Record Office, ed. H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, I (London, 1927). Coulon Lettres secrètes et curiales du pape Jean XXII (1316–1334) relatives à la France, ed. A. Coulon, III (Paris, 1961–1972). CPL Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, ed. W.H. Bliss, C. Johnson, I–IV; I: Petitions (London 1893–1902). CPR Calendar of Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, XV (London, 1893–1966). EHR The English Historical Review. EMDP English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, ed. P. Chaplais, I/1–2 (London, 1982). FEA Fasti Ecclesie Anglicane, 1330–1541, ed. J. Le Neve, D.E. Greenaway, XII (London, 1962–1967). MEFR Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Moyen Age. MIÖG Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung. ODNB New Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: http://www. oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk QFIAB Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken Reg. Ben. XII (France) Benoit XII (1334–1342). Lettres closes, patentes et curiales se rapportant à la France, ed. G. Daumet (Paris, 1920). Reg. Ben. XII (communes) Benoit XII (1334–1342). Lettres communes analysées d’après les registres dits d’Avignon et du Vatican, ed. J.M. Vidal, III (Paris, 1903–1911). Reg. Clem. IV Les registres de Clément IV. Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. E. Jordan, II (Paris, 1893–1945). Reg. Clem. V Regestum Clementis pape V, ed. L. Tosti, IX (Rome, 1885–1888).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

xii

List of Abbreviations

Reg. Clem. VI (de curia) Clément VI (1342–1352). Lettres closes, patentes et curiales intéressant les pays autres que la France (1342–1352), ed. E. Déprez, III (Paris, 1961). Reg. Clem. VI (France) Clément VI (1342–1352). Lettres closes, patentes et curiales se rapportant à la France, ed. E. Déprez, IV (Paris, 1925–1961). Reg. Hon. IV Les registres d’Honorius IV (1285–1287). Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. M. Prou (Paris, 1886–1888). Reg. Inn. IV Les registres d’Innocent IV publiés ou analysés d’après les manuscrits originaux du Vatican et de la Bibliothèque Nationale, ed. E. Berger, IV (Paris, 1881–1921). Reg. Inn. VI (curiales) Innocent VI (1352–1362): Lettres secrètes et curiales, publiées d’après les Registres des Archives Vaticanes, ed. P. Gasnault, M.H. Laurent, III (Paris, 1959–1968). Reg. John XXII Lettres communes de Jean XXII (1316–1334), ed. G. Mollat, XVI (Paris, 1904–1946). Reg. Urban IV Les registres d’Urbain IV (1261–1264). Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées ou analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. L. Dorez, J. Guiraud, S. Clémencet, IV (Paris, 1899–1958). Rymer Foedera, conventiones, litterae et cuiuscunque generis acta publica inter reges Anglie et alios quosvis, ed. T. Rymer, R. Sanderson (London, 1816–1830). Sayers Original Papal Documents in England and Wales from the Accession of Pope Innocent III to the Death of Pope Benedict XI (1198–1304), ed. J. Sayers (Oxford, 1999). TNA The National Archives, London. Treaty Rolls Treaty Rolls, ed. P. Chaplais, I: 1234–1325 (London, 1955); Treaty Rolls, ed. J. Ferguson, II: 1337–1339 (London, 1972). TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Willershausen A. Willershausen, Die Päpste von Avignon und der HundertJährige Krieg. Spätmittelalterliche Diplomatie und kuriale Verhandlungsnormen (1337–1378) (Berlin, 2014). Zutshi Original papal letters in England (1305–1415), ed. P.N.R. Zutshi (Città del Vaticano, 1990).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Introduction This book is concerned with the modalities, namely the modes and procedures, of Anglo-papal diplomacy in the first half of the fourteenth century, when diplomatic affairs between England and the papacy intensified following the transfer of the papal curia to southern France in 1305 and on account of the on-going Anglo-French hostilities, which resulted in the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337. On the one hand, the book investigates how diplomatic and administrative practices developed in England and at the papal curia from a comparative perspective, whilst, on the other hand, it questions the legacy and impact of international and domestic conflicts on diplomatic and administrative practices. Such a comparative approach to administrative history builds on a longstanding tradition initiated in the 1920s by Tout whose seminal work investigated the similarities and chronological overlap in the development of English and continental administrative practices, focusing especially on the comparison between England and France during the thirteenth century. Tout’s comparative approach allowed him to emphasize that a true differentiation between administrative systems in England and France took place in the fourteenth century, when English bureaucracy developed into public and national administration while that of France remained part of the king’s household.1 In a similar fashion, from the 1950s Pantin, Cheney, Wright, Haines, and Denton focused on relations between Church and State in England, further touching on the nature of Anglo-papal diplomacy in the late Middle Ages.2 Finally, Francophone historiography has recently employed comparative approaches in order to explore the existence of shared administrative 1 T.F.  Tout, Chapters in administrative history, I (Manchester, 1920), pp. 7–8; 149–57. Tout advanced a similar argument with regard to the development of the chamber in England and France. On Tout’s attitude towards the compilation of a comparative history of England and France and his rejection of Stubbs’s approach to English constitutional history, see M. Vale, ‘England, France and the Origins of the Hundred Years War’, in, ed. M. Jones, M. Vale, England and her neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in honour of Pierre Chaplais (London—Ronceverte, 1989), pp. 199–201. 2 C.R. Cheney, English Bishops’ Chanceries, 1100–1250 (Manchester, 1950); C.R. Cheney, From Becket to Langton: English Church Government, 1170–1213 (Manchester, 1956); W.A.  Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 76–102; C.R.  Cheney, Hubert Walter (1967); C.R.  Cheney, Pope Innocent III and England (Stuttgart, 1976); R.M.  Haines, The Church and Politics in Fourteenth-Century England: the Career of Adam Orleton, c.1275–1345 (Cambridge, 1978); J.R. Wright, The Church and the English Crown, 1305–34 (Toronto, 1980), pp. 99–173; J.H.  Denton, Robert Winchelsey and the Crown, 1294–1313 (Cambridge, 1980); C.R. Cheney, Episcopal Visitation of Monasteries in the 13th Century (Manchester, 1983); R.M. Haines, Archbishop John Stratford: Political Revolutionary and Champion of the Liberties of the English Church, ca. 1275/80–1348 (Toronto, 1986).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

2

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

cultures all over Europe between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries.3 Whilst historians noted the existence of similarities among bureaucratic systems from the late twelfth century onwards, they have ultimately struggled to find decisive evidence of mutual influence and dissemination of administrative practices across late Medieval Europe. This was especially the case for Barraclough, Clanchy, Sayers, and Zutshi, all of whom similarly played down the possible influence of papal administrative models on English practices.4 In Zutshi’s words, the bureaucratization and rising number of administrative concerns in fourteenth-century Europe were prompted as ‘parallel responses to comparable circumstances’, while ‘it is more likely that the English and papal practices arose simply from administrative convenience than from the one borrowing from the other’.5 More recently, D. D’Avray maintained that the growth of ecclesiastical and secular government in Europe from the late twelfth century embodied forms of ‘practical dualism’, whereby secular and ecclesiastical jurisdictions were prompted to adapt to similar circumstances and demands and grew independently, overlapping only occasionally. In D’Avray’s opinion these parallel and distinct developments made use of ‘legal formal rationality’, namely formal legal rules which allowed them to operate without the support of fully developed bureaucratic and fiscal organizations.6 Ultimately, these administrative systems could only function as a result of the expertise of men, who were paid in benefices and favours rather than in salaries and were employed on a part-time basis.7 Equally, historians of late Medieval diplomacy have overlooked the importance of administrative and bureaucratic practices in diplomatic discourse, narrowly defining diplomacy as the management of foreign affairs. This was precisely so for Lucas, Mattingly, Queller, Ferguson, and Reitemeier, all of whom have maintained that diplomatic relations mostly concerned political issues and evidenced the 3  J.M. Moeglin, S. Péquignot, Diplomatie et « relations internationales » au Moyen Age (IXe–XVe siècle) (Paris, 2017), pp. 126–47; 621–2. See also H. Millet, ‘Introduction’, in Suppliques et requêtes. Le gouvernement par la grace en Occident (XIIe–XVe siècle), ed. H. Millet (Rome, 2003), pp. 1–13. See also Chapter 1. 4  J. Sayers, ‘The influence of papal documents on English documents before 1305’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen. Studien zu ihrer formalen und rechtlichen Kohärenz vom 11. bis 15. Jahrhundert, ed. P. Herde, H. Jakobs (Cologne—Weimar—Vienna, 1999), pp. 161–200, at p. 173, underlines how in the thirteenth century there is no evidence of any borrowing between the English and the papal chancery as far as registration is concerned. See also G. Barraclough, ‘The English Royal Chancery and the Papal Chancery in the reign of Henry III’, MIÖG 62 (1954), pp. 365–73; M.  Clanchy, From memory to written record. England 1066–1307 (London, 1979), pp. 44–6; P.N.R. Zutshi,‘The papal chancery and English documents in the 14th and early 15th centuries’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen, pp. 201–18. 5  Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery’, p. 217. Similar conclusions are suggested in A. Paravicini Bagliani, Il Trono di Pietro. L’universalità del papato da Alessandro III a Bonifacio VIII (Roma, 1996), p. 72. 6 D.  D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities. A Weberian Analysis (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 121–47. 7 D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities, pp. 137–8; 147–8. See also M. Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, here quoted from its English translation based on Weber’s 4th edition published by M. Weber and J. Winckelmann in Tübingen in 1956 and revised in 1964: M. Weber, Economy and Society. An outline of interpretive sociology, ed. G. Roth, C. Wittich, II, (New York, 1968), pp. 656–7; 792–7, which refers to those administrators paid in benefices and employed on a part-time basis as honoratiores.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Introduction 3 making of the modern bureaucratic state in the fifteenth century, especially through the creation of professional diplomatic representatives who held full powers of negotiation and representation, such as the resident ambassadors.8 Most recently, Plöger has addressed the cultural and social issues of Anglo-papal relations in the second half of the fourteenth century, focusing instead on the flexibility and lack of continuity within diplomatic practices.9 As I have argued elsewhere, I believe that the interpretation of Medieval diplomacy as the exclusive management of foreign affairs and international relations ought to be revised and extended to the study of administrative practices and routine affairs. My argument is based on the assumption that in the late Middle Ages governmental and bureaucratic organizations, such as those which operated in England and the papacy, were not fully developed in accordance to the Weberian ‘monocratic’ model, but still relied upon ‘patrimonial’ structures, operating their foreign policy not only through the management of international relations in the modern sense but also through negotiations concerning more routine matters.10 In this respect, what historians of late Medieval diplomacy have so far pigeon-holed as routine business, exerted a seminal importance in the late Medieval diplomatic discourse because of the modalities of government within late Medieval polities, such as England and the papacy. I maintain, therefore, that the complexity of late Medieval diplomacy can only be fully appreciated when examining bureaucracy and diplomacy as complementary, or, in other words, as two sides of the same coin. Most importantly, this approach allows us to include under the umbrella of Anglo-papal diplomacy the management of foreign affairs as well as negotiations of routine business, such as provisions to benefices, marriage dispensations, recommendations of royal protégés, and, in general, disputes between the papacy and the English crown concerning control over temporalities and spiritualities, themselves undoubtedly at the core of the political relationship between crown and curia in the early fourteenth century.11

8  H.S.  Lucas, ‘The machinery of diplomatic intercourse’, in The English Government at Work, 1327–1336, ed. J.F. Willard, W.A. Morris (Cambridge, MA, 1940), pp. 300–31; G. Mattingly, ‘The first resident embassies: medieval Italian origins of modern diplomacy’, Speculum 12 (1937), 423–39; G. Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (New York, 1955); D.E. Queller, The office of ambassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ, 1967). Without discussing the meaning of diplomacy in any detail, J. Ferguson, English Diplomacy, 1422–61 (Oxford, 1972), stressed the intimate relationship between diplomacy and foreign policy in England during the reign of Henry VI. The same approach has recently been carried on by A.  Reitemeier, ‘Das Gesandtschaftswesen im spätmittelalterlichen England’, in Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zum geistlichen und weltlichen Gesandtschaftswesen vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Zey and C. Märtl (Zürich, 2008), pp. 231–53. On the nineteethand early twentieth-century historiography concerning late medieval diplomacy see F. Ernst, ‘Über Gesandtschaftswesen und Diplomatie an der Wende vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 33 (1950), 64–95. A brief summary of the historiographical debate on diplomacy is also available in K. Plöger, England and the Avignon Popes: the Practice of Diplomacy in Late Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2005), pp. 4–6. 9 Plöger, England and the Avignon Popes, pp. 226–9. 10  For a discussion of the Weberian theory of bureaucracy see Chapter 1. 11  B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research 85 (2012), pp. 602–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

4

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

This approach is not completely new, and it indeed requires that the traditional debate among administrative historians should inform the discussion amongst those specializing in diplomatic history. The achievements of this methodology are strongly evidenced in the work of Chaplais, which encompassed these two ­traditions that had previously influenced each other only occasionally in AngloAmerican historiography.12 As is well known, Chaplais’ reputation owed much to his distinctive insights into diplomatic and legal history which made bureaucracy and diplomacy the core of his work, underpinned by the French historiographical tradition of legal history, which so noticeably influenced his training.13 Unlike others, Chaplais acknowledged that administrative practices are rooted in different legal systems, expressed in the diplomatic of the documents through ad hoc formulae, which could ultimately be adapted to a new political state of affairs.14 In a similar fashion, in the 1940s Cuttino had focused on English diplomatic and  administrative procedures between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, although he continued to maintain that routine affairs ought not to be included strictly speaking under the umbrella of diplomacy and management of foreign affairs.15 More recently, Zutshi has taken forward Chaplais’ approach in the volume of collected essays England and her neighbours, dedicated to this French scholar in 1989. In his chapter, Zutshi states that only a full understanding of the complex administrative structures overseeing the issuing of documents in the fourteenth century and knowledge of their diplomatic features can shed new light on the history of diplomacy and international relations in the late Middle Ages.16 Equally, in his work the French historian Barbiche has focused in his work on the diplomatic and administrative features of official documents and the practice of diplomacy, playing on the shared etymology of the words ‘diplomatic’ and ‘diplomacy’ and their obvious connections.17 Accordingly, Moeglin and Péquignot recently maintained the importance of approaching Medieval diplomacy not only as political negotiations among polities, but also in its specific modalities from a comparative perspective, looking at the documentation and rhetoric employed in diplomatic discourse.18 12 Pierre Chaplais’ articles on the topic published between 1951 and 1975 are collected in P. Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981). 13  R. Sharpe, ‘Pierre Chaplais, 1920–2006’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the British Academy 11 (2012), pp. 125–9. 14  P. Chaplais, ‘English diplomatic documents to the end of Edward III’s reign’, in The Study of Medieval Records: Essays in Honour of K. Major, ed. D.A. Bullough, R.L. Storey (Oxford, 1971), pp. 23–56; P.  Chaplais, ‘The chancery of Guyenne, 1289–1453’, in Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy, pp. 61–96; P. Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London, 2003). 15 G.P. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), esp. pp. 20–1; 84–137; 166. On the role of V.H. Galbraith as adviser of Cuttino and Chaplais see Cuttino, ‘Preface’, in English Diplomatic, p. i; C.S.L. Davies, ‘Pierre Chaplais: a personal memory’, in England and her neighbours, pp. xvii–xviii. 16  P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The letters of Avignon popes (1305–78): a source for the study of Anglo-Papal relations and of English ecclesiastical history’, in England and her neighbours, pp. 259–76. 17 B. Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, nuntius. Études de diplomatique et de diplomatie pontificales (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle) (Paris, 2007), p. 9. 18  Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie et « relations internationales », pp. 617–21.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Introduction 5 Building on the approaches of Chaplais, Zutshi, and Barbiche, this book sets out to explore Anglo-papal relations in the first half of the fourteenth century, focusing on two main questions: Were contemporary bureaucratic developments undertaken because of mutual influences or do they just result from parallel but independent developments?19 And, where then did the responsibility for the bureaucratization of administrative and diplomatic practices fall? The first question will be specifically addressed in Part I of this book, which explores how foreign and diplomatic relations, conducted through both official and unofficial diplomatic communications among polities, prompted the need to adapt and ‘translate’ different traditions in order to forge a ‘shared language of diplomacy’.20 As we will see, this was achieved thanks to the adaptation of house styles, formularies, and ceremonial practices as well as through the contribution of intermediaries and diplomatic agents acquainted with different diplomatic and legal traditions. Part II of the book engages further with the second question, assessing whether the development of comparable diplomatic and administrative practices in England and at the papal curia during the first half of the fourteenth century was influenced by economic, political, and other external factors or whether its driver was an inherent ‘autonomous’ logic, to use Weber’s expression.21 In particular, I am interested here in investigating the impact of political change and conflict on administrative and diplomatic practices after the papacy’s move to France in 1305, which marked a new phase in the history of the Medieval papacy, and during the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War between England and France, which was concluded in 1360 with the agreement of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais. The clash between England and France had originated in 1154 when the son of Count Geoffrey of Anjou succeeded not only to the kingdom of England as Henry II but also to Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, Poitou and Aquitaine as vassal of the French crown. As the result of military action between 1204 and 1224, the French recovered all these territories apart from Aquitaine and, in 1259, the Treaty of Paris marked the resumption of feudal relations between Henry III of England and Louis IX of France. Henry surrendered his claims over the English continental possessions to the French suzerain, in return for control of Gascony and other areas in the Duchy of Aquitaine. The long-term implications of the Treaty of Paris were twofold: on the one hand, as a vassal of the French crown, the English king was obliged to pay homage to the French at every change of monarch in either England or France; on the other hand, as overlord, the French crown retained judicial ­powers of appeal with regard to the English continental possessions, the boundaries of which were not precisely defined, giving rise to on-going jurisdictional appeals to the Parlement in Paris and military clashes in the region. This state of affairs led 19  This second question rephrases that originally proposed by Weber: ‘was development of administrative structures influenced by economic, political or other external factors or is it driven by an inherent “autonomous” logic?’. See below n. 20. 20  For a definition of this expression see Chapter 2. 21 Weber, Economy and Society, III, p. 1002. Here, Weber further questions ‘What, if any, are the economic effects which these administrative structures exert?’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

6

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

to the outbreak of Anglo-French wars in northern France in the last quarter of the thirteenth century, notably between 1294 and 1298, when the French crown confiscated the Duchy, and between 1324 and 1327, when the French moved against the bastide of St Sardos in the Agenais which was under English rule, initiating the so-called war of St Sardos. Finally, in 1337 the tension between England and France mounted when Edward III, king of England, repudiated in 1329 the homage given to Philip VI, king of France, and claimed his succession rights to the French throne by virtue of his mother’s inheritance. These new claims ultimately led to the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War, which saw the English and the French armies opposing each other at different stages in northern France until 1453, while the papacy steadily attempted mediation among the parties through the use of diplomacy.22 Given the length of the period and the wealth of available documentation, in Part II I will proceed by means of case studies, focusing on four examples that ­historians have so far considered as marking development and change in the history of fourteenth-century Anglo-papal relations: the papacy’s move to France after the election of Pope Clement V (1305) and the succession of Edward II to the English throne (1307); Anglo-papal relations from the war of St Sardos (1324) to the deposition of Edward II in 1327, which was orchestrated by Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella to accelerate Edward III’s succession; the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337 and the mediatory role of the papacy in the AngloFrench conflict; and lastly the conclusion of the first phase of the war, which was marked in 1360 by the agreement between England and France known as the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais. In this respect, a proviso is needed before moving any further. Arguably, as always when proceeding by means of case studies, different examples could be chosen to illustrate such a rich historical period as the first half of the fourteenth century. I am, however, confident that, although selective and arbitrary by definition, my sample of case studies will provide satisfactory evidence to answer the research questions that the book poses and will help me to exemplify my methodological points and develop my main argument. My study employs both edited and unedited source material preserved in English and continental archives together with relevant contemporary chronicles. The main unedited sources used in this book are the so-called Roman rolls (C 70), now preserved at The National Archives in London. The latter are a series of enrolments produced by the English chancery between 1306 and 1357 that record the correspondence dispatched from England to the papal curia. Together with the Roman rolls, this book also makes use of other series of English chancery diplomatic enrolments and documents, kept at The National Archives in London: the so-called Treaty and French rolls (C 76); and the miscellaneous diplomatic 22 M. Gavrilovitch, Étude sur le Traité de Paris de 1259 (Paris, 1899); F. Lot, La France des origines à la Guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1942); E.  Perroy, The Hundred Years War (London, 1959); P. Contamine, La guerre de Cent ans (Paris, 1968); J. Favier, La guerre de cent ans, 1337–1453 (Paris, 1980); C. Allmand, The Hundred Years War. England and France at war, c. 1300–c. 1450 (Cambridge, 1988); M. Vale, The Angevin legacy and the Hundred Years War, 1250–1340 (Oxford, 1990); A. Curry, The Hundred Years’ War, 1337–1453 (Oxford, 2002).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Introduction 7 documents preserved in so-called diplomatic miscellanea (C 47). Furthermore, the book extensively employs and examines fourteenth-century papal records preserved in the Vatican Archives, namely the Vatican registers, the Avignonese registers, the Registers of supplications and records of the apostolic chamber. Accordingly, relevant unedited English and French diplomatic documents, examined in this study, are now found at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF) and the Archives Nationales (ANF) in Paris.23 In addition, my work makes further careful use of edited source material, such as Rymer’s Foedera, an invaluable edition of English documents, and Chaplais’ editions of English diplomatic documents and of the first two Treaty rolls.24 Finally, I have based my research extensively on calendars of original papal letters preserved in English and French archives, on Bliss’s calendar of entries in the papal registers for England and Wales, on the Gascon Rolls, recently edited and available on-line, and on the calendars of chancery warrants, close rolls, and patent rolls.25 23  See Bibliography, Archival and Manuscript Sources. 24  Foedera, conventiones, litterae et cuiuscunque generis acta publica inter reges Anglie et alios quosvis, ed. T.  Rymer, R.  Sanderson (London 1816–1830) (hereafter Rymer); English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, ed. P. Chaplais, I/1–2 (London, 1982) (hereafter EMDP); Treaty Rolls, ed. P. Chaplais, I: 1234–1325 (London, 1955); Treaty Rolls, ed. J. Ferguson, II: 1337–1339 (London, 1972) (hereafter Treaty Rolls). 25  See Abbreviations: Barbiche; Sayers; Zutshi; editions and calendars of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century papal documents published in the series Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome; The Gascon Rolls project: http://www.gasconrolls.org/en/; CPL, CCR, CPR, CCW.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

PA RT I M O D A L I T I E S O F M E D I E VA L DIPLOMACY

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

1 Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries Is the word ‘bureaucracy’ appropriate to describe administrative practices and governmental organizations in Late Medieval Europe as so many historians have suggested? Scholars have focused on whether, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, England, France, and the papal curia witnessed the birth of ‘prebureaucratic’ state systems which became neither inclusive nor fully developed until the Early Modern period.1 Historians’ notions of ‘bureaucracy’ are mostly borrowed from Max Weber’s work Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie.2 As is well known, Weber maintained that ‘monocratic bureaucracy’ belongs to the category of ‘legal authority’ and is defined through ten criteria, which apply to its administrative staff.3 These criteria include: impersonal obligations of the official; hierarchy of offices; definition of spheres of competence; free contractual relationship between the authority and its officials; free selection and appointment on the basis of technical qualifications; remuneration by means of fixed salaries in money; office as the primary occupation of the official; career patterns for the official; separation between the official and the ownership of the means of administration; and finally, systematic disciplinary control over the official’s conduct. According to Weber’s schema, bureaucracy is, therefore, characterized through its formalism and its rational, abstract, and impersonal rules.4 Weber ultimately argued that bureaucracy was fully developed within political and ecclesiastical communities only in the modern state, where the office, or bureau,

1  This argument was maintained by F. Chabod, ‘Y a-t-il un état de la Renaissance?’, in Actes du colloque sur la Renaissance (Paris, 1958), pp. 57–74. Very informative overviews of these themes are available in A.I. Pini, ‘La “burocrazia” comunale della Toscana del Trecento’, in, ed. S. Gensini, La Toscana nel secolo XIV. Caratteri di una civiltà regionale (Pisa, 1988), pp. 215–21; A.  Jamme, O.  Poncet, ‘Offices et papauté. Une question ouverte’, in Offices et papauté (XIVe–XVIIe siècle). Charges, hommes, destins, ed. A.  Jamme, O.  Poncet (Rome, 2005), pp. 1–12; A.  Jamme, O.  Poncet, ‘L’écriture, la mémoire et l’argent. Un autre regard sur les officiers et offices pontificaux (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle)’, in Offices, écrit et papauté (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle), ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Rome, 2007), pp. 1–13. 2 M. Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, here quoted from its English translation based on Weber’s 4th edition published by M.  Weber and J.  Winckelmann in Tübingen in 1956 and revised in 1964: M. Weber, Economy and Society. An outline of interpretive sociology, ed. G. Roth, C. Wittich (New York, 1968), I, pp. 218–26. 3  Weber defines ‘legal authority’ as ‘resting on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands’: Weber, Economy and Society, I, p. 215. 4 Weber, Economy and Society, III, pp. 956–1004.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

12

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

was constituted through the continuous operation of officials, whilst administrative acts, decisions and rules were formulated and recorded in writing.5 Nevertheless, Weber maintained that some forms of ‘traditional authority’ developed ‘impure’ models of bureaucracy.6 Traditional authority employed its administrative staff through patrimonial recruitment among the circle of persons who held traditional ties of loyalty to the ruler as well as through extra-patrimonial recruitment, namely staffing the office with free men who voluntarily enter into a relationship of personal loyalty with the ruler and soon become his personal followers. This form of bureaucracy is, therefore, characterized by the absence of: clearly defined spheres of competence subject to impersonal rules; separation between private and public spheres; a rationally established hierarchy and rational rulings; a regular system of appointment on the basis of free contract and orderly promotion; technical training as a regular requirement; and finally, fixed salaries paid in money.7 In particular, Weber focused on the payment of extra-patrimonial officials, which takes place through patrimonial maintenance by means of fiefs and benefices. In Weber’s words, benefices, namely allowances from the lord’s treasury and storehouses, rights of land use in return for service and appropriation of property income, fees or taxes, resulted in ‘prebendalism’ especially within Late Medieval Europe.8 Weber concluded that from the late thirteenth century both the English administration and the Church represent historical examples of ‘Western patrimonial bureaucratic states’, which developed pre-bureaucratic systems, thus making an arbitrary distinction between private and official property and powers as well as supporting their administrative staff through benefices.9 More recently, D’Avray took this argument further, maintaining that the twelfth- and thirteenthcentury papacy did not match Weber’s ideal-type of legal formality and bureaucracy. D’Avray persuasively concluded that the Medieval Church was capable of running its business without the bureaucratic and fiscal foundations of its modern counterparts, supplementing bureaucratic deficiencies with legal inventiveness and ad hoc rules, namely formal rationality.10 Thus far, D’Avray’s argument provides a very convincing answer to the question concerning the lack of a modern bureaucratic apparatus in the Late Medieval Church. What I intend to address here is rather the historical process that led to a  certain state of affairs, namely the mechanisms that initiated and favoured the process of bureaucratization during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In particular, I am interested in bureaucratization as fundamental to the process of communication among polities, namely as complementary to diplomatic practices. This is what Weber defined as ‘routinization’ and ‘rationalization’ of 5 Weber, Economy and Society, I, p. 219; III, pp. 954–7. 6  Weber defines ‘traditional authority’ as ‘resting on an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under them (traditional authority)’: Weber, Economy and Society, I, p. 215. 7 Weber, Economy and Society, I, pp. 228–9; III, pp. 1028–31. 8 Weber, Economy and Society, I, pp. 235–41; III, pp. 1036–42. See Chapter 4. 9 Weber, Economy and Society, III, p. 964, 1041, 1059–64. See also D. D’Avray, Rationalities in History: A Weberian Essay in Comparison (Cambridge, 2010), p. 187. 10 D. D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities: A Weberian Analysis (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 121–36. See also D’Avray, Rationalities in History, p. 187.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   13

actions, in particular the rationalization of the law that developed along with the ­bureaucratization of patrimonial monarchies, such as the English crown, and hierocratic authorities, such as the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century papacy.11 In the first instance, this book will therefore question the extent to which bureaucratization was a shared feature of European polities during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries and, if so, whether bureaucratization took place in different regions at the same time because of parallel developments or rather owing to mutual influences.12 I will primarily address the examples of England and the papal curia, which together form the main focus of the book, occasionally introducing relevant comparative instances concerning other polities. In this chapter my investigation will be principally conducted through a review of relevant secondary literature in order to outline the historiographical debate, which lies behind my original contribution. T H E B U R E AU C R AT I Z AT I O N I N E N G L A N D A N D   AT   T H E   PA PA L C U R I A D U R I N G T H E   T H I RT E E N T H   A N D   F O U RT E E N T H C E N T U R I E S :   A   H I S TO R I O G R A P H I C A L S U RV E Y Weber acknowledged that the bureaucratization of Western patrimonial states generally began when clerical and financial officials gained actual control over the ruler’s offices owing to the increasing continuity and complexity of the grants and privileges that characterized patrimonial and feudal societies and the ­rationalization of finances.13 This was the case for the creation of the exchequer in twelfth-century England, a bureau or office which was constituted through the continuous operation of officials, who formulated and recorded in writing administrative acts, decisions and rules.14 In other words, literacy and record-keeping along with the creation of chancery practices and organization of finances set off the process of bureaucratization. How far is this a fair description of what happened in England and at the papal curia between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries?

Bureaucratization, literacy, and record-keeping From the 1970s historians working on the development of bureaucratic practices in the Middle Ages have focused on bureaucratization with regard to literacy, especially addressing the issues of communication, record-keeping, and state 11 Weber, Economy and Society, II, pp. 753–8, 809–15; III, pp. 1158–64. 12  For a comparative analysis with the bureaucratization of the Italian communes in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries see: Pini, ‘La “burocrazia” comunale della Toscana del Trecento’, pp. 215–40; G. Gardoni, ‘Notai e scritture vescovili a Mantova fra XII e XIV secolo. Una ricerca in corso’, in Chiese e notai (secoli XII–XV) (Verona, 2004), pp. 51–85; M.C. Rossi, ‘I notai di curia e la nascita di una burocrazia vescovile. Il caso veronese’, in, ed. G.G. Merlo, M.C. Rossi, Vescovi medievali (Milano, 2003), pp. 73–164. 13 Weber, Economy and Society, III, p. 1089. This point has been recently developed in U. Kypta, Die Autonomie der Routine. Wie im 12. Jahrhundert das englische Schatzamt entstand (Göttingen, 2014), pp. 272–310. 14  See above n. 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

14

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

formation. Indeed, their work has built on the historiographical tradition of administrative history, which produced major studies in France, Germany, and England in the first three decades of the twentieth century and echoed the original contribution made by research in the social sciences at that time.15 In this respect, the debate on literacy and bureaucratization in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century England provides a good example. In his introduction to Chapters in administrative history, published in 1920, Tout had already maintained that signs of an early bureaucratization of the English central administration began in the second half of the twelfth century with the creation of the exchequer and continued in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when the chancery also became a autonomous office of state, leading to the distinction between legislative, executive and judicial spheres and the separation of ‘the king in his personal ­capacity and the crown as the mainspring of government’.16 Tout also acknowledged that the study of administrative practices had to be linked to record-keeping. He thus made a clear distinction between the archival systems in the exchequer and the chancery and that in the royal household, where, in his opinion, secrecy about the king’s business was a priority and the officials considered the records of their period of activity as their personal property.17 In the 1930s and 1940s Tout’s argument was taken further by Wilkinson, who concluded that the English chancery achieved a full degree of autonomy during the reign of Edward III, and Galbraith, who maintained that the beginning of royal archives originated in the exchequer.18 It was however only with the publication of Clanchy’s work From memory to written record in 1979 that record-keeping in England was for the first time associated with the growth of ‘practical literacy’. Clanchy contended that from the late twelfth century onwards the making and accumulation of records by ecclesiastical and secular institutions as well as lay individuals coincided with the development of literate habits of thought within the lay and ecclesiastical spheres. Clanchy saw the relationship between record-keeping and the growth of practical literacy as a chain-reaction, which also led to the creation of a bureaucracy in the royal administrative apparatus. In fact, he emphasized that from the second half of the twelfth century the growth of record-keeping in the royal administrative system necessitated the formation of a bureaucracy, referred to as ‘a complex process of experiment and makeshift’. In the early thirteenth century this latter was pursued through the activity of administrative innovators who contributed to extend record-keeping to the various departments of the royal administration, mirroring parallel developments on the continent at the same time. In Clanchy’s opinion literacy in thirteenth-century 15  On the relationship between organization of society and literacy see the influential work of J. Goody, The logic of writing and the organization of society (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 87–126. 16 T.F. Tout, Chapters in administrative history, I (Manchester, 1920), pp. 1–18. An informative reconstruction of the historiographical debate on this topic is provided by A. Jobson, ‘Introduction’, in English Government in the Thirteenth Century, ed. A. Jobson (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 1–15. 17 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 34–5. 18 B.  Wilkinson, Studies in the Constitutional History of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Manchester, 1937); B. Wilkinson, ‘The chancery’, in The English Government at work, 1327–1336, ed. J. F. Willard, W. A. Morris, I (Cambridge, MA, 1940), pp. 162–205; V.H. Galbraith, Studies in the Public Records (London, 1948), pp. 37, 47–8, 68. See also below n. 48.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   15

England therefore developed for practical convenience, since the lay and ecclesiastical institutions and individuals needed to accumulate memoranda for future reference and to keep archives for lasting use.19 In the 1990s the debate turned towards the connections between processes of bureaucratization and literacy and forms of political power.20 This was the approach of a conference held in 1995 at the Université du Québec in Montreal, which addressed issues of literacy and power in France and England during the late Middle Ages. The achievements of this conference are undoubtedly significant for the study of bureaucratic practices. As Guth states in his introduction to the conference proceedings, there is in fact an intimate link between written formularies, administrative practices and legal-juridical processes managed by Late Medieval chanceries, especially in England and France, where from the late thirteenth century chanceries functioned as royal secretariat and scriptorium, judicial body, and training organization of bureaucrats.21 Accordingly, Gauvard emphasized the relationship between literacy and the creation of the chancery bureau, which was established to manage the issuing of political, administrative, and diplomatic ­documents as well as to keep records that ought to be preserved as an official memory and used as legal evidence. When it came to provide a definition of chancery, Gauvard argued that the word could be properly used only when the institution appointed an official for the management of the office, namely a chancellor, who was in some instances also acting as a councillor of the king. Gauvard, however, allows for the lack of a clear distinction between private and public spheres as far as some Late Medieval chanceries were concerned, concluding that the growth of literacy and record-keeping was prompted by political circumstances and was associated with the process of state formation, especially from the fourteenth century onwards.22 Indeed, the influence of political circumstances over the growth of the English chancery in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries lies at the core of the contributions of Carpenter and Ormrod to this volume. Carpenter maintained that from the late thirteenth century the English chancery increasingly ‘went out of court’ because of political necessity, whereas ‘government decisions had to be processed through larger webs of bureaucracy and were recorded in ways which were both longwinded and misleading’. Similarly, Ormrod emphasized how in the mid-fourteenth century opponents of the crown sought ‘essentially administrative

19 M.  Clanchy, From memory to written record. England 1066–1307 (London, 1979), especially pp. 46–59, 258–65. 20  For a comprehensive overview of the debate on the rise of national states in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Europe see J. Watts, The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300–1500 (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 23–34. 21  D. J. Guth, ‘Introduction: formulary and literacy as keys to unlocking Late-Medieval law’, in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace Français, espace Anglais, ed. K. Fianu, D.J. Guth (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997), pp. 1–12. The conference was sponsored by the Centre de coopération interuniversitaire franco-québécoise and the research unit ‘Culture politique et société en Europe’ of the CNRS (UMR 9963/Paris 1). 22  C. Gauvard, ‘Conclusion’, in Écrit et pouvoir, pp. 333–42.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

16

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

solution(s) to political problem(s)’, and administrative reforms were facilitated by the ‘cultural ethos and political commitment’ of the bureaucratic apparatus.23 More recently, Vincent has returned to the bureaucratization of the English chancery between the twelfth and the early thirteenth centuries, especially focusing on the practice of enrolling documentation in the English chancery from 1199 onwards. Indeed, in Vincent’s words the writing and record-keeping in the English chancery followed from the twelfth-century practice of recording business in the exchequer and witnessed to ‘a model of bureaucratic process, if not administrative perfection’.24 However, as he put it, this bureaucratic process was built on practices that the Weberian model would have called ‘impure’, since a number of chancery scribes worked as freelancers in the king’s service and most of the documents were written by the beneficiaries’ scribes.25 Vincent therefore concluded that the ­bureaucratization of the English chancery and especially the practice of enrolling documentation from 1199 began as a result of political circumstances, which, from the late twelfth century, prompted a search for innovative solutions. Responsible for this development were, in Vincent’s opinion, Hubert Walter and King John, who were possibly inspired by contemporary registration techniques adopted by the Capetian chancery in France.26 Observations similar to those made for the English case ought to be drawn for the bureaucratization of the papal administration with regard to literacy and record-keeping. The debate on the bureaucratization of the papal curia traditionally builds on the argument that the papacy inherited the administrative institutions of the Roman Empire and that the Byzantine model in the early Middle Ages influenced papal administrative practices.27 As Toubert has recently argued, by the ninth century the papacy had set in place quite sophisticated administrative practices in order to manage its record-keeping and document production, its finances and judicial power. However, in Toubert’s opinion this was not yet a rational bureaucracy, since the appointment to key offices was hereditary and offices could be accumulated.28 It was not until the late eleventh century that the papal curia really began to develop what Southern famously defined as a ‘machinery of papal government’ along with the growth of papal political influence.29 Indeed, the historiography has overall maintained that a proper bureaucratization of the papal curia only took

23  D.A.  Carpenter, ‘The English Royal Chancery in the thirteenth century’, in Écrit et pouvoir, pp. 25–53, esp. p. 38; W.M. Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat in the fourteenth century’, in Écrit et pouvoir, pp. 55–85, esp. p. 57 and 85. See below n. 51. 24  N. Vincent, ‘Why 1199? Bureaucracy and Enrolment under John and his Contemporaries’ in English Government, p. 26. 25  Vincent, ‘Why 1199?’, pp. 30–1. 26  Vincent, ‘Why 1199?’, pp. 34–44. 27 H. Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica per la Germania e l’Italia, trans. A.M. Voci-Roth (Rome, 1998), pp. 168–206. 28  P. Toubert, ‘Scrinium et palatium. La formation de la bureaucratie romano-pontificale aux VIIIe–IXe siècles’, in Roma nell’Alto Medioevo, I (Spoleto, 2001), pp. 57–117. 29 R. Southern, The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven, CT, 1953), pp. 145–54. Toubert, ‘Scrinium et palatium’, pp. 116–17, substantially agrees with this argument. See also Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica, pp. 207–19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   17

place between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.30 In particular, historians have focused on the evidence provided by the making of chancery rules, formularies and constitutions from the pontificate of Innocent III and the almost continuous registration of documents in the papal chancery registers from 1198.31 Accordingly, from the early twentieth century scholars addressed the issue of registration of papal letters in the papal registers, vigorously debating which were the curial departments involved in this process and the purposes of such registration.32 From the 1940s French historians further shifted the focus of the debate to the fourteenth century and emphasized how the Avignon papacy (1305–78) marked significant developments in the bureaucratization of the papal curia. Regardless of fourteenth-century Italian accounts, which depicted the move of the papal curia to France as a period of captivity and exile and whose negative interpretation of the Avignon period remained influential until the seventeenth and eighteenth c­ enturies in the work of both Catholic and Protestant historians, Mollat saw the transfer of the curia to France as a window of opportunity. In his opinion the move to Avignon favoured the growth of the bureaucratic, political, and economic structures of the Church, enhanced the development of European perspectives in the fields of the arts and law, and enabled the papacy to gain political independence from secular rulers, especially given the papal mediation between England and France after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War.33 A few years later Renouard reached similar conclusions, highlighting how the stability of the fourteenth-century curia favoured patronage and a centralized bureaucratic administrative system, especially as far as taxation and collation of benefices were concerned.34 Finally, in 1966 another French historian, Guillemain, produced an impressive study of the papal curia at Avignon, focusing on the curial departments and their personnel, papal and cardinals’ households and curialists. Acknowledging the wealth of documentation produced at the papal curia during the fourteenth century, Guillemain emphasized the importance of personal connections and n ­ epotism in the organization of the administrative apparatus at the Avignonese curia, while he underlined that the developments of its chancery and chamber achieved unprecedented administrative sophistication.35 Finally, Favier recently linked the bureaucratization of the 30 See P.M.  Baumgarten, Aus Kanzlei und Kammer. Erörterung zur kurialen Hof- und Verwaltungsgeschichte im XIII., XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1907); P.M. Baumgarten, Von der apostolischen Kanzlei. Untersuchung über die päpstlichen Tabellionen und die Vizekanzler der Heiligen Römischen Kirche im XIII., XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert (Köln, 1908). 31  On the chancery constitutions see M. Tangl, Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen von 1200–1500 (Innsbruck, 1894); P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Innocent III and the reform of the papal chancery’, in Innocenzo III. Urbs et Orbis, ed. A. Sommerlechner, I (Rome, 2003), pp. 84–101. Papal registers, now lost, were kept at the papal curia already in the twelfth century as pointed out in U.R. Blumenthal, ‘Papal registers in the twelfth century’, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. P. Linehan (Città del Vaticano, 1998), pp. 137–51. 32  The debate on this topic will be extensively addressed below in Chapters. 2, 7, 8, and 9. 33 G. Mollat, Les papes d’Avignon, 1305–1378 (Paris, 1949), pp. 10–12, 32–3. 34 Y.  Renouard, La papauté à Avignon (Paris, 1954); English translation The Avignon papacy (London, 1970), especially p. 132. More recently a similar argument has been suggested by P.N.R.  Zutshi, ‘The Avignon Papacy’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, ed. M.  Jones, VI (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 662–9. 35 B.  Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon, 1309–1376. Étude d’une société (Paris, 1966), especially pp. 698–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

18

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

papal curia during the fourteenth century to the construction of a ‘centralized papal monarchy’, especially stressing the importance of rationalizing record-keeping and finances.36 As Favier put it, in the fourteenth century the Church became a ‘huge machine’, whose government was based on the issuing of dispensations and collation of benefices.37 Following on from Guillemain’s work, since the 1970s French, British, and German historians focused on bureaucratization with regard to the growth and specialization of the personnel at the papal curia and their prosopography. In particular, in her work on the scribes at the papal curia, published in 1972, Schwarz maintained that the bureaucratization of functions within the curial departments began during the pontificate of Innocent III, when the first college of scribes was created.38 She concluded however that the organization of curial personnel did not correspond to the model of rational Weberian bureaucracy, especially since scribes’ activities lacked an office and clear distinction between private and public spheres, while the curial personnel were paid in benefices until the end of the Middle Ages.39 Accordingly, Barbiche and Zutshi took Schwarz’s argument further, ­respectively focusing on the bureaucratization and management of different officials of the papal chancery, such as scriptores and notaries.40 Moreover, Schwarz’s concern with the making of regulation for curial officials and their office, such as the constitutions for the apostolic penitentiary and chancery rules, has been recently addressed in the work of Meyer and Hotz, who have compiled a new edition of the fourteenth- and fifteenthcentury Libri cancellarie.41

36 J. Favier, Les papes d’Avignon (Poitiers, 2006), pp. 181–258. 37 Favier, Les papes, p. 739. 38 B. Schwarz, Die Organisation kurialer Schreiberkollegien von ihrer Entstehung bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1972), pp. 13–24. See also P. Herde, Beiträge zum päpstlichen Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen im 13. Jahrhundert (Kallmünz, 1961); G.F. Nüske, ‘Untersuchungen über das Personal der päpstlichen Kanzlei 1254–1304’, Archiv für Diplomatik 21 (1975), pp. 249–431. 39 Schwarz, Die Organisation, pp. 73–4, 210–16. See also D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities, pp. 136–8. 40  P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The Office of notary in the papal chancery in the mid-fourteenth century’, in Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte, II (Stuttgart, 1998), pp. 665–83; B. Barbiche, ‘Diplomatique et histoire sociale: les “scriptores” de la chancellerie apostolique au XIIIe siècle’, in B. Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, nuntius. Études de diplomatique et de diplomatie pontificales (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Paris, 2007), pp. 43–55; B. Barbiche, ‘Le personnel de la chancellerie pontificale aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, in Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, pp. 21–34; B. Barbiche, ‘Les scribes de la chancellerie apostolique aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles: sources et méthodes d’une enquete prosopographique’, in Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, pp. 35–43. 41  The edition of the rules of the papal chancery was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemein­ schaft, Bonn, and it is available online: Regulae, ordinationes et constitutiones Cancellariae apostolicae, ed. A.  Meyer, https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/fb06/mag/institut/prof-dr-andreas-meyer/kanzleiregeln (accessed 14 July 2018). See A. Meyer, ‘Die geplante neue Edition der spätmittelalterlichen päpstlichen Kanzleiregeln’, in Stagnation oder Fortbildung? Aspekte des allgemeinen Kirchenrechts im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 117–31; B. Hotz has recently published two comprehensive studies based on the edited material: B. Hotz, ‘Von der Dekretale zur Kanzleiregel: Prärogativen beim Benefizienerwerb im 14. Jahrhundert’, in, ed. M. Bertram, Stagnation oder Fortbildung?, pp. 197–219; B. Hotz, ‘ “Libri cancellarie” spätmittelalterlicher Päpste’, in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. P. Erdö, S.A. Szuromi (Città del Vaticano, 2010), pp. 397–418. See also Schwarz, Die Organisation, pp. 218–57.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   19

Finally, between 2001 and 2004 Francophone historiography returned once more to the notion of the state and the making of a centralized bureaucracy in the late Middle Ages and in the Early Modern period at two colloquia, which were held between 2001 and 2004 at the École française de Rome, the École des Chartes, the Deutsches Historisches Institut in Rome and Paris and the University of Avignon. The first conference addressed notions of the state and centralized administrative practices in the longue durée with regard to the relationship between Church and secular rulers, focusing on the careers of state officials and the function of state offices.42 The second colloquium explored the growing professionalism of papal officials and curial offices between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries with reference to the development of literate cultures, the registration of institutional memory and financial and administrative records.43 Finally, in 2008 another Francophone conference engaged with the growth of literacy and record-keeping and related them to the creation of institutional memory and state formation from the late twelfth century onwards. In particular, Jamme and Canteaut here focused on the development of administrative practices respectively at the papal curia and in France, emphasizing the relationship between registration of documents, organization of administrative personnel and petitioners’ requests.44 To sum up: it is an established view that during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries bureaucracies developed in the Medieval West. As pointed out above, this was undoubtedly the case in England and at the papal curia, where the ­creation of more sophisticated administrative practices and the organization of recordkeeping coincided with the development of state formation. Although these bureaucratic developments did not resemble the Weberian rational ‘monocratic’ model, they did meet some of its fundamental requirements, especially with regard to record-keeping and literacy, as I will demonstrate in Chapter 2. Indeed, from the late twelfth century both in England and at the papal curia there is evidence of: continuous registration of business; specialization of administrative departments and personnel; increasing separation of administrative departments from the household; and creation of written rules regulating the work of the administrative offices. However, the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century ‘bureaucracies’ ultimately failed to achieve the complete separation between private and public spheres, especially when it came to the relationship between the authority, its officials and the means of administration, as well as the monetary remuneration of their officials, which were still paid through benefices by the end of the Middle Ages. As mentioned above, these ‘shortcomings’ were after all typical of what the Weberian model defined as ‘patrimonial bureaucracies’.

42  Jamme, Poncet, ‘Offices et papauté’, pp. 1–7. 43  Jamme, Poncet, ‘L’écriture, la mémoire et l’argent’, pp. 1–13. 44  A. Jamme, ‘Formes et enjeux d’une mémoire de l’État pontifical et sa construction scripturaire aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, in L’autorité de l’écrit au Moyen Age (Orient-Occident), XXXIXe Congrès de la SHMESP (Le Caire, 30 avril–5 mai 2008) (Paris, 2009), pp. 341–60; O. Canteaut, ‘Enregistrer, pour quoi faire? Éclairages croisés sur les pratiques d’enregistrement de la monarchie française et de la papauté d’Avignon (1316–1334)’, in L’autorité de l’écrit, pp. 299–316.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

20

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Bureaucratization and finances Together with the organization of chancery practices and record-keeping, the rationalization of finances is a seminal step towards the process of b­ ureaucratization and state formation. In this respect, a good example is provided in Kittell’s study of Flanders between the mid-thirteenth and the mid-fourteenth centuries, when the Flemish counts developed the financial office of general receivership, routinizing administrative actions that had been originally introduced as ad hoc solutions to simplify a complex fiscal situation. When questioning why the Flemish counts did not develop a bureaucratic system centred around the chancery similar to those created in England and France during the thirteenth century, Kittell maintained that this reflected Flemish governmental structure. The latter was in fact characterized by the autonomy of the urban localities, whilst the compact nature of the territories under the counts’ jurisdiction allowed for the development of a non-literate culture whereby the count could engage with his subjects through personal contacts.45 A very different story can be told for the bureaucratization of the English exchequer, which developed as an independent office and organized its recordkeeping in England during the twelfth century. In Tout’s opinion a first sign of English fiscal bureaucratization is to be found in the separation between the wardrobe and the treasury after the Norman conquest, while during the reigns of Henry I and Henry II there is evidence of bureaucratization of the exchequer, which was set up as the new state financial department. The exchequer had its own office, at first located in Winchester but later moving to London in the mid-twelfth century. At the same time the exchequer was also separated from the chamber, although its officials were often drawn from the chamber staff.46 From 1129–30 the exchequer began enrolling in the Pipe rolls individual accounts of the business managed between the office, sheriffs and other accounting officers. The Pipe rolls were kept continuously from the second year of Henry II’s reign (1155–6), while the writs of warranty for expenditure were preserved in files and were not enrolled in the Issue rolls until the thirteenth century.47 By the late twelfth century the exchequer had, therefore, become an office with degrees of rationalization and independence from the rest of the English administration, as is also evidenced in the compilation of the well-known Dialogus de Scaccario, written in about 1179 45 E.E. Kittell, From Ad Hoc to Routine. A Case study in Medieval Bureaucracy (Philadelphia, PA 1991), especially pp. 1–12, 196–205. Another contemporary example of rationalization of financial records is given by the case study of Savoy: G. Castelnuovo, ‘Les officiers princiers et le pouvoir de l’écrit. Pour une histoire documentaire de la principauté savoyarde (XIIIe – XVe siècle)’, in Offices, écrit et papauté, pp. 17–46. 46 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 72–99. 47 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 38–42. In 1925 J.  H.  Ramsay surveyed the Pipe rolls calculating the annual  revenues for the reign of Henry II: J.H.  Ramsay, A History of the Revenues of the Kings of England, 1066–1399, II, (Oxford, 1925). On the early Pipe rolls see also J. Green, ‘Praeclarum et Magnificum Antiquitatis Monumentum: The Earliest Surviving Pipe Roll’, Historical Research 55 (1982), pp. 1–17; K. Yoshitake, ‘The Exchequer in the Reign of Stephen’, EHR 103 (1988), pp. 950–9; N. Karn, ‘Nigel, Bishop of Ely, and the Restoration of the Exchequer after the “Anarchy” of King Stephen’s Reign’, Historical Research 80 (2007), pp. 299–314; Kypta, Die Autonomie, pp. 51–83.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   21

by the treasurer Richard FitzNigel, who remarked especially on the autonomy of this office.48 It was Galbraith too who focused on the importance of the exchequer for its record-keeping practice, which, in his opinion, became a model for the chancery in the early thirteenth century.49 The actual importance of the exchequer accounts, especially the Pipe rolls that represent a valuable, although incomplete, picture of the crown’s income, has been assessed by Barratt, whose focus lay in the late twelfth century. Barratt concluded that a good degree of continuity existed between the fiscal policies of Richard I and John and that both kings overall maintained their income between the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries through the ­exploitation of their subjects, which ultimately contributed to John’s political defeat in 1214.50 Accordingly, Vincent recently emphasized that in the twelfth century the growth of the exchequer with regard to record-keeping and bureaucratic practices ‘lay in the desire to maintain control over the king’s finances’.51 Recent debate has, therefore, linked the reforms that led to the rationalization of royal finances in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to political changes and conflicts. In 1921 Mills had already established a clear relationship between the Barons’ Revolt and the reforms of the exchequer in the 1270s.52 Likewise, Stacey maintained that during the reign of Henry III the exchequer shifted from being ‘an occasion’ to being ‘an institution’, underwent fiscal reforms and rationalized its resources at different stages in order to deal with political problems and factional conflicts caused by the king’s minority and control over the king’s continental possessions. Stacey concluded that ‘the financial and political crisis of the 1250s came as a short, sharp shock’, which could have been avoided if the king’s financial reforms had been implemented in the 1240s.53 Accordingly, Carpenter disputed the independent nature of the exchequer in the early thirteenth century, although he maintained that the king controlled the office through the chancery, which had the authority to manage exchequer and wardrobe expenditure. As Carpenter put it, this administrative system was far from rational, especially after the chancery became independent from the household, and led in the late thirteenth century to confusion with regard to the record-keeping of government decisions, while the king’s financial demands ran beyond his resources owing to the lengthy procedures required by this complicated bureaucratic financial system.54 Finally, Barratt recently emphasized that the reign of Henry III marked a substantial recovery of 48  Richard FitzNigel, Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. C. Johnson, F.E.L Carter, D.E. Greenway (Oxford, 1983). 49  See above n. 18. On the exchequer and its scriptorium see also Clanchy, From memory, pp. 41–2. 50  N. Barratt, ‘The Revenue of King John’, EHR 111 (1996), pp. 835–55; N. Barratt, ‘The English Revenue of Richard I’, EHR 116 (2001), pp. 635–56. 51  Vincent, ‘Why 1199?’, p. 20–7, 37–41. On these enrolments see also Clanchy, From memory, p. 48. 52  M.H. Mills, ‘Adventus Vicecomitum and Financial Crisis of Henry III’s Reign, 1250–1272’, EHR 36 (1921), pp. 614–27. 53 R.C. Stacey, Politics, Policy, and Finance under Henry III, 1216–1245 (Oxford, 1987), pp. ix, 258–9. 54  Carpenter, ‘The English Royal Chancery’, in Écrit et pouvoir, p. 38.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

22

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the exchequer’s functions to the detriment of the royal household and wardrobe, as evidenced in the reform of the exchequer’s task of issue and receipt between 1241 and 1242.55 However, in Barratt’s opinion, ‘the crisis of 1258 precipitated another collapse of the exchequer authority’ and from the 1270s it forced Edward I to embark on new reforms. The latter consisted in the rationalization of the internal bureaucracy of the exchequer, especially the Pipe rolls, and its personnel’s turnover; a new accounting system; and the integration of the exchequer and the wardrobe financial systems.56 These remedies were needed to overcome Edward’s crisis of cash flow and they were, in Barratt’s words, ‘not simply a love of bureaucracy, but a reflection of sophisticated mechanisms that were being employed to ensure that all entries between exchequer and wardrobe correlated’.57 Conversely, while agreeing that Edward I’s reign marked a turning point in state-building thanks to the king’s reforms which enhanced the power of the crown and the creation of governmental frameworks, Ormrod maintained that in the late thirteenth century the exchequer lost control over wardrobe expenditure owing to the pressures of war.58 In Ormrod’s opinion Edward’s fiscal reforms were promoted to fund the king’s military expeditions, although they were hardly successful. Indeed, he highlighted that the political crisis during Edward’s reign arose from the grievances of his subjects against new taxes, which were in return required owing to political circumstances. In particular, Ormrod identified as causes of these problems the lack of coordination and ‘collapse of bureaucratic relations’ among administrative departments, especially the wardrobe and the exchequer, as well as the difficulty of collecting extraordinary taxation from the localities.59 Finally, he remarked that one of the reasons for the exchequer’s underperformance in the late thirteenth century was that the growth of its business was not accompanied by an increase in its staff. While Edward I tried to remedy this situation through the employment of clerical staff and the implementation of record-keeping, the king’s fiscal and accounting administrative reforms were nevertheless ‘backwardlooking’ and his attempts at introducing new forms of record-keeping were not in themselves an ‘indication of bureaucratic reform or an index of administrative success’.60 As Ormrod put it, by 1307 the exchequer was collapsing under the weight of its own antiquated procedures and ‘it was only the major restructuring carried out in the 1320s that rescued the department from administrative inertia and e­ nabled it to assume its central place in the structure of royal finance during the fourteenth century’.61 Both Buck and Phillips, who have focused on the reign of Edward II, have taken this argument further. In Buck’s opinion Edward II’s reforming ordinances of the exchequer and household in 1323, 1324, and 1326 were implemented owing to 55  N. Barratt, ‘The Exchequer in the Thirteenth Century’, in English Government, pp. 73–4. 56  Barratt, ‘The Exchequer’, pp. 74–84. 57  Barratt, ‘The Exchequer’, p. 85. 58  W.M. Ormrod, ‘State-Building and State Finance in the Reign of Edward I’, in, ed. W.M. Ormrod, England in the Thirteenth Century, Proceedings of the 1989 Harlaxton Symposium (Stamford, 1991), pp. 15–35. See also M. Prestwick, Edward I (London, 1988), pp. 535–6. 59  Ormrod, ‘State-Building’, pp. 23–9. 60  Ormrod, ‘State-Building’, p. 33. 61  Ormrod, ‘State-Building’, p. 34.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   23

political circumstances and the king’s need to raise more revenue in order to repay old debts. These reforms were financially successful overall, although they were among the reasons for Edward’s deposition in 1327.62 More recently, Phillips maintained that the royal financial offices had already began reforming and ­reorganizing their record-keeping and tax system between 1315 and 1320 and attributed the success of these changes to the treasurer Walter Stapeldon.63 Finally, Ormrod emphasized the importance of the period between 1338 and 1340, when Edward III issued the so-called Walton Ordinances at the beginning of the Hundred Years’ War. In the Ordinances Edward III prescribed coordination between domestic and continental departments of the royal administration, namely between the chancery and the exchequer, which remained in London, and the wardrobe and privy seal, which accompanied Edward to the continent.64 In Ormrod’s opinion the administrative crisis that characterized the regency in Edward’s absence allowed the king to foster the emergence of a new generation of financial ministers, who had close connections to the king, and to rationalize his financial offices, ultimately creating ‘an administrative machinery that gave due priority to the king’s own wishes’. This ‘administrative machinery’ was, in Ormrod’s words, both ‘bureaucratic and coercive’ and led to the formation of a royal secretariat, which made the bureaucratic system more efficient thanks to the solid commitment of royal officials, especially in the 1340s and the 1350s.65 Arguably, the role of administrative personnel and their independence from the ruler is one of the main features of the Weberian model of bureaucracy. Indeed, the position of the personnel employed in the bureaucratization of English government in the later Middle Ages has been addressed by Griffiths and Vale as part of a conference on prosopography and modern state-building, organized in Paris in 1984. While maintaining that the bureaucratization of the English state between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries mostly depended on political circumstances, Griffiths emphasized how state-building and bureaucratic growth benefitted from the administrative expertise of local officials, already serving the local nobility. In his opinion, it was thanks to these local bureaucracies that the English central administration built its bureaucratic apparatus in the fourteenth century, while only in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries did a new class of civil ­servants, lay and literate, overturn this trend.66 Meanwhile, Vale focused on English administration in Gascony, pointing out how English kings exercised their right of appointment in Gascony without allowing for private possession of public 62  M. Buck, ‘The reforms of the exchequer 1316-1326’, EHR 98 (1983), pp. 241–60. The personal nature of Edward II’s rule had already been highlighted in J.C.  Davies, The baronial opposition to Edward II. Its character and policy (Cambridge, 1918). 63 S. Phillips, Edward II (New Haven, CT—London, 2010), pp. 443–5. 64  Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, pp. 58–9. See also Chapters 2 and 8. 65  Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, p. 84; W.M.  Ormrod, Edward III (Third edition, Stroud, 2005), pp. 98–105. On the implementation of fiscal reforms under Edward III and the relationship between the exchequer and local fiscal activities see also The English Government at work, 1327–1336, ed. W.A. Morris, J.R. Strayer, II (Cambridge, MA, 1947). 66  R. Griffiths, ‘Bureaucracy and the English State in the Later Middle Ages’, in Prosopographie et genèse de l’état moderne (Paris, 1986), pp. 53–66.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

24

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

functions through hereditary rights. In particular, Vale emphasized that from the 1340s English rule in Gascony made use of independent royal representatives who were not born locally, who were not paid through benefices but salaried by the king’s exchequer, and who were accountable to the exchequer. This evidences, in Vale’s words, the creation of ‘a professional bureaucracy’ and the ‘characteristics of an incipient modern state’.67 When compared to England, the bureaucratization of the financial offices at the papal curia followed very different patterns. Toubert argued that between the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh centuries three offices had already developed: the financial offices under the watch of the arcarius and saccellarius; the office managing the patrimony (overseen by the primus defensor); and the office dealing with charitable assistance (led by the nomenclator). By the ninth century the offices of arcarius and saccellarius were still under the control of members of the Roman nobility, and the office was located in the palatium of the pope in Rome.68 It was only in the mid-eleventh century along with the enforcement of papal temporal powers that Pope Leo IX created the title of oeconomus and appointed to the office Hildebrand, later Pope Gregory VII. Hildebrand’s tenure marked the beginning of the centralization and bureaucratization of the papal finance office, which mostly managed papal territorial possessions in Rome.69 This process was carried on by Urban II, who first introduced the terms camera (chamber) and camerarius (chamberlain) with regard to his finance office, probably imitating the administrative practice of the congregation of Cluny, to which Urban belonged before becoming pope. By the mid-twelfth century the papal chamber had been increasingly brought under the direct control of the pope, who excluded the Roman nobility from its management, preferring to appoint one of his own personal advisers as chamberlain (camerarius domini pape). At the same time the chamber rationalized its record-keeping with the compilation of the Liber pontificalis, a collection of ordines and popes’ lives, and the Liber censuum ecclesie Romane, a complete list of the taxable lands under papal administration, dated 1192. In Paravicini Bagliani’s opinion, this organizational process was efficiently managed by literate men, such as Boso, cardinal deacon of Santi Cosma and Damiano during the pontificate of Hadrian IV, and Cencius, later on Pope Honorius III, and evidences the rationalization of the administrative practice at the papal curia between the mid-twelfth and the early thirteenth centuries.70 Arguably, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the rationalization and bureaucratization of the papal chamber coincided with the centralization of papal power and papal attempts to secure collection of taxes all over Christendom. From the pontificate of Innocent III the office of the chamberlain and his household 67  M.  Vale, ‘Nobility, Bureaucracy and the “state” in English Gascony, 1250–1340: a prosopographical approach’, in Prosopographie et genèse, pp. 304–12. 68 Toubert,‘Scrinium et palatium’, pp. 90–104. 69  A. Paravicini Bagliani, La cour des papes, au XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1995), pp. 79–80; A. Paravicini Bagliani, Il Trono di Pietro. L’universalità del papato da Alessandro III a Bonifacio VIII (Roma, 1996), pp. 71–3. 70  Paravicini Bagliani, La cour des papes, pp. 80–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   25

were separated from the person of the pope himself. It was entrusted with the management of the income of the Roman Church, donations, payments to the curialists and the financial transactions concerning palaces and churches, which were under the direct control of the pope. By the mid-thirteenth century the hierarchy of offices within the chamber included an official, who managed the papal palace, and a treasurer, who was in charge of the papal treasury, the papal library, and archives.71 Accordingly, in the mid-thirteenth century the chamber became more involved with record-keeping and began compiling its own registers of papal letters, concerned with administrative and financial matters. The first surviving evidence is from the 1260s, when letters concerning the financial administration of the papal state were collected in special series of registers.72 Moreover, in the fourteenth century a new section of the chamber was reserved to the taxatores litterarum apostolicarum in bullaria, who oversaw the sealing of papal letters and collected payments of their fees.73 Finally, in the mid-fourteenth century scribes and abbreviators, who worked for the chamber and were especially trustworthy, were appointed as papal secretaries. These secretaries were involved in the compilation of curial letters and curial registers, which were not produced in the chancery, but in the chamber.74 The apostolic chamber through its secretaries took over the drafting, checking and issuing of curial letters, which were the political and administrative correspondence produced on the initiative of the curia. Along with curial letters, the secretaries were also often involved in the production of common letters, which were letters issued in response to petitions.75 The growth of the papal chamber between the mid-fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries as an office that issued documents and kept records is remarkable. In 1357 there were already three secretaries, while there were six of them by the end of the fourteenth century. Finally, in 1487 under Innocent VIII they numbered twenty-four and were organized in a corporation (collegium). Under Paul II (1464–71) the head of the office was the secretarius secretus and the other officials were called secretarii domestici.76 However, from the early thirteenth century what substantially distinguishes the financial activity of the papal chamber from the management of the English 71  Paravicini Bagliani, La cour des papes, pp. 81–2. Paravicini Balgiani emphasizes that the first inventory of the papal treasury dates from 1295: it evidences the immense wealth of the curia and the number of diplomatic gifts donated by the kings of England, France, Castile, and the counts of Champagne (Paravicini Bagliani, La cour des papes, pp. 82–4). See also Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica, p. 258; M.D. Ross, The papal chapel, 1288–1304: a study in institutional and cultural exchange (PhD, UCL, 2013), pp. 82–101. 72 Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica, pp.107–8; Favier, Les papes, pp. 214–15. 73 Baumgarten, Aus Kanzlei und Kammer; pp. 247–56; Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica, pp. 278–9. 74  P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Inextricabilis curie labyrinthus. The Presentation of Petitions to the Pope in the Chancery and the Penitentiary during the Fourteenth and First Half of the Fifteenth Century’, in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A. Meyer, C. Rendtel, M. Wittmer—Butsch (Tübingen, 2004), pp. 393–4. See Chapters 2 and 9. 75 Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica, pp. 280–6. 76 Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica, pp. 282–3; Guillemain, La cour, pp. 294–301; F. Baix, ‘Notes sur les Clercs de la Chambre apostolique (XIIIe – XIVe siècles)’, Bulletin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome 27 (1952), pp. 17–51. T. Frenz, I documenti pontifici nel Medioevo e nell’Età moderna (Città del Vaticano, 1998), pp. 65–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

26

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

exchequer is the employment of banking companies at the papal curia. These bankers are already mentioned in the Liber censuum as officials of the chamberlain and had the function of exchanging foreign currencies collected as ecclesiastical revenues all over Christendom. Pope Gregory IX (1227–41) appointed two Italian banking companies as campsores camere with the specific duty of exchanging foreign currencies and administering the papal accounts. In the second half of the thirteenth century these bankers were renamed as mercatores camere or mercatores domini pape and broadened their activity to tax collection and money-lending to the papal chamber and its debtors.77 In the thirteenth century these bankers were mainly from Siena and Florence, while the number of companies allowed to trade at the papal curia grew exponentially until the 1290s. Pope Boniface VIII first reformed this practice, limiting the number of banking companies to three, which, in Paravicini Bagliani’s view, were chosen from among Boniface VIII’s personal acquaintances. Two more companies were allowed to administer the papal financial transactions in the Comtat Venaissin in southern France, where the papal curia moved in 1305.78 Furthermore, Boniface VIII rationalized the financial recordkeeping of the chamber through the compilation of the so-called Liber arancius, which recorded a copy of the financial transactions (income and expenditure) that were managed by the chamber banking companies and were also registered in the companies’ account books.79 As Paravicini Bagliani puts it, what is most remarkable about the rationalization of papal finances in the late thirteenth century is that the process of bureaucratization benefitted from the service of external companies, over which the chamber had little or no control, although the officials of these banking companies were considered members of the curia, where they enjoyed dining rights and other privileges.80 Undoubtedly, this extended network of banking companies had the great advantage of providing the curia with an ad hoc solution to its unique needs of transferring money and managing tax collection internationally in territories with diverse financial systems and currencies.81 It was Favier who recently emphasized the key role played by the Avignon papacy in rationalizing record-keeping and finances, which also led to the growth of the papal chamber.82 Indeed, the Avignon papacy reformed and centralized both its 77  Paravicini Bagliani, La cour des papes, pp. 84–5. See also I. Ait, ‘I mercatores camere Bonifacii pape octavi’, in Dante e il giubileo, ed. E. Esposito (Roma, 2000), pp. 55–68; M. Vendittelli, ‘Mercanti romani del primo Duecento “in urbe potentes”’, in Rome aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles. Cinq études réunies par Étienne Hubert (Roma, 1993), pp. 87–135; M. Vendittelli, ‘In partibus Anglie’. Cittadini romani alla corte inglese nel Duecento: la vicenda di Pietro Saraceno (Roma, 2001). 78  These companies were the Mozzi and the Spini from Florence and the Chiarenti from Perugia: Paravicini Bagliani, La cour des papes, p. 86. 79  Paravicini Bagliani, La cour des papes, p. 86. See also Ait, ‘I mercatores’, pp. 65–8. 80  Paravicini Bagliani, La cour des papes, p. 87. 81  A. Jamme, ‘De la banque à la chambre? Naissance et mutations d’une culture comptable dans les provinces papales entre XIIIe et XVe siècle’, in Offices, écrit, pp. 97–8. 82 Favier, Les papes, pp. 181–258. See above n. 35. A comparative example is given by the rationalization and growth of competence of the French chamber from the last two decades of the thirteenth century: E. Lalou, ‘Introduction’, in Les comptes sur tablettes de cire de la chambre aux deniers de Philippe III le Hardi et de Philippe IV le Bel (1282–1309) (Paris, 1994), pp. xxv–lii; E. Lalou, ‘Enguerran de Marigny et l’évolution du métier de la Chambre du roi’, in Finances, Pouvoirs et Mémoire. Mélanges offerts à Jean Favier, ed. J. Kerhervé, A. Rigaudière (Paris, 1999), pp. 269–78.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   27

control over ecclesiastical fiscal revenues and their payment and collection. In the fourteenth century the ecclesiastical revenues consisted of: tenths, annual revenues and service taxes on major and minor ecclesiastical benefices; e­xtraordinary pecuniary subsidies on clerical and lay income; mandatory income taxes and tenths on laity and clergy to meet extraordinary expenditures, notably crusading; revenues from the papal patrimony in Italy; the so-called Peter’s Pence, a census marking the proprietary right of the Roman Church over its vassals; and fees for services provided by the papal administrative and judiciary departments at the papal curia.83 Tax collection was secured through a network of papal collectors, who managed ordinary and extraordinary collection of taxes and tenths in partibus and were responsible for transferring the money to the curia often through the service provided by banking companies, which stored the money, made it available at the papal curia and exchanged different currencies.84 As Jamme has shown, these reforms coincided with the development of administrative fiscal organizations in partibus, especially from the pontificate of John XXII (1317–34). This was certainly the case for the papal patrimony, where from 1272 the provinces were assigned provincial treasurers, responsible for the increasing sophistication of fiscal record-keeping and registers, centrally controlled by the papal chamber.85 Together with implementing its local fiscal administration, the Avignon papacy also developed more sophisticated administrative procedures to centralize the management of its finances. From the early fourteenth century two innovations stand out and indicate the increasing bureaucratization of the papal financial offices. First, as Mollat and more recently Jamme pointed out, from 1306 the chamber officials kept their accounts without making any further use of external banking companies.86 This major reform, along with the centralization of tax collections, led to the growth of the chamber personnel. In particular, the chamberlain, who was usually a member of the episcopate, acquired a seminal role within the papal administration, where he was responsible for the organization of fiscal and monetary policies, the management of the treasury, its officials and tax ­collectors. The chamberlain also gained a central position in the papal household, where he often acted as papal adviser and councillor.87 In addition to reforming the chamberlain’s office, the bureaucratization of papal finances during the Avignon 83 Favier, Les papes, pp. 236–50. See also Ch. Samaran, G. Mollat, La fiscalité pontificale en France au XIVe siècle (période d’Avignon et Grand Schisme d’Occident) (Paris, 1905), pp. 11–68. 84  Samaran, Mollat, La fiscalité pontificale, pp. 69–79, 142–58; Y. Renouard, Les hommes d’affaires Italiens du Moyen Age (Paris, 1949), pp. 136–9; Favier, Les papes, pp. 215–18, 253–8, 367–74. See also Guillemain, La cour, pp. 301–3; B. Dini, ‘I mercanti-banchieri e la sede apostolica (XIII-prima metà del XIV secolo)’, in Gli spazi economici della chiesa nell’occidente mediterraneo (secoli XII–metà XIV) (Pistoia, 1999), pp. 42–62. 85 A.  Jamme, ‘Du journal de caisse au monument comptable. Les fonctions changeantes de l’enregistrement dans le Patrimoine de Saint-Pierre (fin XIIIe – XIVe siècle)’, MEFR 118/2 (2006), pp. 247–68. For the activity of papal collectors in France see Samaran, Mollat, La fiscalité pontificale, pp. 79–123. On the bureaucratization of the administration of the papal state in the fourteenth century see also M.T. Caciorgna, ‘Scritture e ufficiali pontifici nella Campagna e Marittima del primo Trecento’, in Offices, écrit et papauté, pp. 47–71. 86  Jamme, ‘Du journal de caisse’, pp. 251–2; Samaran, Mollat, La fiscalité pontificale, pp. 1–10. 87 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 277–80. See also Samaran, Mollat, La fiscalité pontificale, pp. 1–10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

28

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

period also formalized the office of the treasury, which not only managed the papal treasure but also the taxation of benefices and the accounts of the chamber.88 As Guillemain put it, it is therefore hardly surprising that the chamber and treasury staff grew exponentially during the fourteenth century, when officials were mainly recruited among French and occasionally Italian skilled professionals.89 Moreover, as Hayez has recently pointed out, from the pontificate of John XXII, the administrative personnel in Avignon were paid salaries, which were calculated hierarchically by the apostolic chamber on a weekly basis according to the tasks fulfilled by each official and the number of days worked, whereas clerical officials could still top up this income with the provision to a benefice.90 Second, in the fourteenth century the chamber began recording its income and expenditure in account registers, which were regularly kept from John XXII’s pontificate (1316), when the curia settled its residence at Avignon.91 As Piola Caselli and Weiß put it, throughout the fourteenth century the chamber recordkeeping was rationalized through different sets of registers organized chronologically and compiled in three series from 1320 onwards: the ordinary registers of income and expenditure (libri ordinarii); the so-called libri manuali, recording the transactions of each curial department, whose expenditure had to be approved by the chamberlain; and finally the libri de diversis, probably compiled by the treasurer to account before the pope for expenditures and income at the end of each financial year.92 Furthermore, from the mid-fourteenth century the annual accounts were verified through the compilation of monthly and annual checks of the total income and expenditure, respectively recorded in enrolments and chronological registers— this was especially needed given that the chamber income comprised about twenty different currencies.93 In Piola Caselli’s opinion the growth of the chamber services during the fourteenth century is also mirrored in the physical space occupied by its offices in the papal palace at Avignon. In 1338 the chamber office was assigned a central location, close to the papal apartment in the so-called Tour des Anges, where the papal treasure was also kept in two different depositories.94 Arguably, the two case studies concerning the financial and fiscal administration of England and the papacy evidence a definite shift towards a more systematic 88 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 280–2; Favier, Les papes, 211–14. 89 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 283–94, 304. Guillemain accounted for 565 chamber officials during the Avignon period. On the role of the chamber in the registration and administration of the appointment of papal officials between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries see also O. Poncet, ‘Les traces documentaires des nominations d’officiers pontificaux (fin XIIIe–XVIIe)’, in Offices et papauté, pp. 93–123. 90  A.M. Hayez, ‘La rétribution des officiers et familiers des papes au XIVe siècle’, in Offices, écrit, pp. 427–48. See also P. Genequand, ‘Les rémunérations composites à la cour pontificale au début du Grand Schisme d’Occident’, in Offices, écrit, pp. 449–95. 91  F.  Piola Caselli, ‘La contabilità camerale nel periodo avignonese’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Rome, 1990), pp. 413–15; S. Weiß, Rechnungswesen und Buchhaltung des Avignoneser Papsttums (1316–1378). Eine Quellenkunde (Hannover, 2003). 92  Piola Caselli, ‘La contabilità camerale’, pp. 417–22. 93  Piola Caselli, ‘La contabilità camerale’, pp. 422–31. 94  Samaran, Mollat, La fiscalité pontificale, pp. 9–10; Piola Caselli, ‘La contabilità camerale’, pp. 431–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   29

bureaucratic model between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. Nevertheless, both polities ultimately failed to achieve a complete separation between the authority, its officials and the financial means of administration, in line with what has already been indicated insofar as record-keeping, literacy, and chancery practice were concerned. The chronological overlap between the bureaucratization of financial offices in England and at the papal curia that emerges from this ­historiographical survey is, however, only superficial. Indeed, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the financial rationalization of administrative practices in England and at the papal curia followed very different patterns. On the one hand, the English government developed its financial offices earlier than the papacy through the ­creation of the exchequer, which by the second half of the twelfth century had already been separated from the chamber and king’s household and had its own office. The historiography overall maintains that the reasons for this early bureaucratization of the English royal financial offices were mainly dictated by political and military circumstances as well as practical convenience.95 On the other hand, in the second half of the twelfth century the role of the chamber at the papal curia was consolidated as part of the political growth and independence of the papacy from the Roman nobility and other lay powers. However, the administrative tasks of the papal chamber were managed by external banking companies until the early fourteenth century, when the chamber took control of the administration of its accounts and money collection, although it was still associated with the papal household. In similar fashion, English fiscal administrative practice evidences an earlier organization of record-keeping, as the systematic enrolment of issues and receipts in the Pipe rolls from early in the reign of Henry II demonstrates. The ­historiography has suggested that in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries these early literate practices did not follow a linear pattern of development and had to face several challenges and reforms owing to critical political circumstances and military campaigns, which forced the English crown to reorganize its fiscal administration at different stages. On the contrary, the registration of financial records at the papal curia was undertaken later, but was overall more straightforward. The first fiscal record of the papal chamber, the Liber censuum, dates from 1192, while the papal chamber did not establish a systematic accounting method until the end of the thirteenth century, mainly because independent banking companies externally managed the chamber accounts. It was not until 1306 that the chamber’s recordkeeping practices were drastically rationalized alongside the papal centralization of its fiscal administration. Finally, the convoluted political circumstances that characterized the history of the English crown between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries also appears to have hampered attempts to provide English administrative departments with a hierarchy of offices and specialized personnel. Indeed, the historiography has 95  Accordingly, in the mid-thirteeth century a special financial office for the overseas English territories was established in Bordeaux: J.P. Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise en Gascogne sous Henry III et Édouard I de 1254 à 1307 (Paris—Genève, 1972), pp. 287–331.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

30

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

suggested that various attempts at rationalizing the work of the exchequer were undermined by the lack of co-ordination with other administrative departments, especially the wardrobe. Similarly, political circumstances seem to have delayed until the fifteenth century the complete separation between the king and his administrative personnel in England, leading to the creation of a class of civil ­servants and secretaries who were either close to the king or came from the administration of baronial estates (although a special case has to be made here for the administration of the English continental territories, as pointed out earlier). On the contrary, once it was fully rationalized and developed in the fourteenth century, the papal chamber organized its offices hierarchically, mainly employing skilled clerical personnel, whose remuneration consisted of both salaries and provisions to benefices. B U R E AU C R AT I Z AT I O N O F E N G L A N D A N D T H E PA PA C Y   I N T H E T H I RT E E N T H A N D F O U RT E E N T H C E N T U R I E S : PA R A L L E L D E V E L O P M E N T S O R   M U T U A L   I N F LU E N C E S ? Undoubtedly, the bureaucratization of English and papal chanceries and financial administrations between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was comparable and overlapped chronologically. All in all, historians have identified three agencies responsible for underpinning the rationalization of administrative practices in these two polities: first, the outbreak of international conflicts and the change of political circumstances which characterized parallel autonomous developments in different regions;96 second, the need of each polity to modernize its administrative practices owing to the internal and domestic demands of its subjects; and third, the initiative and inventiveness of administrative officials, who contributed to the establishment and implementation of innovative administrative practices. Yet, historians of English and papal administrative history have largely overlooked the possibility that the practice of diplomacy could nurture mutual influences in administrative and diplomatic procedures. Equally, as previously argued in the Introduction, only a few historians of Medieval diplomacy have engaged with the influence of diplomatic discourse upon the development of comparable administrative practices in different polities, considering the possibility that the latter occurred as a result of mutual influences.97 All in all, what historians of administrative and diplomatic history have mostly failed to explore is the extent to which different bureaucratic traditions forged ‘shared administrative and performative languages’ because of the practice of diplomacy in the late Middle Ages, adapting their different procedures, styles, formularies, and ceremonial practices, and whether this shared ground resulted 96  This question will be carefully addressed through four case studies concerning Anglo-papal relations in the first half of the fourteenth century in Part II. 97  For a discussion of the historiographical debate on this point see the Introduction.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Bureaucratization of Polities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries   31

from mutual borrowing or rather imitation.98 In order to answer these questions, I will therefore proceed in Chapter 2 to the examination of chancery practices in England and at the papal curia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, while in Chapter 3 I explore how Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse forged a shared language of diplomacy to convey oral and written messages. Accordingly, in Chapter 4 the role of informal and unofficial contacts in the diplomatic milieu will be assessed in order to examine their contribution to the formation of shared administrative and diplomatic practices in England and at the papal curia during the first half of the fourteenth century. Finally, in Chapter 5 I will focus on the human agency and assess the contribution of those professionals, who prompted the process of administrative reforms and were responsible for managing written and oral communication among polities together with those who were in different degrees involved in actual diplomatic missions, and petitioners who travelled abroad to seek favours and services, especially at the papal curia.99 It was ultimately thanks to their e­ xpertise and efforts that, in Weber and D’Avray’s words, bureaucratic deficiencies of the formal legal systems could be supplemented with ad hoc solutions.100 98  B.  Bombi, ‘Petitioning between England and Avignon in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century’, in Medieval Petitions: Grace and Grievance, ed. W.M.  Ormrod, G.  Dodd, A.  Musson (Woodbridge, 2009), pp. 73–81; B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research 85 (2012), pp. 602–3. 99 P.  Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London—New York, 2003), especially pp. 75–6. 100  See Introduction, n. 10.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

2 Chancery Practices in England and at the Papal Curia During the Fourteenth Century Throughout the fourteenth century bureaucratic developments across Europe went hand in glove with the practice of diplomacy. The technical nature of the business transacted in the management of fourteenth-century foreign affairs in fact relied on increasingly sophisticated bureaucratic demands, prompted by the growth of literacy in the Medieval West, as well as on the contribution of administrators and diplomatic envoys, whose activities were defined and professionalized from the late thirteenth century onwards. As Cuttino put it, this process of bureaucratization and professionalization of diplomacy particularly developed during the first decade of Edward III’s reign, between 1327 and 1339, when domestic turmoil in England and the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War led to the growing specialization of the administrative and diplomatic personnel in England and in other leading European polities, especially at the papal curia. In Cuttino’s words fourteenth-century diplomacy was therefore characterized by the transition ‘from a condition of political decentralization to one of comparative unity’.1 The ultimate outcomes of such growth of administrative and diplomatic practices were the implementation of shared administrative procedures, which could effectively support diplomatic activities, and the creation of a ‘shared language of diplomacy’, which borrowed heavily from the Italian and French tradition of the dictamen as well as notarial practices. In order to assess how shared administrative practices and a ‘language of diplomacy’ came into existence, I shall therefore first address the formation of chancery practices at the papal curia and in England between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries with a special focus on the management of diplomatic activities and correspondence.2 I will further question the extent to which administrative practices of writing and record-keeping of diplomatic ­correspondence in those two polities were comparable and focus on the modalities of communication amongst them. Given that the fourteenth-century English and papal administrative systems met the criteria of what Weber defined as ‘patrimonial bureaucracies’, as argued in Chapter 1, in my comparative analysis of the English and papal chancery practices 1 G.P. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), pp. 96–7. See also J.R. Wright, The Church and the English Crown, 1305–1334 (Toronto, 1980), p. 114. 2  For the use of the term ‘chancery’ and its definition see C. Gauvard, ‘Conclusion’, in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace Français, espace Anglais, ed. K. Fianu, D.J. Guth (Louvainla-Neuve, 1997), pp. 333–42; O. Guyotjeannin, ‘Écrire en chancellerie’, in Auctor et auctoritas. Invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale, ed. M. Zimmermann (Paris, 2001), pp. 17–35. See also Chapter 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

33

I will specifically refer to some of the Weberian criteria: the evidence of systematic record-keeping; the professionalization of the administrative personnel and the separation between the office holder and his office; the increasing separation of the chancery from the household; the creation of written rules overseeing and coordinating the work in the chancery with that of other administrative departments; and the remuneration of administrative officials through benefices rather than salaries. T H E PA PA L C H A N C E RY A N D T H E P O P E ’ S S E C R E TA R I E S Historians concur that the growth of the papal chancery throughout the thirteenth century was prompted by the increasing number of petitions and demands for legal arbitrations presented to the papal curia as well as by the progressively interventionist papal policy with regard to provisions to ecclesiastical benefices.3 The development of the thirteenth-century papal chancery featured the organization of a hierarchy of officials in this office, under the supervision of the vice-chancellor; the establishment of rules overseeing the activity of chancery officials; and an increasingly sophisticated system of record-keeping in registers.4 Accordingly, throughout the thirteenth century the papal chancery gradually began to coordinate its activity with other curial departments, which were administering papal justice (the audientia publica, later known as Rota, and the audientia litterarum contradictarum), granting papal graces (the penitentiary), and managing papal finances (the apostolic chamber).5 In this respect, the decades between the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries, especially the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216), have been considered as a turning point, since, alongside the almost continuous registration of documents, chancery rules, formularies and constitutions were introduced, establishing regulations for the procedures to petition the papal curia, the activity of proctors and to detect the production of 3  For the debate on this issue see P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Petitioners, popes, proctors: the development of curial institutions, c. 1150–1250’, in Pensiero e sperimentazioni istituzionali nella ‘Societas Christiana’ (1046–1250), ed. G. Andenna (Milano, 2007), pp. 265–8; P. Rabikauskas, ‘La parte sostenuta dalla cancelleria nelle concessioni papali delle grazie’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne. La fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Rome, 1990), pp. 223–5. 4 P.M. Baumgarten, Aus Kanzlei und Kammer. Erörterung zur kurialen Hof- und Verwaltungsgeschichte im XIII., XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1907); P.M. Baumgarten, Von der apostolischen Kanzlei. Untersuchung über die päpstlichen Tabellionen und die Vizekanzler der Heiligen Römischen Kirche im XIII., XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert (Köln, 1908); H. Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica per la Germania e l’Italia, trans. A.M. Voci-Roth, (Roma, 1998), pp. 223–58; R.L. Poole, The Papal Chancery (Cambridge, 1915), pp. 142–62; P. Herde, Beiträge zum päpstlichen Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen im dreizehnten Jahrhundert (Kallmünz, 1961), pp. 101–80; J.  Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227) (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 15–49; T. Frenz, I documenti pontifici nel Medioevo e nell’Età Moderna (Città del Vaticano, 1998), pp. 52–60; P. Toubert, ‘‘Scrinium et palatium. La formation de la bureaucratie romano-pontificale aux VIIIe–IXe siècles’, in Roma nell’Alto Medioevo, I (Spoleto, 2001), pp. 56–117; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Innocent III and the reform of the papal chancery’, in Innocenzo III. Urbs et Orbis, ed. A. Sommerlechner (Roma, 2003), pp. 84–101. See also Chapter 1. 5 Herde, Beiträge, pp. 83–5; P. Herde, Audientia litterarum contradictarum. Untersuchungen über die päpstlichen Justizbriefe und die päpstliche Delegationsgerichtsbarkeit vom 13. bis zum Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts, I (Tübingen, 1970), I, pp. 20–2; Zutshi, ‘Petitioners’, pp. 273–93.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

34

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

forgeries.6 Accordingly, the reforms of the thirteenth-century papal chancery have been strongly associated with the creation of a hierarchy in the office, which was overseen by the vice-chancellor, chosen because of his professional administrative skills rather than owing to his rank of cardinal, as had been the case in the twelfth century. Alongside the vice-chancellor, the thirteenth-century papal chancery also saw the formation of a college of scribes (scriptores), who were often papal chaplains and received salaries for their work, although, as Sayers pointed out, they still relied on provisions to ecclesiastical benefices to top up their income.7 Furthermore, in the thirteenth century the tasks of chancery scribes were increasingly distinguished from those of the chancery notaries, whose role developed from that of the early Medieval Roman civic notaries (scrinarii), who were originally seven and responsible for writing and archiving papal documents.8 Throughout the thirteenth century the duties of scribes and notaries in the papal chancery became clearer. Alongside another group of professionals, called abbreviatores, the notaries were responsible for the reworking of the petitions presented to the papal curia into minutes (notae) in accordance with papal orders and the style of the Roman curia, the so-called stilus curie. Equally, the scribes had the task of writing the fair copies of papal letters and petitions, once they had been approved.9 Furthermore, already in the thirteenth century other professionals were responsible for specific tasks in the papal chancery: the corrector checked the fair copies of papal letters; the registratores recorded them in the papal registers; and the bullatores sealed papal letters before their dispatch.10 According to Barraclough, to a great extent the bureaucratic organization of the papal chancery and its thirteenth-century developments mostly benefitted from the Italian notarial tradition, which was adopted through the employment of ­notaries at the papal curia as well as thanks to the activity of notaries public, who worked as freelancers and private assistants of the curial personnel in different curial departments.11 The latter were mostly responsible for introducing their ­rhetorical tradition at the papal curia, where during the thirteenth century a special style of good prose and writing, known as stilus curie, was developed and implemented. The stilus curie borrowed from the so-called ars dictaminis, namely a branch 6 Sayers, Papal Government, pp. 19–24; Zutshi, ‘Innocent III’, pp. 84–101. On the registration of letters in the papal chancery see Chapter 1. 7 Bresslau, Manuale, pp. 221–9; B. Schwarz, Die Organisation kurialer Schreiberkollegien von ihrer Entstehung bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1972), pp. 7–22; Sayers, Papal Government, pp. 16–19, 24–8, 41–6; B. Barbiche, ‘Diplomatique et histoire sociale: les “scriptores” de la chancellerie apostolique au XIIIe siècle’, in B. Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, nuntius. Études de diplomatique et de diplomatie pontificales (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Paris, 2007), pp. 43–55; M.  D.  Ross, The papal chapel, 1288–1304. A study in institutional and cultural change (PhD, UCL, 2013), pp. 17–18, 246. 8 Bresslau, Manuale, pp. 240–7; Sayers, Papal Government, pp. 28–33; Toubert, ‘‘Scrinium et palatium’, pp. 111–17. 9 Bresslau, Manuale, pp. 245–51; Frenz, I documenti, pp. 64–6. See also Chapter 3. 10 Bresslau, Manuale, pp. 251–3; Sayers, Papal Government, pp. 46–9. 11 G. Barraclough, Public Notaries and the Papal Curia. A Calendar and a Study of a Formularium notariorum curie from the Early Fourteenth Century (London, 1934), pp. 13–20. Interestingly, Schwarz compared the college of scribes at the papal curia to the guild tradition of notaries in northern Italian towns: Schwarz, Die Organisation, pp. 79–83, 186–204.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

35

of rhetoric, which focused on the art of prose and verse composition alongside oratorical and declaratory practices, where rules for both writing petitions and speaking publicly were spelt out. Between the end of the eleventh and the early twelfth centuries the ars dictaminis originated at Montecassino in southern Italy and in Bologna, where its development was prompted by the growth of the papal chancery and the study of law. During the twelfth century the study of the ars dictaminis flourished in France, especially in Tours, Meung, and Orleans, where prose and verse compositions were taught in the schools with a preference for the so-called stylus supremus, namely a style which paid a lot of attention to rhetorical ornaments.12 Yet, as a reaction to the French tradition, during the first half of the thirteenth century the study of the ars dictaminis was revived in Italy, especially in Bologna and Tuscany, where the dictatores developed a specific style of rhythmical prose.13 In the early thirteenth century the latter was further codified at the papal curia by the notary, papal chancellor and cardinal, Thomas of Capua, and influenced by the practice of notaries public, who adopted the rules of the ars dictaminis for drawing up legal documents, ultimately leading to the creation of special ­rhetorical forms for the notarial profession (the so-called ars notarie). As I will discuss more extensively in Chapter  3, in the thirteenth century the stilus curie encompassed a set of administrative procedures, which had to be followed by petitioners approaching the curial departments and engaging in lawsuits. The stilus curie especially prescribed the correct employment of formulaic language and rhythmical prose, known as cursus Romane curie, while by the fourteenth century it also encompassed ceremonial performances that were part of the diplomatic exchange with the papacy.14 Undoubtedly, in the fourteenth century acquaintance with the stilus curie was essential for petitioners and proctors who had to negotiate with the network of papal officials and clerks, members of the pope’s household and cardinals, emphatically described by the fourteenth-century Italian poet Francesco Petrarca as an ‘inextricable maze’ (inextricabilis curie labyrintus).15 Whereas the fourteenthcentury papal chancery achieved a good degree of administrative sophistication, especially with regard to its regulations and procedures, its organization still reflected in many respects the nepotistic nature of papal rule during the Avignonese period. In particular, the bureaucratization of the chancery led to the growth of personnel in the department, notably the scriptores and the notaries, who were paid in salaries and still seem to have been part of the papal household. Accordingly, the administrative duties within the office became increasingly more specialized. For instance, from the second half of the thirteenth century officials called referendarii replaced the notaries in their task of presenting petitions to the pope, while from 12 B. Grévin, Rhétorique du pouvoir médiéval. Les Lettres de Pierre de la Vigne et la formation du langage politique Européen (XIIIe–XVe siècle) (Rome, 2008), pp. 129–32. 13 Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 138–42; F. Delle Donne, ‘Tommaso di Capua e la cancelleria papale: tra normativa e comunicazione politica’, in Dall’‘ars dictaminis’ al ‘preumanesimo’? Per un profilo letterario del secolo XIII, ed. F. Delle Donne, F. Santi (Firenze, 2013), pp. 43–61. 14  See Chapter 3. 15  Francesco Petrarca, Le Familiari, ed. V. Rossi (Florence, 1933–1942), III, p. 112.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

36

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the late thirteenth century the auditor litterarum contradictarum, who was responsible for investigating objections moved against petitions which had been already approved and sent for engrossment, was also chosen among jurists and curialists with solid legal training. However, by the fourteenth century the earlier practice of selecting the vice-chancellor among those cardinals with a degree of legal expertise was resumed and the term cancellaria was still used with reference to the vicechancellor and his powers rather than the office and its location. Interestingly, in the thirteenth century the habit of appointing cardinals as heads of the papal chancery had been abandoned in an attempt to distance the office of chancery from the papal entourage, whilst the lack of a physical location for the office and its identification with its head partly depended on the itinerant nature of thirteenth-century papal curia, which to some extent strengthened the ruler’s control over his administrative departments.16 Finally, by the fourteenth century the regulation for chancery officials and their office were collected in the so-called Libri cancellaria surviving for the period 1316–1454. The latter substantially differed in their nature from the thirteenth-century formularies, which were mostly compiled as private manuals by chancery officials and notaries public, and evidenced an effort to organize the internal administrative practices of the chancery, the audientia litterarum contradictarum and the Rota as well as to establish set rules for the petitioners approaching the curia.17 In the fourteenth century both the volume of demands and the cost of petitioning the papal curia probably prompted the duplication of duties across curial departments, taking away from the chancery the exclusive tasks of granting graces and issuing papal letters, which could also be administered by the apostolic chamber and the penitentiary, thus giving petitioners a better choice and chance to save on fees.18 Already by the end of the thirteenth century an attempt was made to 16 B.  Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon, 1309–1376. Étude d’une société (Paris, 1962), pp. 304–31; Herde, Beiträge, p. 164–73; Herde, Audientia, pp. 57–65; Schwarz, Die Organisation, pp. 25–38, 84–125, 137–41; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The Office of notary in the papal chancery in the midfourteenth century’, in Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1998), pp. 665–83. Barbiche counted 90 scriptores in 1310, 70 in 1331, 101 for Urban V’s pontificate (1362–1370): B. Barbiche, ‘Le personnel de la chancellerie pontificale aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, in Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, p. 22; B. Barbiche, ‘Les scribes de la chancellerie apostolique aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles: sources et méthodes d’une enquete prosopographique’, in Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, pp. 35–55; Bresslau, Manuale, pp. 253–8. 17  The edition of the rules of the papal chancery was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemein­ schaft, Bonn, and it is available online: Regulae, ordinationes et constitutiones Cancellariae apostolicae, ed. A. Meyer, https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/fb06/mag/institut/prof-dr-andreas-meyer/kanzleiregeln (accessed on 14 July 2018). See also A. Meyer, ‘Die geplante neue Edition der spätmittelalterlichen päpstlichen Kanzleiregeln’, in Stagnation oder Fortbildung? Aspekte des allgemeinen Kirchenrechts im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, ed. M. Bertram (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 117–31; B. Hotz, ‘Von der Dekretale zur Kanzleiregel: Prärogativen beim Benefizienerwerb im 14. Jahrhundert’, in Stagnation oder Fortbildung?, pp. 197–219; B. Hotz, ‘ “Libri cancellarie” spätmittelalterlicher Päpste’, in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. P.  Erdö, S.A.  Szuromi (Vatican City, 2010), p. 397–418. See also Schwarz, Die Organisation, pp. 218–57. On the thirteenth-century and earlyfourteenth century formularies see Barraclough, Public Notaries, pp. 1–36; Herde, Audientia, pp. 1–74. See also Chapter 3. 18  P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Inextricabilis curie labyrinthus. The Presentation of Petitions to the Pope in the Chancery and the Penitentiary during the Fourteenth and First Half of the Fifteenth Century’, in  Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A.  Meyer, C. Rendtel, M. Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen, 2004), pp. 393–410.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

37

distinguish the procedure behind the issuing of common letters, whose ­compilation was generally prompted by petitions and requests, and curial letters, namely letters patent and close which were issued on the initiative of the papal curia and mostly dealt with political and diplomatic correspondence. By the fourteenth century curial letters ultimately came to be known as secret letters and they seem to have undergone different bureaucratic procedures from common letters.19 Whereas in the thirteenth century papal notaries in the chancery administered the compilation and expedition of curial letters, from the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334–42), the pope’s secretaries (secretarii) and their scribes in the apostolic chamber increasingly oversaw their production.20 Such administrative reorganization allowed the pope and his entourage direct supervision over the production of these letters, which were occasionally dictated or personally written by the pope.21 During the pontificates of Urban V (1362–70) and Gregory XI (1370–8) the curial letters, namely letters patent issued on the initiative of the papal curia, were more clearly distinguished from the secret letters, generally letters close.22 Finally, during the pontificate of Innocent VI (1352–62) the functions associated with the work of the pope’s secretaries in charge of issuing secret letters came to be known as secretaria, which took its name from the kind of correspondence administered by the secretaries, who numbered around twelve between 1334 and 1378.23 Yet, by the fourteenth century the shared administrative load between the chancery and the chamber in issuing papal letters also impacted on record-keeping practices at the papal curia. Although the chancery began recording its outgoing correspondence in rolls and registers in the early Middle Ages, an almost complete series of registers only survives from 1198.24 With the exception of Bock, who argued that the thirteenth-century papal registers were compiled in the apostolic chamber at the end of each pontifical year, the historiography concurs that these registers 19  P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The political and administrative correspondence of the Avignon popes, 1305–1378: a contribution to papal diplomatic’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne, pp. 371–2. 20  P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The personal role of the pope in the production of papal letters in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, in Vom Nutzen des Schreibens. Soziales Gedächtnis, Herrschaft und Besitz im Mittelalter, ed. W. Pohl, P. Herold (Vienna, 2002), pp. 230–2; P. Gasnault, ‘L’élaboration des lettres secrètes des papes d’Avignon: chambre et chancellerie’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne, pp. 210–14; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Changes in the Registration of Papal Letters under the Avignon Popes (1305–1378)’, in Kuriale Briefkultur im späteren Mittelalter. Gestaltung—Überlieferung—Rezeption, ed. T.  Broser, A. Fischer, M. Thumser (KölnWeimar—Vienna, 2015), pp. 254–5. Barbiche, ‘Le personnel’, p. 118–20, has compared the creation of the pope’s secretaries to the contemporary creation of king’s secretaries (‘clercs du sécre’) in 1341 in France. See below n. 93. 21  Zutshi, ‘The personal role’, pp. 231–5; Zutshi, ‘The political and administrative correspondence’, pp. 379–81. See Chapter 4. 22  Zutshi, ‘The political and administrative correspondence’, p. 372. 23 Guillemain, La cour pontificale, pp. 297–300; Gasnault,‘L’élaboration’, pp. 213–21; P. Jugie, ‘Les mentions hors teneur dans les minutes de lettres secrètes et curiales du pape Innocent VI (1352–1362): un chantier en course’, in Les mentions de chancellerie. Entre technique administrative et savoir de gouvernement (Paris, 23–24 Septembre 2013), p. 5 (forthcoming). I am most grateful to Dr Jugie for sharing with me a draft of his forthcoming article. See Chapter 9. 24 Frenz, I documenti pp. 52–3. Papal registers, now lost, were kept at the papal curia from the pontificate of Urban II (1088–1099), although they probably resembled memorial book rather than official registrations: U.R. Blumenthal, ‘Papal registers in the twelfth century’, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. P.  Linehan (Città del Vaticano, 1998), pp. 137–51. See above n. 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

38

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

were indeed kept in the papal chancery. Furthermore, historians have debated whether the registration of papal letters was prompted by the petitioner and his representative or undertaken at the initiative of the chancery personnel, thus questioning the functionality of the thirteenth-century papal registers as official depositories of records.25 Although in the thirteenth century common and curial letters do not seem to have been consistently recorded in separate sets of registers, substantial evidence of experimentation exists through the occasional use of special registers, often employed to record political correspondence and curial letters. Already during the pontificate of Innocent III, letters of political i­mportance concerning the clash between Philip of Swabia and Otto IV of Brunswick for the imperial succession were recorded in the so-called Registrum super negotio Romani imperii (Reg. Vat. 6), while, during the pontificate of Gregory IX (1227–41) one register of curial letters, now lost, was probably kept. Accordingly, quires of littere curiales, registering letters of political relevance, were preserved during the pontificates of Innocent IV (1243–54) and Alexander IV (1254–61). Finally, curial and chamber registers survive for the pontificates of Urban IV (1261–4) and Nicholas III (1277–80).26 A further decisive administrative shift towards the registration of common and curial letters in different series of registers seems however to have taken place in the early fourteenth century, alongside the move of the papal curia to southern France. For this period two series of paper registers (Registra Avinionensia) and parchment registers (Registra Vaticana) recording common letters are in fact known.27 Furthermore, as Zutshi has recently maintained, registers of curial and secret letters, dealing with administrative, political and diplomatic correspondence, may have been already kept during Clement V’s pontificate (1305–14), whereas the continuous series of parchment registers of secret letters, managed in the apostolic chamber, survives from the pontificate of John XXII (1316–34).28 As I will discuss 25  See K.  Hampe, ‘Aus verlorenen Registerbänden der Päpste Innozenz III. und Innozenz IV.’, MIÖG 23 (1902), pp. 545–67; K. Hampe, ‘Aus verlorenen Registerbänden der Päpste Innozenz III. und Innozenz IV.’, MIÖG 24 (1903), pp. 198–237; F. Bock, ‘Gregorio VII e Innocenzo III. Per un confronto dei Registri Vaticani 2 e 4-7/A’, Studi gregoriani 5 (1956), pp. 243–79; F. Bock, ‘Originale und Registereinträge zur Zeit Honorius III.’, Bullettino dell’Archivio paleografico italiano n. ser. II–III (1956–1957), pp. 101–16; F. Bock, ‘Studien zu den Registern Innocenz’ IV.’, Archivalische Zeitschrift 52 (1956), pp. 11–48; F.  Kempf, ‘Zu den Originalregistern Innocenz’ III.’, QFIAB 36 (1956), pp.  86–137; O.  Hageneder, ‘Quellenkritisches zu den Originalregistern Innocenz’ III.’, MIÖG 68 (1960), pp. 128–39; M. Giusti, Studi sui registri di bolle papali (Città del Vaticano, 1968), pp. 383–459; E.  Pásztor, ‘Contributo alla storia dei registri pontifici del secolo XIII’, Bullettino dell’Archivio Paleografico Italiano 1 (1962), pp. 37–83; E. Pásztor, ‘Per la storia dei Registri pontifici nel Duecento’, AHP 6 (1968), pp. 71–112; E. Pásztor, ‘Studi e problemi relativi ai registri di Innocenzo III’, Annali della scuola speciale per archivisti e bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 2 (1962), pp. 287–304. 26  For Urban IV’s registers see Reg. Vat. 30, 30A, 33, 34, 35 and 36. For Nicholas III’s register see Reg. Vat. 40. On this topic see F. Bock, ‘Studien zur Registrierung der politischen Briefe und der allgemeinen Verwaltungssachen Johanns XXII.’, QFIAB 30 (1940), pp. 138–40; F.  Bock, ‘Päpstliche Sekretregister und Kammerregister. Überblick und Ergänzung früherer Studien zum Registerwesen des Spätmittelalters’, Archivalische Zeitschrift 59 (1963), pp. 30–40, 45–58. 27  Zutshi, ‘Changes’, pp. 238–50. 28 ASV, Reg. Vat. 109 (John XXII, first-third year of pontificate, 1316–1319); Reg. Vat. 110 (John XXII, first-fourth year of pontificate, 1316–1320). See also F.  Bock, ‘Über Registrierung von Sekretbriefen’, QFIAB 28 (1937–1938), pp. 147–234; Bock, ‘Päpstliche Sekretregister’, pp. 40–2;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

39

at length in Chapter 7, it remains an open question as to whether the registration of secret letters during John XXII’s pontificate was undertaken on account of political circumstances or rather for the need for administrative reforms at the papal curia, where the management of political and diplomatic correspondence was taken over by the apostolic chamber. As is well known, before being elected to the Apostolic See, John XXII had in fact been the chancellor of the Sicilian Angevin king, Charles II, whose chancery had kept registers of secret letters since the late 1260s, whereas in 1334 the administrative reform of papal record-keeping under John’s successor, Benedict XII, overlapped with the employment of secretaries in the apostolic chamber managing the compilation of secret letters.29 What seems remarkable however is the fact that in the first half of the fourteenth century the registers of secret letters met the needs of the Apostolic See to record its diplomatic and political correspondence in separate repositories, where the material was not conventionally organized in chronological order, but in ‘dossiers’ arranged according to geographical and thematic criteria, potentially making diplomatic discourse between the papacy and its interlocutors in partibus available for consultation.30 Furthermore, it should be highlighted that the registration of secret letters in secret registers intertwined with the activity of secretaries in the apostolic chamber. Evidence in fact shows that the registers of secret letters were discontinued at times of change and administrative reshuffle in the pope’s secretariat, as happened between 1357 and 1358, when this registration appears to have been disrupted because of the turnover of administrative personnel among the pope’s secretaries after the death of the long-standing pope’s secretary, Francesco Calvo of San Massimo.31 All in all, we can concur with Schwarz that the bureaucratization and professionalization of functions and procedures at the papal curia between the ­thirteenth and fourteenth centuries had by no means led to the formation of a fully M. Giusti, Inventario dei Registri Vaticani (Città del Vaticano, 1981), pp. 31–2; Zutshi, ‘Changes’, pp. 251–4. On the possible existence of lost registers of secret letters for the pontificate of Clement V see Zutshi, ‘Changes’, p. 252, 256. Bock, ‘Studien’, pp. 140–66, had further pointed out that before 1321 John XXII’s chancery kept registers and quires of littere de curia included in paper registers, namely the Registra Avinionensia (Reg. Av., 2, 7, 10, 11), which were eventually copied into the series of parchment registers, namely the Registra Vaticana. See also F. Bock, ‘Einführung in das Registerwesen des avignonesischen Papsttums’, QFIAB 31 (1941), pp. 2–4. 29 R.  von Heckel, ‘Das päpstliche und sicilische Registerwesen’, Archiv für Urkundenforschung 1 (1908), pp. 477–87; Pásztor, ‘Per la storia’, p. 111; O. Hageneder, ‘Die päpstlichen Register des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts’, Annali della scuola speciale per Archivisti e Bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 12 (1973), p. 53; A. Kiesewetter, ‘La cancelleria angioina’, in L’État Angevin: pouvoir, culture et société entre XIIIe et XIVe siècle (Rome, 1998), n. 23, pp. 366–7, 369; n. 106, p. 384; S. Palmieri, La cancelleria del Regno di Sicilia in età angioina (Napoli, 2006), pp. 57–8, 82–8. See also J.E. Weakland, ‘John XXII before his pontificate, 1244–1316: Jacques Duèse and his family’, AHP 10 (1972), pp. 164–8; S. Zanke, Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa. Das politische Papsttum im Spiegel der kurialen Register (1316–1334) (Leiden— Boston 2013), n. 77, p. 17; 49; S. Zanke, ‘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. E. Brilli, L. Fenelli, G. Wolf (Firenze, 2015), pp. 467–8; Zutshi, ‘Changes’, pp. 254–6. See Chapter 7, where I also specifically critique the arguments on this topic recently put forward by Zanke. 30  This argument is fully developed in Chapter 7. 31 G.  Opitz, ‘Die Sekretäre Franciscus de Sancto Maximo und Johannes de Sancto Martino. Bemerkungen zur Frühzeit des päpstlischen Sekretariats’, QFIAB 30 (1940), pp. 193–6; Jugie, ‘Les mentions’, pp. 9–10. See Chapter 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

40

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

developed bureaucratic system. On the one hand, evidence shows the increasing professionalization and specialized training of the chancery personnel; the creation of a hierarchy within the office of chancery; the coordination of the chancery with other curial departments, such as the apostolic chamber; the establishment of chancery regulations and improved record-keeping practices. On the other hand, the bureaucratization of the papal chancery was hampered by the nepotistic nature of the appointments to curial offices; the absence of a clear distinction between pope’s rule and the administrative offices’ public functions; the lack of a physical location for the office, which was identified with the vice-chancellor, his functions and household until the fifteenth century; and the remuneration of curial personnel through benefices as well as salaries.32 In this respect, a paradox emerges from the examination of the papal chancery practices between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: while the papal curia developed very sophisticated administrative procedures and a defined in-house style, known as stilus curie, its bureaucratic structure was ultimately still very much tied to household and nepotistic traditions. T H E E N G L I S H C H A N C E RY As Zutshi pointed out, while by the fourteenth century ‘the papal administration . . . was more monolithic and had more the character of household administration . . . closely subject to the ruler’s control . . . the machinery of royal government in England was relatively impersonal’.33 Indeed, as argued in Chapter 1, the growth and transformation of the English chancery in the thirteenth century followed on from the mid-twelfth-century establishment of the exchequer as an autonomous office of state and went hand in glove with the development of the king’s secretarial office, the so-called wardrobe, which probably originated before the Norman Conquest and was revived in the early thirteenth century during John’s reign (1199–1216) as the king and court’s treasury and archival repository.34 By the end of Henry II’s reign (1154–89) the English chancellor’s role was transformed from keeper of the king’s seal to head of the office responsible for drawing up documents, although it still remained an office of the household.35 Unlike the papal curia, where the pope’s direct control over his administration was never abandoned and was indeed implemented in the fourteenth century, during the thirteenth century the growth of the English administration set in motion a long process, which saw by the early fourteenth century administrative departments, such as the chancery, going ‘out of court’.36 Accordingly, the thirteenth-century expansion of the English 32 Schwarz, Die Organisation, pp. 13–24, 73–4, 137–41, 151–66, 210–16; D. D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities. A Weberian Analysis (Cambridge, 2010), p. 136–8. The lack of a distinction between public and private spheres, the nepotistic nature of the papal rule and the reward of curial officials will be extensively addressed in Chapter 4. 33  Zutshi, ‘The personal role’, p. 236. 34 T.F.  Tout, Chapters in administrative history, I (Manchester, 1920), pp. 93–9, 163–9. See Chapter 1. 35 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 128–39, 155–7. 36 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 1–18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

41

chancery coincided with the duplication of the king’s seal, later known as the ‘great seal’ and traditionally held by the chancellor, in response to the need of making it available to other administrative departments during the king’s journeys and military campaigns. From the early thirteenth century the use of at least two new seals is further recorded: the seal of the exchequer (from Henry II’s reign) and the privy seal (probably from John’s reign).37 Throughout the thirteenth century the English chancery therefore had four principal duties: the issuing of documents; the keepership of the great seal; the preservation of records in enrolments; and the administration of justice.38 Historians overall concur that the transformation of the thirteenth-century English administrative departments was mostly prompted by international conflicts, domestic political instability in England, and baronial attempts at controlling the crown.39 In Vincent’s opinion this was the case during the early years of John’s reign, when the administrative innovations of the English chancery and new practices of record-keeping arose as the result of political circumstances.40 Accordingly, the political confusion and struggles, which dominated the reign of Henry III (1216–72), influenced the uneven development of English chancery practice over this period, characterized, in Carpenter’s words, by ‘its misleading records and repetitive processes’.41 While Henry III’s chancery was still central to the king’s personal rule, the difficulties faced by the crown administrative departments during Henry III’s minority (1216–27) to some extent accelerated the process of separation between the king’s household and the chancery. In Tout’s words the latter took place ‘due to inherent political necessity’, whereas the king’s absences from England after 1228 reinforced the need for a privy seal, which was used to serve the king’s personal wishes, and favoured the expansion of the wardrobe.42 Accordingly, between 1234 and 1258 baronial pressure on the crown led to a great degree of disruption in the relationship between the chancery and the privy seal and to the control of the king and his wardrobe over the chancery. The appointment of chancellors was probably suspended between 1244 and 1258, when there is however evidence of the employment of keepers of the great seal, while the chancellorship ultimately came under baronial control after the Oxford parliament of 1258.43 Likewise, during the first 37 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 140–57. 38  D. Carpenter, ‘The English Royal Chancery in the 13th century’, in Écrit et pouvoir, p. 26. 39 Davies notoriously referred to the English crown government as a ‘household government’: J.C. Davies, The baronial opposition to Edward II. Its character and policy. (Cambridge, 1918), pp. 61–74. 40  N. Vincent, ‘Why 1199? Bureaucracy and Enrolment under John and his Contemporaries’ in English Government in the Thirteenth Century, ed. A. Jobson (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 34–5, 40–1. 41  Carpenter, ‘The English Royal Chancery’, p. 53. See also B.  Wilkinson, The Chancery under Edward III (Manchester, 1929), pp. 6–9. 42 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 182–7, 212–13. On the chancery during Henry III’s reign and its close relationship with the king’s rule see D.A. Carpenter, ‘The English Royal Chancery in the thirteenth century’, in Écrit et pouvoir, pp. 26–30. 43 On the issue concerning the continuous succession of chancellors between 1244 and 1258 Wilkinson has challenged Tout and Dibben: Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 239–43, 287–9, 297–8, 316–17; L.B.  Dibben, ‘Chancellor and Keeper of the seal under Henry III’, EHR 27 (1912), pp. 39–51; Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 7–8; Appendix II, pp. 194–8. See also Carpenter, ‘The English Royal Chancery’, pp. 46–53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

42

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

two decades of Edward I’s reign under the tenure of Robert Burnell (1274–92) the chancery had the same baronial characteristics that it had acquired by the end of the reign of Henry III, while the wardrobe kept the great seal, when the chancellor travelled abroad with the king, as happened in the run up to the agreement of the Anglo-French Treaty of Amiens in 1279 and during Edward I’s residence in France between 1286 and 1289.44 In turn, after Burnell’s death the king strengthened his personal control over the chancery, which was once more overrun by the wardrobe and the privy seal. The two offices often shared officials and tasks, while the privy seal, rather than the chancery, increasingly acted as the king’s secretariat. For instance, between 22 August 1297 and 14 March 1298 the controller of the wardrobe, John de Benstede, was also appointed keeper of the great seal during the king’s campaigns abroad, while the wardrobe employed chancery staff to perform technical administrative tasks.45 The legacy of political circumstances on the thirteenth-century development of the English crown administrative departments clearly led to the formation of an ‘imperfect’ model of bureaucracy there, which did not ultimately succeed into developing in a linear way. Alongside the political issues and military challenges, the bureaucratization of the thirteenth-century royal administration was further hampered by its household character. Indeed, officials were normally ­chosen in the king’s household or among the crown’s baronial opponents; no ­separation existed between the king’s household and the administrative offices, especially the chancery, which had no permanent location throughout the thirteenth century and followed the court during its journeys. The jurisdiction of the administrative departments was often unclear and their hierarchy and interactions changed according to political necessities, as pointed out above. This is not to say that early on the English machinery of government failed to show clear signs of bureaucratization. Indeed, by the late twelfth century the English chancery personnel was already rewarded by means of salaries rather than benefices and received the fees, paid by the recipients of charters while, from 1244, the hanaper was established to collect the fees of the great seal and pay the expenses of the chancery.46 The creation of the hanaper also meant that the system of passing the fees of the seal to the chancellor was abandoned and that, first in 1260 and then in 1292, the chancellor was paid with a fixed sum, while the income from the fees of the seal was diverted directly to the king.47 Accordingly, in the early thirteenth century the English chancery developed a system of record-keeping through the  establishment of archives in various administrative departments and the employment of enrolments.48 Already by the end of the twelfth century three different kinds of documents are known to have been issued in the English 44 On the creation of the chancery of Guyenne after 1289 see P.  Chaplais, ‘The chancery of Guyenne, 1289–1453’, in P.  Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981), pp. 61–96. 45 Tout, Chapters, II, pp. 61–75, 78–84. 46 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 134–5, 286. 47 Tout, Chapters, II, pp. 76–7; Dibben, ‘Chancellor’, pp. 48–9. 48  On the English practice of enrolling documents rather than recording them in registers see B.  Bombi, ‘Pragmatic methods of record-keeping? The English chancery diplomatic enrolments between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, Archiv für Diplomatik, forthcoming.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

43

administrative departments: charters, letters patent, and letters close.49 In Vincent’s opinion the record-keeping of these documents was initially organized in the exchequer, which began enrolling charters at their beneficiaries’ request in the so-called cartae antiquae rolls in 1194.50 Likewise, during John’s reign the rising number of records issued by the chancery and the necessity of making them easily available for consultation prompted the production of new series of enrolments: the charter rolls (1199); the liberate rolls (1200), which enrolled mandates of payment for royal officials sent by the chancery to the exchequer (liberate writs); the patent rolls (1201); and the close rolls (1204).51 By the late thirteenth century the number of chancery enrolments grew exponentially in order to record communications among administrative departments of the English crown, domestic administration, and diplomatic affairs.52 Furthermore, from the mid-thirteenth century a chancery official, known as keeper of the rolls of chancery, was appointed to look after the chests containing the chancery enrollments, which were however still scattered and moved around different repositories, since the chancery did not have a permanent location as yet.53 According to Tout the practice of record-keeping and the organization of a proper archival system in the English administration was ultimately connected to the fourteenth-century transformation of the chancery from an office of the household to an office of state. Indeed, while the thirteenth-century household personnel considered the records of their tenure as their personal property and the secrecy of the king’s business as a priority, the fourteenth-century chancery staff envisaged their archives as state repositories for the use of the crown administrative departments.54 Already in the first two decades of Edward I’s reign (1272–92), the move towards the separation of the chancery from the household was evidenced in three regards: the increasing presence after 1285 of the office at Westminster, where the chancery headquarters are found permanently after 1310;55 the appointment of lay chancellors, chosen among the administrative personnel after Burnell’s death in 1292; and the clerical status of the fourteenth-century chancery personnel, who had often received legal and notarial training.56 Furthermore, from the reign of Edward I the common law treatise known as Fleta (c. 1290) hints at the existence of chancery 49 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 135–9. 50  Vincent, ‘Why 1199?’, pp. 20–7, 37–41; M. Clanchy, From memory to written record. England 1066–1307 (London, 1979), p. 48. On the exchequer archives see V.H.  Galbraith, Studies in the Public Records (London, 1948), pp. 37, 47–8, 68. 51  Vincent, ‘Why 1199?’, pp. 34–5; P. Chaplais, English Royal Documents. King John—Henry VI, 1199–1461 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 3–4. 52  For a full list of the surviving chancery enrolments see List of chancery rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, List and indexes XXVII (Dublin, 1908). 53 Tout, Chapters, II p. 11, argued that Robert Burnell took over the office of keeper of the rolls before becoming chancellor in 1286, while H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes on the use of the Great Seal of England (London, 1926), p. 5, and Wilkinson, The Chancery, p. 54, dated the appointment of the first keeper of the rolls in 1265. 54 Tout, Chapters, I, pp. 34–5. 55 Tout, The place, p. 61; Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 95–7. 56 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes, pp. 16–17; Tout, Chapters, II, p. 77 n. 1; T.F. Tout, The place of the reign of Edward II in English history (Manchester, 1914) pp. 59–62.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

44

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

internal rules, whilst the first surviving oath taken by chancery clerks dates from 1346 and the earliest extant chancery ordinances from 1388–9.57 Indeed, Edward II and his council had promoted major reforms of the wardrobe, the privy seal and the exchequer, as a reaction to the ordinances of 1311 and in response to the baronial opposition to the king’s rule, which in Davies’s opinion was ‘administrative rather than constitutional’. In 1322 the latter was ultimately marked by the execution of Thomas of Lancaster, the leader of the opposition.58 In 1318 the ordinances of York reformed the household and represented a first step towards the separation of the privy seal from the wardrobe, which became ­permanent with the household ordinances of 1323, where the competence of the wardrobe was further reduced to the advantage of the exchequer.59 Meanwhile, the ‘secret seal’, a new personal seal of the king, appeared as the sealing instrument of the king’s chamber, which replaced the wardrobe as the king’s personal secretariat and source of revenue from about 1313 until the end of Edward II’s reign (1327).60 Finally, between 1323 and 1326 the exchequer ordinances rationalized the recordkeeping of this office, the organization of which had been at the core of the ­ordinances of 1311, and also established a hierarchy of duties and tasks for its personnel.61 The chancery was only indirectly affected by these reforms that ­notably allowed for the coexistence in the royal administration of four separate departments—namely the privy seal, the chamber, the chancery, and the exchequer— which simultaneously had their own writing offices as well as seals.62 Indeed, this anomaly was partly and unsuccessfully addressed during Robert Baldock’s tenure of the privy seal, which also coincided with his appointment as chancellor, aiming at coordinating the work of the two main royal secretariats (1323–6).63 Likewise, while in a reactionary fashion the chancellors Walter Reynolds (1311), John Sandale (1317–18), and John Hotham (1318–20) were reimbursed the fees of the seal through the hanaper, from the tenure of John Salmon (1320–3) onwards the practice of paying the chancellor a fixed fee was resumed. Finally, from 1323 the hanaper began accounting for its whole proceeds annually to the exchequer rather than the wardrobe.64 Furthermore, despite the domestic political turmoil during Edward II’s reign, a degree of administrative continuity in chancery 57 Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 64–6. For the passage of the Fleta describing the chancery organization see Fleta, ed. H.G. Richardson II (London, 1953), pp. 123–6. On the dating and compilation of the Fleta see N. Denholm-Young, ‘Who wrote Fleta?’, in Collected papers (Cardiff, 1969), pp. 187–98. For the oath of the clerks of chancery see The Statutes of the Realm, I (London, 1810), p. 306. For the ordinances of 1388–1389 see Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. Appendix VI, pp. 214–23. 58 Tout, Chapters, II, pp. 210–14; Davies, The baronial opposition, pp. 58–60, 536–7. On the Ordinances of 1311 see M. Prestwich, ‘The Ordinances of 1311 and the politics of the early fourteenth century’, in Politics and crisis in fourteenth-century England, ed. J Taylor, W.R. Childs (Gloucester, 1990), pp. 1–18. 59 Tout, The place, pp. 157–70, 175–7; Tout, Chapters, II, pp. 282–313. On the parliament of York in 1318 see also S. Phillips, Edward II (New Haven, CT—London, 2010), pp. 330–4; Davies, The baronial opposition, pp. 444–68. 60 Tout, The place, pp. 170–5, 177–80; Tout, Chapters, II, pp. 314–60. 61 Tout, The place, pp. 193–204. 62 Tout, The place, pp. 163–5. 63 Tout, The place, pp. 166–8. 64 Tout, The place, pp. 181–3; Wilkinson, The chancery, p. 59.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

45

record-keeping practices was ensured thanks to the activity of the chancery administrative personnel. This was especially the case for Adam Osgodby, keeper of the rolls of chancery (1295–1316) and keeper of the house of converts (1307–16), and William Airmyn, the principal clerk of chancery and keeper of the rolls between 1316 and 1324, who compiled the first systematic parliament roll for the parliament of Lincoln in 1316 and was a member of the commission of chancery clerks acting as keepers of the great seal (1314–18).65 Indeed, under the tenure of these clerks the record-keeping practice of the chancery enrolments became more systematic, while the chancery rolls were moved from the Tower of London and slowly archived in a permanent location, namely the house of Jewish converts (domus conversorum) in Chancery Lane.66 The process of separation between the household and the chancery was ­ultimately completed during Edward III’s reign (1327–77), when the chancery achieved full autonomy and lost its function as a royal secretariat, replaced by the king’s personal seals, notably the secret seal and the so-called ‘griffin seal’, used in the administration of the territories under the jurisdiction of the king’s chamber.67 As Ormrod noted, after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337 the move of the chancery ‘out of court’ may well have been accelerated by Edward III’s need to reorganize the royal administration before his departure for the military campaign on the continent. At that time the Walton Ordinances of 1338 in fact detailed a degree of coordination between administrative departments in London, namely the chancery and the exchequer, and those which moved with the king to the Low Countries, namely the wardrobe and privy seal.68 Indeed, during Edward III’s reign the main sign of autonomy of the chancery from the household was expressed in the chancellor’s faculty to use the great seal without any special authorization of the king and authority over justice and equitable jurisdiction, royal administration, parliamentary business, the king’s council affairs and ecclesiastical matters, such as collation to ecclesiastical benefices in the king’s gift and the visitation of the king’s hospitals and free chapels.69 Nevertheless, as Wilkinson pointed out, throughout Edward III’s reign the competences of the chancery and the exchequer were still overlapping for less important financial duties, such as the collection of customs and subsidies. In such cases the cooperation of administrative departments was therefore required.70 65 Tout, The place, pp. 162–7, 184–7; Tout, Chapters, II, pp. 218–19; B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research 85 (2012), pp. 604–6, 609. 66  List of chancery rolls, p. 1–3. Tout, Chapters, II, 306–8, and Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 54–9, disagree on when the move of the records actually took place. The former seems to argue for the period between 1307 and 1318, while the latter is in favour of a later date during the reign of Edward III (1371). 67 Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 10–25; B. Wilkinson, ‘The chancery’, in The English Government at work, 1327–1336, ed. J. F. Willard, W. A. Morris (Cambridge, MA, 1940), pp. 162–205. On the use of the small seals during the reign of Edward III see also Tout, Chapters, V, pp. 161–230. 68  W.M. Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat in the fourteenth century’, in Écrit et pouvoir, pp. 58–9; W.M. Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven, CT—London, 2011), pp. 198–9. On the Walton Ordinances see also Tout, Chapters, III, pp. 98–105, 143–50. See Chapter 8. 69 Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 26–36; Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, pp. 67–8. 70 Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 37–53; Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, pp. 62–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

46

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

The bureaucratization of the chancery during Edward III’s reign is further a­ rticulated in the organization of sub-departments in the office, notably the department of the rolls of chancery and the hanaper, and the establishment of a hierarchy of officials in the office. First, the department of rolls was responsible for enrolments of draft petitions and record-keeping of the various chancery roll series under the watch of the keeper of the rolls of chancery, who was chosen among the clerks of the first bench and was responsible for distributing draft petitions for enrolment. In the early fourteenth century the keeper of the rolls was assisted in his duties by three clerks, whose number increased to six from about 1388–9.71 By 1336 the writing and enrolling of documents of international character was further entrusted to one of the chancery clerks of the first bench, called notarius regis in sua cancellaria, who was generally an apostolic notary and had been trained in canon or civil law.72 Second, the hanaper collected fines as well as the so-called ‘great’ fees, mostly charged for charters, and ‘little’ fees with regard to letters p ­ atent, which were paid by petitioners receiving documents issued under the great seal. ‘Great’ and ‘little’ fees were first introduced during John’s reign and were used to pay for the wax employed to seal the documents and the salaries of the chancery personnel. In common with the department of the rolls of chancery, the hanaper also had its own personnel: a chief official, known as keeper of the hanaper; and three clerks (the spigurnel, who sealed the documents, and worked alongside a clerk, known as chafewax; and the portejoye, probably responsible for practical tasks, such as looking after the office’s horses and transporting the rolls).73 Indeed, during Edward III’s reign, the personnel of the chancery and its subdepartments overall numbered between sixty and 100 people, with a definitive increase after the 1350s. The chancery personnel included twelve officials, known as ‘great clerks’ of the first bench, who were generally chosen by the chancellor and had a maximum of three clerks under their supervision; twelve clerks of the second bench, who oversaw the work of one or two clerks depending on their functions; and twenty-four cursitors, who wrote less important chancery documents.74 The clerks of the first bench were the senior chancery officials, chosen, in the opinion of Wilkinson and Cuttino, on account of close political and baronial connections and patronage in the localities.75 Furthermore, as Cheney and Chaplais pointed out, by the early fourteenth century the clerks of the first bench increasingly had some legal and notarial training, especially when they had the duty of engrossing

71 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes, pp. 366, 380, 392–3; Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 54–9, 65. 72 Chaplais, English Royal Documents, pp. 20–1. See also Chapter 8. 73 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes, pp. 283–95, 329, 342–5; Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 59–64, 86–7. During the reign of Edward III the hanaper was also responsible for issuing judicial writs. 74 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes, p. 7, 12, 14–16; Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 65–73, 86; Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, pp. 61–2. Wilkinson’s figures are based on the examination of the names of the clerks in surviving writs and enrolments and on the Ordinances of chancery from the reign of Richard II (1389). On the work of some of these clerks at the time of the negotiations of Brétigny-Calais see Chapter 9. 75 Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 178–88; G.P. Cuttino, ‘King’s clerks and the community of the realm’, Speculum 29 (1954), pp. 395–409. See also Chapter 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

47

diplomatic correspondence.76 In the early fourteenth century these clerks were organized according to their different functions: like the referendarii at the papal curia, the praeceptores were responsible for advising petitioners what kind of documents they should seek and also for ‘commanding’ the right kind of writ; the protonotaries were in charge of engrossing documents alongside more junior clerks; and, like the papal correctores, the examiners had the duty of checking the engrossed documents before they were sealed. By the end of the fourteenth century these tasks had been further differentiated, especially as far as the ultimate e­ xamination and dispatch of the documents from the chancery to the hanaper was concerned. The latter was in fact reserved to the clerks of the first bench, whereas only the praeceptores and the keeper of the rolls could probably fold letters close before they were sealed—this task was most important, since once folded, letters close could not be opened anymore without destroying the seal.77 Furthermore, the clerks of the first bench were responsible for receiving attorneys in chancery, keeping parliamentary records, receiving parliamentary petitions and helping the chancellor in his judicial duties.78 Accordingly, during Edward III’s reign clerks of the second bench were often chosen as keepers of the hanaper, had the duty of dealing with the internal correspondence exchanged among the crown administrative departments and kept parliamentary records alongside the clerks of the first bench.79 As Wilkinson and more recently Ormrod pointed out, by the fourteenth century the chancery personnel were attached to the chancellor’s household. The staff were paid for their work through salaries, mostly funded through the fees of the seal, as mentioned above, and occasionally directly by the crown. However they also enjoyed various privileges, such as free writs and special status when tried before the royal courts, and gifts in kind, namely food, drink and robes provided by the chancellor and housing in the chancery lodgings. Finally, it was quite common for chancery clerks to be rewarded with ecclesiastical benefices after a period of service and, in the case of minor clerks, granted custody of houses and land within the crown’s domain.80 Arguably, the growth of the English chancery and its move ‘out of court’ by the mid-fourteenth century went hand in glove with the reorganization of diplomatic correspondence and its record-keeping. As Allmand put it, nobody took more care of its diplomatic practice ‘than did the English who, in the second half of the thirteenth century, began to build the foundations of a diplomatic service and record-keeping system’.81 Throughout the thirteenth century the English crown’s incoming and outgoing diplomatic correspondence was managed and archived in the chancery as well as in the exchequer and the wardrobe; the latter, in Cuttino’s 76 C.R. Cheney, Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford, 1972), pp. 51–71; P. Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre and the office of notary in Chancery, 1355–1375’, Journal of the Society of Archivists 4 (1971), pp. 170–81. 77 Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 74–8. 78 Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 78–83. 79 Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 84–6. 80 Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes, pp. 9–12; Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 87–94; Appendix V, pp. 211–13; Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, pp. 76–84. On the location of the chancery inn see Wilkinson, The chancery, pp. 97–8. 81 C. Allmand, The Hundred Years War. England and France at War c. 1300–c. 1450 (Cambridge, 1988), p. 116.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

48

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

opinion, was especially responsible for documentation dealing with political and foreign affairs.82 However, from the mid-thirteenth century the development of the chancery and the growing number of documents issued by this department coincided with its increasing involvement in the management and record-keeping of diplomatic correspondence. From 1259 the chancery further began compiling enrolments of diplomatic documents in accordance with thematic and geographical criteria.83 This practice firmly continued in the fourteenth century, during the reigns of Edward II (1307–27) and Edward III (1327–77) and very much reflected the needs posed by political and diplomatic circumstances in the decades before the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War, as I will demonstrate in Part II.84 Nevertheless, the simultaneous management of diplomatic correspondence in different royal administrative departments created a good degree of confusion and difficulties with regard to the retrieval and consultation of documents. In the first half of the fourteenth century attempts at reorganizing the crown’s diplomatic ­correspondence were therefore undertaken at least on three occasions. In 1299 a new official known as the keeper of processes (custos processuum et memorandorum regis) was first appointed to collect and file diplomatic documents and report on diplomatic matters before the king and his council alongside the keeper of the rolls.85 The main role of the keeper of processes was the reorganization and ­registration of diplomatic correspondence to support the activity of English lawyers and representatives defending English interests in lawsuits before the French and papal courts.86 This was especially the case during the tenure of Elias Joneston, keeper of the processes between 1306 and 1332, when at least seven calendars and registers were compiled in an attempt at organizing more systematically the crown’s diplomatic correspondence, scattered in the wardrobe, the exchequer, and the chancery.87 Indeed, as I argue at length in Chapter 7, Joneston’s work coincided with the reforms of the household, the growth of the exchequer and the separation of the privy seal from the wardrobe, which were promoted under Walter Stapeldon, bishop of Exeter and treasurer of the exchequer between 1322 and 1325, and included in the ordinances of York in 1318 and the household ordinances of 1323 mentioned above.88 It was indeed Stapeldon who ordered the compilation of ­registers and calendars of diplomatic correspondence in the office of the keeper of the processes between 1320 and 1323 as part of a broader reorganization of the 82 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 20–1, 117–37. 83  P. Chaplais, ‘Preface’, in Diplomatic documents preserved in the Public Record Office, ed. P. Chaplais, I (London, 1964), p. v; Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, p. 605. On the peculiar English use of enrolments of diplomatic correspondence rather than registers see Bombi, ‘Pragmatic methods’, forthcoming. 84  See below, especially Chapter 7. 85 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 19–48. Tout, Chapters, II, pp. 143–4, further stressed the link between the competence of the wardrobe over diplomatic affairs during Edward I’s reign and the on-going military campaigns during those years. 86 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 79–83. 87 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 29–41, 73–83. See also Chapter 7. 88 Tout, The place, p. 159, 189–93. On Stapledon’s activity as administrative reformer see Davies, The baronial opposition, pp. 529–37; M. Buck, Politics, Finance and the Church in the Reign of Edward II. Walter Stapeldon treasurer of England (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 115–30, 163–96; Phillips, Edward II, p. 444–5. See above n. 57.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

49

archives of the exchequer, which were meanwhile moved to the Tower of London.89 However, in 1339 the office of the keeper of the processes was discontinued, possibly because, in Cuttino’s words, at the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War Edward III ‘decided to dispense with diplomacy’.90 Indeed, the termination of the office of the keeper of processes further coincided with the move of the chancery ‘out of court’, which saw the renewed involvement of this department in the record-keeping of diplomatic correspondence through the compilation of different series of enrolments. However, as mentioned above, after 1337 the privy seal was also involved in the administration of the crown’s political and diplomatic ­correspondence especially during the king’s campaigns abroad, ultimately becoming the third office of state alongside the chancery and the exchequer by the midfourteenth century.91 Therefore, as Ormrod put it, between 1338 and 1360 a close coordination between the chancery and the privy seal was ultimately established, as evidenced in the collaboration of these two departments at the time of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais in 1360, which I will discuss in Chapter 9.92 Overall, in the mid fourteenth century the English chancery reached a substantial degree of bureaucratic growth and development, mainly prompted by political and military necessities. In fact, by the end of Edward III’s reign the English chancery had gone ‘out of court’ and become an independent office of state alongside the exchequer and the privy seal. However, it should be stressed that, although by the mid-fourteenth century the chancery had a defined jurisdiction within the royal governmental structure, the specific sphere of competence of the chancery with regard to diplomatic and foreign affairs seems to have changed according to the political circumstances, especially after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War, when a higher degree of coordination with the privy seal was required because of the king’s absences during prolonged military campaigns on the continent. Equally, the chancery achieved a clear separation from the king’s household and found a stable location at Westminster. Accordingly, although it lacked specific regulation and ordinances until 1388–9, the fourteenth-century chancery personnel were organized hierarchically with defined tasks and duties and increasingly included professional clerks, trained in legal and notarial practices and receiving salaries, although there is still evidence of distribution of gifts in kind and benefices as special rewards for service. The lack of internal chancery regulations until the late fourteenth century further reflects the relatively unsophisticated procedures in the English chancery for issuing documents. In this respect, the English chancery never met the same administrative and bureaucratic standards of the papal chancery, which, as mentioned above, developed in the thirteenth century its own style, the so-called stilus curie. Finally, an examination of the English chancery record-keeping 89  V.H. Galbraith, ‘The Tower as an Exchequer Record Office’, in Essays in Medieval History presented to T.F. Tout, ed. A.J. Little, F.M. Powicke (Manchester, 1925), pp. 231–8. See also Chapter 7. 90 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 138. 91 Tout, Chapters, V, pp. 50–1; E. Perroy, The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II (London, 1933), pp. xii–xiii. See above n. 66 and Chapter 9. 92  Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, pp. 64–6, 68–76. See also Tout, Chapters, V, pp. 50–1. See Chapter 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

50

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

practice shows that by the mid-fourteenth century the chancery underwent a systematic organization of its archives, which preserved different series of enrolments overseen by the keeper of the rolls and were gradually moved to their permanent depository in Chancery Lane by the end of Edward III’s reign. T H E F O R M AT I O N O F A ‘ S H A R E D L A N G U A G E OF DIPLOMACY ’ When comparing papal and English administrative practices in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries some common features come to light, notably the growth of the chancery and the establishment of the ruler’s secretariat by the mid-fourteenth century. Remarkably, the growth of the privy seal in England and the employment of secretaries managing political and diplomatic correspondence at the papal curia mirrored a comparable evolution in the kingdom of France, where from the second decade of the fourteenth century the clercs du secré appeared in the records alongside the so-called notaires suivants le roi and the sceau du secret used to seal letters close.93 However, these comparable developments seem to have taken place independently owing to circumstantial reasons. Whereas in England the thirteenth- and fourteenthcentury evolution of the chancery as an office of state and its relationship with other administrative departments, especially the privy seal and the exchequer, particularly owed their specific features to the political and military state of affairs at home and abroad, the papal curia developed its administrative structures not only as a result of political circumstances, especially with regard to the papacy’s relationship with the city of Rome in the thirteenth century and with the French crown in the fourteenth century, but also in response to the growing recognition of papal judicial powers and control over provision to ecclesiastical benefices, which generated an increasing demand for papal graces and arbitrations. In this respect, we can concur with Sayers and Zutshi that the similarities of contemporary administrative practices in both polities arose from parallel and c­omparable administrative solutions rather than sheer imitation.94 93 Tout, The place, pp. 164–6. Tout further emphasized that the French royal clerks were not allocated to different departments, but they were part of the same body and remained in the royal household throughout the fourteenth century. See also R.H. Bautier, ‘Les notaires et secrétaires du roi, des origines au milieu du XVIe siècle’, in Les notaires et secrétaires du roi sous les règnes de Louis XI, Chales VIII et Louis XII (1461–1515) (Paris, 1978), pp. xi–xiv; O. Guyotjeannin, ‘L’écriture des actes à la chancellerie royale française (XIVe–XVe siècles)’, in Le statut du scripteur au Moyen Âge, ed. M.C. Hubert, E. Poulle, M.H. Smith (Paris, 2000), pp. 97–108; O. Canteaut, ‘Du notaire au clerc du secret: le personnel de la chancellerie des derniers Capétiens directs dans les rouages du pouvoir’, in Chancelleries et chanceliers des princes à la fin du Moyen Age, ed. G. Castelnuovo, P. Mattéoni (Chambéry, 2011), pp. 231–85. 94  J. Sayers, ‘The influence of papal documents on English documents before 1305’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen. Studien zu ihrer formalen und rechtlichen Kohärenz vom 11. bis 15. Jahrhundert, ed. P. Herde, H. Jakobs (CologneWeimar—Vienna, 1999), pp. 161–200; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery and English documents in the 14th and early 15th centuries’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen, pp. 201–18. See also G. Barraclough, ‘The English Royal Chancery and the Papal Chancery in the reign of Henry III’, MIÖG 62 (1954), pp. 365–73.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Chancery Practices in England and the Papal Curia

51

Nevertheless, although chancery practices in England and the papal curia developed independently, some common ground still had to be found when it came to the management of international affairs. To a great extent it was in fact the practice of diplomacy that prompted different bureaucratic traditions to forge ‘shared administrative and performative languages’, as I will argue in Chapter 3.95 The latter emerged from the adaptation of in-house styles, formularies, rhetorical and ceremonial traditions with the scope of establishing a common ground of communication among polities. Yet, given that in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Europe the procedures of the papal curia stood out for their sophisticated administrative, diplomatic, and ceremonial features and petitioners approaching the papacy were expected to comply with the papal in-house style, the ‘shared language of diplomacy’ employed in Anglo-papal relations did not ultimately emerge as a hybrid of two in-house traditions, but rather resulted from the implementation of continental administrative and diplomatic practices in England, notably the stilus curie and the tradition of the ars dictaminis, from which the stilus curie itself had developed.96 Indeed, during the thirteenth century the ars dictaminis was known across Europe thanks to the compilation of collections of examples and form-letters, which served as didactic tools for good writing and public speaking, as well as through the activity of professional administrators and diplomats trained in such rhetorical techniques. In particular, as Grévin recently put it, in the first half of the thirteenth century the use of the ars dictaminis was thriving at the court of Frederick II thanks to the activity of his chancellors Peter de Vineis and Taddeo da Sessa as well as other notaries, who were also employed as ambassadors in England, France, the Empire, the papal curia and North Africa.97 By the second half of the thirteenth century this southern Italian tradition of writing and speaking according to the dictamen spread throughout Europe thanks to the pupils of Peter de Vineis, most notably Nicola da Rocca senior, who gathered the tradition of the dictamen in letter-collections and formularies, rhetorical treatises, religious and scholastic sermons and historical works.98 Interestingly, by the 1270s this southern Italian tradition of the dictamen also reached England, mostly as a result of the work of Stephen of San Giorgio, originally from southern Italy and who enjoyed a remarkably international career. In fact, during the reign of Edward I, between 1276 and 1291, Stephen served the English crown as a clerk, proctor, and diplomatic envoy at the papal curia, where he was chamberlain of the English cardinal Hugh of Evesham, scriptor in the papal chancery, and clerk of Charles II of Anjou, king of 95  See Chapter 3. 96  See above n. 11–12. This was not the case for the communication between England and the papal curia, but also betwen England and other polities. For instance, in 1338–1340 none of the clerks in Edward III’s wardrobe was able to write letters in accordance with the style in use in the Flemish towns and had to employ clerks in Ghent for this purpose: EMDP, I/2, no. 334, pp. 710–11. 97 Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 316–18, 431. Similar conclusions had been also reached in N. DenholmYoung, ‘The cursus in England’, in Collected papers, pp. 54–5. 98 Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 422–3, 427, 434–51; B. Grévin, ‘ “Costellazioni epistolari e reti di dictatores”: la diffusione dello stilus altus “siciliano” nell’Europa della fine del Duecento (1266–1290), in Dall’‘ars dictaminis’, pp. 104–12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

52

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Naples.99 Delle Donne and Grévin maintain that Stephen belonged to that same milieu of Nicola da Rocca and followed in the tradition of Peter de Vineis’s work and dictamen. His expertise in the ars dictaminis is especially evidenced in his letters dedicated to Edward I, Hugh of Evesham and other members of the English court, as well as in his religious and political sermons. The latter in fact borrowed from Peter de Vineis’s panegyric of Frederick II and letters and were dedicated at least in two instances to Edward I.100 Besides the contribution of individuals such as Stephen of San Giorgio, during the thirteenth century a good number of manuscripts of the Italian and French ars dictaminis, such as Bernard de Meung, Guido Faba, Thomas of Capua, Peter de Vineis, and Richard of Pofi, circulated in England.101 These texts arguably informed the use of rhetoric and syntactical forms in both written and oral communication, while their dissemination has been associated with the activity of notaries public in England in the 1270s.102 Furthermore, between the end of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries some Englishmen compiled rhetorical treatises which arose from the French and Italian traditions of the ars dictaminis: John of Garland, who wrote in Paris in about 1234;103 Geoffrey de Eversley or de Cumeselz, who served as notary and ambassador of Alfonso X, king of Castile, both in England and at the papal curia and compiled a rhetorical treatise on the cursus Romane curie;104 John de Briggis and Thomas Sampson, both active in Oxford respectively in the mid-fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries;105 and finally, the royal clerk Richard of Bury, who probably made his acquaintance with the stilus curie in Avignon, where he was dispatched on diplomatic missions in the 1330s.106 By the 1280s the rules of the stilus curie and the ars dictaminis were therefore well known in England thanks to the activity of skilled administrators, who were trained in the dictamen and were able to implement different administrative traditions in order to support the royal diplomatic discourse, as well as the circulation of rhetorical texts. By the early fourteenth century the style of the Roman curia was further employed in English chancery diplomatic documents, where we increasingly find continental forms, as I discuss in Chapter 3.107 The implementation of these continental practices in the fourteenth-century English diplomatic and administrative correspondence was indeed most necessary, especially after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337, which ultimately intensified Anglo-papal relations, as I will argue in the second part of this book. 99  F. Delle Donne, ‘Introduzione’, in Una silloge epistolare della seconda metà del XIII secolo (Firenze, 2007), pp. xiv–xxvi; Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 434–46; Ross, The papal chapel, pp. 187, 234–5. 100  Delle Donne, Una silloge, pp. 3–89; Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 434–40. 101 Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, pp. 54–5, 61–71. See also Barraclough, Public Notaries, pp. 10–11. 102  Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, pp. 56–8; Cheney, Notaries, pp. 26–39. 103  Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, p. 52. 104  Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, pp. 50–2. 105  Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, pp. 52–4. 106 N.  Denholm-Young, ‘Richard de Bury (1287–1345) and the Liber epistolaris’, in Collected Papers, pp. 1–41; Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, pp. 46–7. 107  Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, pp. 56–61; Denholm-Young, ‘Richard de Bury’, pp. 4–5. See Chapter 3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

3 The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia Fourteenth-century diplomatic practice nurtured the implementation of a ‘shared language of diplomacy’ in England, especially from the 1330s.1 The latter heavily borrowed from the Italian and French tradition of the dictamen as well as notarial practices, which also had a strong influence on the development of the so-called stilus curie, namely the rules and procedures in use at the papal curia from the mid-twelfth century. By the early fourteenth century the expression stilus curie referred to the administrative requirements which ought to be followed when petitioning and engaging in legal proceedings at the papal curia as well as the ceremonial ­performances that were part of the diplomatic exchange with the papacy.2 By the fourteenth century written petitions and letters presented to the papal curia, therefore, had to be compiled in Latin in accordance with the stilus curie, employing formulaic language and expressed in rhythmical prose (the so-called cursus Romane curie) before either being delivered orally or read to the pope and his officials.3 This was especially the case for petitions concerning routine business falling under the umbrella of papal ecclesiastical jurisdiction, such as matters concerning provisions to benefices and dispensations, which were often dealt with alongside political missions and could substantially jeopardize Anglo-papal negotiations on current foreign affairs, as happened in the 1340s and 1350s.4 Accordingly, there was a clear expectation that petitioners and their representatives followed a set rhetorical style, when conveying oral messages viva voce at the papal curia.5 Between the thirteenth and the fifteenth centuries the use of more formalized administrative and diplomatic procedures for writing petitions and conveying oral messages before the papacy further coincided with the standardization of 1  B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as a source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research 85 (2012), p. 606. 2 P.  Herde, Beiträge zum päpstlichen Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen im dreizehnten Jahrhundert (Kallmünz, 1961), p. 74, 103, 107, 114–15; T. Frenz, I documenti pontifici nel Medioevo e nell’Età Moderna (Città del Vaticano, 1998), pp. 47–53; Ch. Lefebvre, ‘Style et pratique de la curie romaine’, in Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (Paris, 1935–1965), VII, col. 1092–1093. On the ceremonial performances that ought to be followed when approaching the papal curia see P. Herde, Beiträge, p. 82. Although the expression stilus curie is not consistently used in earlier sources, similar ceremonial procedures seem to have been required of petitioners visiting the papal curia in the thirteenth century. 3  See below n. 51. 4 K.  Plöger, England and the Avignon Popes. The Practice of Diplomacy in Late Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2005), pp. 197–8. See Chapters 4 and 5. 5 G.P. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), pp. 116–17.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

54

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

diplomatic practices across Western Europe, where the procedure adopted during diplomatic missions became increasingly consistent and usually encompassed four stages: the so-called presentacio litterarum credencie, namely the presentation of the envoys’ letters of which followed the customary greetings and the admittance to the ruler’s presence (ad pedum et oris oscula); the exposicio credencie, namely the envoys’ conveyance of their message, which took place orally and occasionally also in writing; the recipient’s response to the embassy (responsio); and finally, the authorization of the envoys to return to their countries (licencia recessus).6 Foreign envoys at the papal curia were, therefore, expected to have a comprehensive ­knowledge of and adopt correctly the stilus curie throughout the various stages of their mission, particularly during the presentacio litterarum credencie, the exposicio credencie, where letters of credence were presented orally and occasionally in writing to the pope and his advisers, and the responsio, when the pope and the envoys further discussed the issues at stake. By the fourteenth century, however, the employment of the stilus curie did not only concern the use of correct rhetorical forms, but also compliance with ­ceremonial practices. Indeed, messages could be delivered before the pope and his advisers in two different settings: the public or common consistory, which was held in a public space (the so-called aula) in the presence of cardinals and curialists and was generally chosen for the arrival of nuncii solemnes, whose mission concerned public affairs and political negotiations; and the private or secret consistory, which took place in the pope’s chamber (camera) in the presence of the pope and a few selected advisers, usually cardinals, and was generally preferred during diplomatic negotiations, which required a degree of discussion and secrecy.7 However, within the limits of papal ceremonial rules, in the case of delicate political missions 6 P. Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London—New York, 2003), pp. 230–44; Plöger, England, pp. 202–3. For sixteenth-century Venetian examples of expositiones, see also F. De Vivo, ‘Archives of Speech. Recording Diplomatic Negotiation in Late Medieval and Early Modern Italy’, European History Quarterly 46 (2016), pp. 526–9. 7  See for instance the meeting between the English envoy John Grey and the French envoys, which took place before the pope and five cardinals in camera pape on 21 December 1343 in order to prepare the First Avignon Conference: H.  Schröder, ‘Die Protokollbücher der päpstlichen Kammerkleriker, 1329–1347’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 27 (1937), no. 84, pp. 232–3; Plöger, England, pp. 31–2, 234. On the conveyance of messages in public and private consistories see Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, p. 234; Plöger, England, pp. 198–201. See also Die Zeremonienbücher der römischen Kurie im Mittelalter, ed. B. Schimmelpfennig (Tübingen, 1973), pp. 36–9; B. Schimmelpfennig, ‘Die Funktion des Papstpalastes und der kurialen Gesellschaft im päpstlichen Zeremoniell vor und während des großen Schismas’, in Genèse et débuts du Grand Schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1980), pp. 321–2. On some occasions only one envoy was invited to speak before the pope in the chamber (camera), while the others were left to wait outside in the adjacent chamber (in exteriori camera) and eventually allowed in, when needed: Jean Froissart, Oeuvres de Froissart: Chroniques, ed. K. de Lettenhove, XVIII (Bruxelles, 1870–1877), pp. 208–9. Furthermore, different adjacent chambers of the papal palace were employed for the reception of diplomatic envoys during tri-lateral negotiations, when envoys of opposing parties were deliberately kept apart and discussions were undertaken by the pope and the cardinals on a oneto-one basis: see Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, pp. 220–1, 238–9, 245, 250–1; B.  Schimmelpfennig, ‘Ad maiorem papae gloriam. La fonction des piéces dans le palais des Papes d’Avignon’, in Architecture et vie sociale. L’organisation intérieure des grandes demeures à la fin du Moyen Age et à la Reinaissance, ed. J. Guillaume (Tours, 1994), pp. 25–43; Plöger, England, pp. 203–8. On the requirement to comply with local ceremonial uses during diplomatic negotiations I. Lazzarini, Communication and Conflict. Italian diplomacy in the Early Renaissance, 1350–1520 (Oxford, 2015), pp. 198–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

55

diplomatic envoys seem to have been granted private and informal access to the pope, occasionally having the chance to dine in his presence together with him and some cardinals.8 This was for instance the case for the mission of John Offord and Hugh Neville, Edward III’s proctors dispatched to Avignon in August–September 1344 for preliminary discussions to prepare the First Avignon Conference. On this occasion, after offering their master’s routine greetings, the envoys were indeed admitted to the pope’s dining table in the presence of five cardinals, where they could discuss a large volume of business (une grant collacion de noz bosoignes), most ­notably the truce in Brittany and the Anglo-French peace.9 Occasionally, English diplomatic envoys were granted further private audiences with the pope alone, as happened once more during the negotiations of the First Avignon Conference in October 1344, when Clement VI discussed secret matters with the English representatives only in the presence of his chamber secretary, Raymundus de Valle, who was taking notes.10 By the early fourteenth century the stilus curie further allowed kings and their representatives to bypass curialists and cardinals and have direct access to the pope, as stated in a letter sent to James II by the Aragonese envoys, Vitalis de Villanova, Dalmacius de Pontonibus and Bernardus de Ponte on 7 February 1312.11 Accordingly, when visiting the papal curia, kings, emperors and their representatives were honoured with further ceremonial performances, such as the privilege of being received outside the papal city of residence and escorted to the papal palace by the members of the college of cardinals and residing in the papal palace, as happened with the French and English diplomatic delegations during the Anglo-French negotiations in 1354.12 The extent to which the administrative departments of the English crown adopted continental rhetorical styles in their diplomatic and administrative exchange with the papacy in order to comply with the requirements of the stilus curie can be further investigated especially thanks to the study of the available evidence recording Anglo-papal oral and written communications. In the remaining 8 S. Weiß, Die Versorgung des päpstlichen Hofes in Avignon mit Lebensmitteln (1316–1378): Studien zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte eines mittelalterlichen Hofes (Berlin, 2002), pp. 228–45. 9  Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, no. lvii, pp. 202–5; EMDP, no. 155, pp. 294–5. See also Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, p. 231; Plöger, England, pp. 201, 208–9. See also Chapter 4. 10  Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, XVIII, no. lvii, p. 216: ‘et, exclusis omnibus, magistro Raymundo de Valle, secretario suo de camera, qui litteras suas dictat, predicto fratre albo et me dumtaxat exceptis, edidit michi et perlegit copias litterarum suarum’. For a similar example see also Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, XVIII, no. lviii, p. 251. On the importance of secret meetings during diplomatic negotiations see J.M. Moeglin, S. Péquignot, Diplomatie et « relations internationales » au Moyen Age (IXe–XVe siècle) (Paris, 2017), pp. 210–13, 447–56. 11  Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II. (1291–1327), ed. H.  Finke (Basel, 1966), III, no. 110, pp. 232–3: ‘Sciatis etiam, domine, quod adhuc non visitavimus aliquem cardinalem, quia stilus est curie, quod ambaciatores alicuius regis non debent visitare cardinales, quousque reverenciam exhibuerint domino pape’. See also the Journal des conférences d’Avignon, evidencing Clement VI’s reception of the English envoys in 1344 (Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, no. lviii, p. 255): ‘Qua hora adveniente, predicti novi nuntii, . . . se domini nostri pape conspectui presentarunt et sibi fecerunt reverentiam, ut est moris, quos benigne recepit’. 12  Die Zeremonienbücher, no. xxviii, p. 206; Weiß, Die Versorgung, pp. 235, 245–55. See also Plöger, England, p. 202. On diplomatic ceremonial procedures see also Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 191–202.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

56

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

part of this chapter, I will therefore address these two instances in order to explore how far shared rhetorical and administrative practices helped to shape a ‘shared language of diplomacy’ in England and at the papal curia, ultimately facilitating Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse. O R A L M E S S A G E S C O N V E Y E D AT T H E PA PA L C U R I A Chaplais convincingly maintained that the use of oral messages alongside written letters of credence and instructions not only responded to the need for secrecy during diplomatic negotiations, but was also adopted for mere convenience and out of fear that the written word could be either misunderstood or used at a later stage as evidence against the sender of a message.13 Indeed, from the 1280s the use of the Latin word credencia in the sense of an oral message is frequent in English diplomatic sources where, alongside the expressions nuncium and nunciacio, it also acquired the meaning of confidential information that the envoys had to dispatch orally.14 Although the methods adopted in order to convey oral messages are difficult to investigate, since they are far less documented than the written evidence, we can however speculate that by the fourteenth century English diplomatic envoys dispatched to Avignon knew how they were supposed to speak in order to meet the expectations of the papal curia and how to employ the rhetorical forms of the stilus curie in their oral messages.15 Such requirements were in fact hardly ever specified in the letters of credence or instructions given to diplomatic envoys. In return, the latter were chosen because of their training in the ars dictaminis, legal knowledge and language skills as well as for their ability to convey diplomatic orations in accordance with the expectations of their audience, imitating and making use of the rhetorical forms collected in the formularies of the dictatores. Indeed, the dictamen clearly addressed the use of rhetoric for conveying oral messages, especially during diplomatic negotiations.16 As Grévin pointed out, the rhetorical forms of oral communication were in fact codified in the ars arengandi and by the mid-thirteenth century they became especially important in the political milieu owing to the struggle between Frederick II and the Italian cities of northern Italy, which provided plenty of opportunities for practising diplomatic oratory.17 Accordingly, 13 Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, p. 162. See also Plöger, England, pp. 186–9. 14 Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 160–3, 237–41. The only place where the word credencia had the meaning of making a pledge until much later was Italy. 15  As Clanchy pointed out, the paradox in studying oral communication is that ‘historians can only know of the survival of oral ways of conveying information by extant written evidence’: M. Clanchy, From memory to written record. England, 1066–1307 (London, 1979), pp. 211–12. 16 B. Grévin, Rhétorique du pouvoir médiéval. Les Lettres de Pierre de la Vigne et la formation du langage politique Européen (XIIIe–XVe siècle) (Rome, 2008), p. 318. See for instance the correspondence between Edward II and his envoys at the papal curia Aymer of Valence and Walter Reynolds (dating 21 December 1316), where the king simply stated that he had received their messenger and briefly instructed them on their forthcoming business at the curia: TNA, SC 1/45/192. See also Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 135–9. See Chapter 5. 17  E.  Artifoni, ‘Gli uomini dell’assemblea. L’oratoria civile, o concionatori, e i predicatori nella società comunale’, in La predicazione dei frati dalla metà del ‘200 alla fine del ‘300 (Spoleto, 1995), pp. 181–8; Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 831–6; A. Cirier, ‘Diplomazia e retorica comunale: la comunicazione

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

57

during the thirteenth century the improvisation of oral communication was also influenced by preaching practices, where preachers commonly d ­ elivered sermons by expanding on a plot or draft text, notably a model sermon, on the basis of the rules set up in the ars predicandi.18 In Grévin’s opinion, scholastic sermons are indeed echoed in thirteenth-century oratorical speeches (arenge) conveyed during important political and diplomatic summits. This was the case for Peter de Vineis’s panegyric of Frederick II, which served in the second half of the thirteenth century as a model for other arenge, ultimately arriving in England thanks to Stephen of San Giorgio, the proctor of Edward I at the papal curia who adopted these rhetorical forms in his political sermon dedicated to the English king.19 In their letters of credence diplomatic envoys were routinely given a mandate to present the king’s messages viva voce before the pope and his officials.20 The nature of this mandate varied and depended on the status and faculties specifically assigned to the envoy. Alongside the letter of credence, proctors with powers of negotiations could further receive a letter of procuration, which authorized them to speak on the king’s behalf as well as on their own initiative.21 Finally, the envoys’ instructions normally listed a number of juridical and substantial points concerning the business that the representatives had to touch upon during their mission at the Apostolic See. However neither the letter of credence nor the letter of ­procuration or the instructions usually spelt out how these oral messages had to be conveyed.22 attraverso lo spionaggio politico nell’Italia medievale (secc. XII–XIII)’, in Comunicazione e propaganda nei secoli XII e XIII, ed. R.  Castano, F.  Latella, T.  Sorrenti (Rome, 2005), pp. 199–203. See also L. Haskins, E.H. Kantorowicz, ‘A Diplomatic Mission of Francis Accursius and His Oration before Pope Nicholas III’, EHR 58 (1943) pp. 429–30; P. von Moos, ‘Die italienische “ars arengandi” des 13. Jahrhunderts als Schule der Kommunikation’, in Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Bedigungen, Typen, Publikum, Sprache, ed. H.  Brunner, N.R.  Wolf (Wiesbaden, 1993), pp. 67–77. On the fifteenth century see also Lazzarini, Communication, pp. 191–2. 18  On the key structural features of scholastic sermons see D. D’Avray, The Preaching of the Friars. Sermons diffused from Paris before 1300 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 163–80. 19 Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 431–46. See also Chapter 2. On the artes predicandi and oratorical practice see also Haskins, Kantorowicz, ‘A Diplomatic Mission’, pp. 430–3; Artifoni, ‘Gli uomini’ pp. 144–88. 20 G.P.  Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), pp. 110–11; P. Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents to the End of Edward III’s Reign’, in The Study of Medieval Records. Essays in honour of K. Major, ed. D.A. Bullogh, R.L. Storey (Oxford, 1971), pp. 29–30. The administrative practice and formularies employed in the letters of credence could vary greatly. Compare, for instance, the formulary adopted in the English chancery in Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 110–11, with the Italian practice in ASV, AA. Arm. C 182. The latter is a notarial instrument recording the letter of credence granted by the city of Ferrara to his ambassadors dispatched to the Apostolic See on 20 October 1309. The representatives of Ferrara were licensed by Arnaud, cardinal of Santa Maria in Porticu and legate of the Apostolic See in Bologna, in order to expose their business before Clement V and the cardinals: ‘concedimus licentiam exponendi ambaxiatam eis impositam per ipsum populum et commune sigillatam sigillo predicti communis coram sanctissimo patre et domino nostro domino Clemente summo pontifice et sacro cetu dominorum cardinalium’. 21  This authorization was expressed through the use of the so-called clause de rato, which authorized the diplomatic envoys to conclude the negotiations without needing the ratification of their principal: Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents’, pp. 29–30; P.  Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 56–74. Some examples are available in EMDP, I/1, no. 50c, pp. 71–3; no. 60, pp. 88–93; no. 68b, pp. 105–8; no. 161, pp. 306–7; no. 182a, pp. 328–30; no. 194b, p. 354. See also Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 380–9. On the difference between procurator and nuncius see Chapter 5. 22 Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 211–14; Plöger, England, p. 185. A number of examples of letters of credence and instructions to convey oral messages are edited in EMDP, I/1, no. 34–67,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

58

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

For instance, the letter of credence for the English envoy John Piers, who was dispatched to the papal curia on 10 April 1335, only specified that the envoy had to report Edward III’s message viva voce before the papal curia, while his instructions dating from June–July 1335 did not give any indication of how the message had to be conveyed.23 This was also the case for papal representatives sent abroad, as clearly evidenced in Innocent VI’s instructions for Raymond Pellegrini, dispatched to England and France in 1353. While Innocent VI listed with a good degree of care the issues that the envoy should or should not mention, he made hardly any reference to the rhetorical language that Raymond had to adopt during his negotiations, apart from one reference to the fact that the envoy had to address suitably the French king in his greetings that had to be conveyed before the presentacio litterarum credencie.24 The style adopted to convey oral messages before the papal curia depended not only on the training of diplomatic envoys, but also on the solemnity of the occasion and the extent to which the pope wished to honour his guests.25 Indeed, as Maxson recently argued, oratorical performances of diplomatic envoys further constituted ‘cultural gifts’ given to a host ruler and therefore had to suit a variety of social and political rituals.26 In this respect, a very good fourteenth-century example of a formal arenga, employing the so-called stylus supremus, is represented by three well-known orations of the Florentine ambassador Lapo di Castiglionchio, which were recited before Urban V during a public consistory in 1366.27 Not only do Lapo’s orations marry the style of the fourteenth-century Italian ars arengandi, especially in their use of rhetorical devices, such as the agnominatio, and their ­quotations of classical authors as Seneca and Ovid, but they also show how the envoy was supposed to expand upon his instructions, which, in Lapo’s case, were pp.  46–103. On the words ‘credence’ and ‘instruction’ in English diplomatic correspondence see Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 192–202. 23  For the letter of credence see TNA, C 70/14, m. 4. For the instructions see TNA, C 47/28/4/3. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 46, 71, 82, pointed out that Elias Joneston, who was custos processuum between 1329 and 1336 and was responsible for ordering the transcription of documents and the reorganization of the crown’s diplomatic archives, supported the reopening of the process of Montreuil in 1334, delivering some documents from his archive to John Piers and other English envoys in June 1335. Another relevant example is provided by the mission of Edward I’s envoys, William of Gainsborough, bishop of Worcester, and Thomas de Berkele, dispatched to Clement V in 1307, whose letter of credence was in Latin and instructions in French: EMDP, I/1, no. 41, pp. 53–6. See also Chapter 8. 24 ASV, Instr. Misc., 1942: ‘post debite salutationis ac benedictionis alloquium’; Reg. Inn. VI (curiales), no. 433; CPL, III, pp. 611–12. See Chapter 5. 25  Le cérémonial papal de la fin du Moyen Age à la Renaissance, ed. M.  Dykmans, II (Rome, 1977–1985), p. 425: ‘Attendendum etiam quod cum magna negotia publica tamen proponenda sunt, sive per ambassiatores imperatorum vel regum, provinciarum vel communitatum solemnium, vel etiam alia magna negotia de quibus sepe curia renovatur, dominus papa audire consuevit in consistorio publico, et maxime primas propositiones electionum que ad sedem apostolicam deferuntur, ne aliqui fraudulenter dicerent se in concordia electos, cum tamen electio esset in discordia celebrata; et etiam quando summus pontifex multum vult honorare ambassiatores, vel solemnes nuntios venientes, etiam si tunc nichil magni proponant, in publico consistorio recipere consuevit’. See also Weiß, Die Versorgung, pp. 235–7; Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 213–18, and for the later period in Lazzarini, Communication, p. 191. See also Chapter 4. 26 B.J. Maxson, The Humanist World of Renaissance Florence (Cambridge, 2014), pp. 88–106. 27  R. Davidsohn, ‘Tre orazioni di Lapo di Castiglionchio, ambasciatore fiorentino, a papa Urbano V e alla curia in Avignone’, Archivio Storico Italiano 20 (1897), pp. 225–46.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

59

extremely detailed and included recommendations on ceremonial, stylistic, and substantial points.28 Especially in his first and third orations Lapo made ample use of the captatio benevolentie, stating his intention to keep his orations brief, as was customary when addressing the papal curia, while the customary greetings for the pope and the cardinals and the admittance to the pope’s presence (ad pedum et oris oscula) preceding the presentacio litterarum credencie are conventionally introduced at the beginning of the first oration.29 Lapo accordingly addressed substantial issues in a logical and clear way, faithfully following the items listed in the instructions that he had been given in his letter of credence.30 Most interestingly, as Davidsohn pointed out, Lapo managed to employ conventional rhetorical and stylistic devices in order to introduce original arguments. For instance, his second oration gives a novel etymological interpretation of the words Guelf and Ghibellines, used to address the opposing pro-papal and pro-imperial parties in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Italy.31 The extent to which the Italian oratorical style had arrived in England by the 1270s, as argued by Denholm-Young and Grévin, can be further investigated through the examination of the surviving orations delivered by English diplomatic envoys before the papal curia in this period.32 Two thirteenth-century orations, probably performed during public consistories, clearly demonstrate this point. These are the oration recited in 1258 by Henry III’s procurator, Master John Clarel, before Pope Alexander IV and the cardinals, which is recorded in the Annals of Burton Abbey; and the arenga, transmitted in three legal manuscripts alongside other arenge attributed to Peter de Vineis, which was presented before Pope Nicholas III in 1278 by Edward I’s secretary and Italian lawyer, Francis Accursius.33 Both these orations meet the criteria of formal arenge, although their style is quite different. John Clarel’s oration follows more closely and conventionally the instructions contained in his letter of procuration, making use of a limited amount of rhetorical flourishes, mainly consisting of Biblical quotations and legal references. By contrast, Francis Accursius’s arenga stands out for its pompous style, which shows how the traditions of ars predicandi and ars dictaminis were skillfully adopted and used in practice by lawyers and diplomatic envoys who followed in the footsteps of Peter de Vineis.34 In this respect, Accursius represents Lapo’s precursor, since his 28  Davidsohn, ‘Tre orazioni’, pp. 229–30. In the third oration Lapo’s praise of Rome, where the Apostolic See should be returned, further borrows from the mirabilia Urbis Rome, venturing in a description of the city and its famous buildings. For the instructions see Epistola o sia ragionamento di Messer Lapo di Castiglionchio, ed. L. Mehus (Bologna, 1758), pp. 185–94. 29  Davidsohn, ‘Tre orazioni’, pp. 229–30, 234. On this ceremonial performance see also Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 205–10. 30  Davidsohn, ‘Tre orazioni’, pp. 234, 240–1. See also Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 831–6. 31  Davidsohn, ‘Tre orazioni’, pp. 231–3, 238–46. 32  N. Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, in Collected Papers. Cultural, textual and biograph­ ical essays on Medieval topics (Cardiff, 1969), pp. 56–61; N. Denholm-Young, ‘Richard de Bury (1287–1345) and the Liber epistolaris’, in Collected Papers, pp. 4–5; F. Delle Donne, ‘Introduzione’, in Una silloge epistolare della seconda metà del XIII secolo (Firenze, 2007), pp. xiv–xxvi; Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 434–46. See also Chapter 2. 33 EMDP, no. 136, pp. 224–9; Haskins, Kantorowicz, ‘A Diplomatic Mission’, pp. 427–47; Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 831–6. 34 An arenga following a similar style was delivered in 1435 by the English envoys at the Anglo-French conference of Arras: EMDP, no. 137, pp. 229–34. On the style of Accursius’s arenga see Haskins,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

60

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

oration belongs to the same Italian tradition of the ars arengandi. His arenga ultimately evidences how important the activity of Italian jurists and dictatores in the service of the English crown during the period 1260–80 was for the introduction of continental rhetorical and oratorical techniques in England. Oral messages delivered in less formal settings or dealing with more routine business however had a very different style from the arenge mentioned above. An example of vivid and pretty unconventional speech between the English envoys and Boniface VIII is recorded in Peter Aimeri’s written report (relacio) of the English embassy sent to the papal curia between April and August 1300. Peter Aimeri, canon of Saint-Seurin in Bordeaux and the king’s proctor, addressed the report to Edward I and his council, after he had been dispatched to Rome along with six other envoys. The mission was motivated by the ending of the AngloFlemish truce on 6 January 1300 and was to address the issues of English homage owed to the French crown and French occupation of Aquitaine since 1294.35 Given that the relacio was conveyed to the king and his council, the language of the report is French. However, we ought to assume that this was a translation for the consumption of its audience, while the actual conversation between Boniface VIII and the English envoys, John of Pontissara, bishop of Winchester, and Gerard von Wippingen, archdeacon of Richmond, who spoke before Boniface VIII, happened in Latin.36 As the relacio points out, the discussion between the English envoys and the pope took place over three sessions in the secret or private consistory in the presence of six cardinals. During the first session the English envoys discussed with the pope two main issues, namely the question of English homage to the French crown and the French occupation of Gascony, overall obtaining satisfactory results, since Boniface VIII ultimately declared that the French crown unlawfully controlled Aquitaine.37 In the second session the English envoys further demanded that as a matter of secrecy the papal responses could be delivered orally to Edward I, since written letters could either go astray or be intercepted. These requests prompted the pope to ask for and check the envoys’ letters of procuration and faculties in accordance with routine administrative and diplomatic practice.38 Finally, in the third session the pope gave Peter Aimeri the licencia recessus and asked him to report faithfully to the king the outcomes of his discussion with the other English envoys, while the bishop of Winchester tried to reopen two outstanding issues, namely a possible Anglo-French marriage alliance and the state of Kantorowicz, ‘A Diplomatic Mission’, p. 426 and 433; Artifoni, ‘Gli uomini dell’assemblea’, pp. 177–9; Grévin, Rhétorique, p. 836. 35  EMDP, I/1, no. 149, pp. 268–75. On the reports as a source of diplomatic practice see Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 244–6. On the French occupation of Aquitaine between 1294 and 1303 and the Anglo-Flemish war in 1297 see T.S.R. Boase, Boniface VIII (London, 1933), pp. 203–8; M. Prestwich, Edward I (London, 1988), pp. 396–7; M. Vale, The Angevin legacy and the Hundred Years War, 1250–1340 (Oxford, 1990), pp. 217–21; B. Bolton, ‘Boniface VIII and the Kingdom of England’, in Bonifacio VIII. Atti del XXXIX Congresso storico internazionale (Todi, 13–16 ottobre 2002) (Spoleto, 2003), pp. 336–8, 340. 36  See below n. 45–46. 37  EMDP, I/1, no. 149, pp. 269–73. 38  The letters of procuration are enrolled in TNA, C 76/8, m. 8; Treaty Rolls, I, no. 368, pp. 145–6, while the indented letter of credence for the envoys was copied in The Gascon Calendar of 1322, ed. G.P. Cuttino (London, 1949), no. 396, p. 39.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

61

Anglo-Flemish relations, already addressed in 1298 and 1299 during earlier Anglo-French negotiations at the papal curia.39 The relacio reports the conversation among the parties as a direct speech, further including quotations from previous talks between the English and French representatives and the pope.40 Such ­dialectical exchange sheds unique light on diplomatic negotiations, although it lacks the formality and rhetoric of the solemn arenge. Despite the relatively casual nature of the Anglo-papal discussion on this occasion, some fundamental r­ hetorical rules were however adopted by the English envoys, who kept their responses and interventions brief and focused, as was expected when presenting facts and requests to the pope.41 Indeed, the only verbose interventions and Biblical flourishes throughout the exchange between the pope and the English envoys are those attributed to Boniface VIII, who justified his claims to supreme authority over spiritual and secular power with explicit references to the two swords’ theory.42 Another example of oral conveyance of urgent and sensitive news at the papal curia outside a solemn setting is provided by the indented letter of credence of Edward II’s council issued for the envoys Henry Spigurnel and John de Benstede on 24 February 1311. Benstede and Spigurnel’s mission was dispatched at a very difficult time for Edward II because of the reopening of the hostilities in Scotland at the beginning of 1311, after the failure of the negotiations with Robert Bruce, and rising English baronial opposition, which eventually led to the making of the Ordinances of 1311 (20 March 1311).43 The features of this more routine document are remarkable at least in two respects. First, although on 16 and 18 February 1311 the envoys had received letters close of credence, authorizing them to present orally the king’s message (ex parte nostra oraculo vive vocis), the indented letter of credence was written down to be read out faithfully before the pope during the exposicio credencie and ultimately delivered in writing at the pope’s demand.44 Second, while the letters close of credence had been issued under the great seal in 39  EMDP, I/1, no. 149, pp. 274–5. On the specific issues addressed in this mission see also The Gascon Calendar of 1322, no. 90, 94, 98, p. 16; no. 159–168, pp. 22–3. On the procedure see Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, p. 241. 40  EMDP, I/1, no. 149, p. 269. On the practice of diplomatic negotiations see also Lazzarini, Communication, pp. 193–7. On the consistory see above n. 7. 41  De Vivo, ‘Archives’, pp. 522–3. On the relationship between the argumentative framework, set up in the rules for late Medieval diplomatic exchange, and the employment of emotional language in diplomatic letters and speeches see I. Lazzarini, ‘Argument and Emotion in Italian Diplomacy in the Early Fifteenth Century: the Case of Rinaldo degli Albrizzi (Florence, 1399–1430)’, in The Languages of Political Society. Western Europe, 14th–17th Centuries, ed. A. Gamberini, J.P. Genet, A. Zorzi (Roma, 2011), pp. 339–64. Lazzarini convincingly argued that emotions emerge in these sources thanks to ‘different and more indirect discursive strategies’, namely through the intentional intrusion of different languages, the use of metaphors and proverbs, as well as thanks to the employment of literary, Biblical and juridical quotation and/or inaccurate expressions. 42 EMDP, I/1, no. 149, pp. 271–2, 274. To support his claims Boniface VIII conventionally quoted 1 Cor. 3.6 and Rev.1.16. On ambassadors’ reports as evidence of rulers’ direct speeches see F. Montuori, F. Senatore, ‘Discorsi riportati alla corte di re Ferrante d’Aragona’, in Discorsi alla prova, ed. G. Abbamonte, L. Milletti, L. Spina (Napoli, 2009), pp. 519–77. 43  EMDP, I/1, no. 43c, pp. 58–9. The making of the Ordinance of 1311 is not mentioned in the credence, which only explicitly refers to the Scottish affairs. On the general context see S. Phillips, Edward II (New Haven, CT—London, 2010), pp. 167–75. 44 Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 240–1. See also De Vivo, ‘Archives’, pp. 531–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

62

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Latin, the council’s indented letter of credence was drafted in French, which was the preferred language of the king, his council, and envoys.45 What is however more peculiar in this case is that there is no evidence that the English chancery translated the council’s French letter of credence into Latin, as usually happened for messages delivered to the papal curia.46 We therefore have to assume that the envoys read out the message in French, possibly relying on Clement V’s knowledge of the French spoken at the English court, given his origins and former career as Edward I’s clerk.47 The indented letter of credence further stands out for its direct tone, which precisely addresses the issues prompting the envoys’ mission, and does not employ any of the Biblical and rhetorical flourishes of the solemn arenge mentioned earlier. In this respect, it seems that specific administrative and diplomatic solutions were here dictated by delicate political circumstances rather than by standard administrative and diplomatic procedures. The choice of Henry Spigurnel and John de Benstede as envoys was probably justified by Edward II’s political problems in 1311 and shows how the council dispatched trusted men of lower knightly rank, who however lacked comprehensive training as well as rhetorical skills to convey an oral message before the papal curia without reading it out. Indeed, while John de Benstede, an exchequer’s and wardrobe’s clerk and a justice of the common bench in Westminster from 1308, did not have any university education, Henry Spigurnel received limited legal training in the court of the king’s common bench, where he acted as an attorney between 1282 and 1285.48 In any case, the ‘public reading’ of written diplomatic messages and petitions was a shared practice in late Medieval Europe. As Coleman pointed out, this practice, usually referred to as ‘aurality’, was in fact adopted with variations in fourteenthand fifteenth-century France, Burgundy and England, where kings, nobility, and merchant classes used to have literary, historical, and devotional texts read out in public and communal occasions.49 Accordingly, while Clanchy focused on public 45  TNA, C 47/27/8/20; C 70/3, m. 24; Rymer, II/1, p. 128; EMDP, I/1, no. 43a and b, pp. 57–8. See also Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 238–9. 46  Two chancery warrants, dating on 17 December 1310 and 15 February 1311, ordering the compilation of the message and letters of credence for the envoys survive, but they do not refer to the language of the messages or translations: CCW, I, p. 324, 374. On the use of Latin as lingua franca for diplomacy and its use at the papal curia see T. Haye, ‘Die lateinische Sprache als Medium mündlicher Diplomatie’, in Gesandtschafts- und Botenwesen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa, ed. R.C. Schwinges, K. Wriedt (Ostfildern, 2003), pp. 15–32. 47  As Chaplais pointed out, Edward II had only limited knowledge of Latin and preferred French along with the knights of the royal household, who would speak and understand English and French rather than Latin: Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 127–33. On Clement V’s service as a royal clerk see J.H. Denton, ‘Pope Clement V’s early career as a royal clerk’, EHR 83 (1968), pp. 303–14. On Clement V’s acquaintance with the English crown see also Chapter 6. Similar instances of diplomatic letters of credence presented in vernacular before the pope are documented for the pontificate of John XXII: in 1318 the Aragonese envoy dispatched his message in Catalan, afterhe declared his lack of ­proficiency in Latin: Acta Aragonensia, no. 497, p. 795; in 1323 the French envoys dispatched their oral credence in French, whereas the letter of credence was translated into Latin before being given in its ­written form to the curia: Coulon, no. 1827; 1848–1851. See also below n. 96. 48  H. Summerson, ‘Benstede, Sir John’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/2148 (accessed on 8 March 2017); P. Brand, ‘Spigurnel, Sir Henry’, in ODNB: http:// www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/26150 (accessed on 8 March 2017). 49  Coleman distinguishes ‘public’ and ‘private reading’: J. Coleman, Public Reading and the Reading Public in Late Medieval England and France (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 35–7, 109–47.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

63

reading of documents during legal proceedings, Plöger referred to ‘the reading-aloud of a practice-oriented text to one or a group of listeners’ as ‘pragmatic aurality’, pointing out how the latter was especially employed in later Medieval diplomatic practices.50 However, what to some extent Coleman and Plöger fail to acknowledge is the extent to which relatively advanced diplomatic and administrative systems already included the ‘public reading’ of administrative documents among their bureaucratic and ceremonial procedures. This was not only the case for the fourteenth-century English parliament, where private petitions were read aloud, but also for the papal curia, which listed the oral conveyance of messages and the public reading of petitions among its diplomatic and administrative practices.51 Indeed, from the second half of the thirteenth century the papal chancery ordinances recommended that petitions, which generally concerned provisions to benefices or important issues that required the pope’s personal approval, should be read aloud or conveyed orally before the pope in order to be approved.52 By the thirteenth century some petitions, draft letters or their engrossments were also supposed to be read aloud before the pope, so that they could be checked before the fair copy of the document was produced and sealed for e­ xpedition. The letters undergoing this specific administrative procedure, which prescribed the public reading of the document, became known as littere legende.53 Furthermore, letters and documents used as evidence during negotiations and judicial proceedings at the papal curia were usually read out, as happened during the negotiations for the First Avignon Conference in Autumn 1344, when Clement VI ordered that a letter registered in

50 Clanchy, From memory, pp. 213–26; Plöger, England, p. 189. 51  M. Camargo, ‘Special delivery. Were medieval letter writers trained in performance?’, in Rhetoric Beyond Words. Delight and Persuasion in the Arts of the Middle Ages, ed. M. Carruthers (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 173–89. On the aurality of the petitions presented to parliament see G. Dood, Justice and Grace. Private Petitioning and the English Parliament in the Late Middle Ages (Oxford, 2007), pp. 292–3. See above n. 43. 52 Herde, Beiträge, pp. 54–8, 157–61; Frenz, I documenti, p. 73, 78; Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, pp. 42–71; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Inextricabilis curie labyrinthus. The Presentation of Petitions to the Pope in the Chancery and the Penitentiary during the Fourteenth and First Half of the Fifteenth Century’, in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. A. Meyer, C. Rendtel, M. Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen, 2004), pp. 367–8, 397–9; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery. Avignon and beyond’, in The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan, J. Nelson, M. Costambeys (London—New York, 2018), pp. 642–3. By the fourteenth century petitioners could demand that the engrossed petition should not be read once more before the pope before its delivery, adding to the petition the clause ‘et quod transeant sine alia lectione’: Zutshi, ‘Inextricabilis curie labyrinthus, pp.  397–9; B.  Bombi, ‘Der Geschäftsgang der Suppliken im ersten Viertel des 14. Jahrhunderts. Einige Beispiele anhand des Registers des Kurienprokurators Andrea Sapiti’, Archiv für Diplomatik 51 (2005), p. 272, 279. See also below n. 75. 53 H. Bresslau, Manuale di diplomatica per la Germania e l’Italia, trans. A.M. Voci-Roth, (Rome, 1998), pp. 253–8; G. Barraclough, ‘The chancery of Nicholas III, a study of the sources’, QFIAB 25 (1933–34), pp. 192–250; Herde, Beiträge, p. 164; P.  Herde, Audientia litterarum contradictarum. Untersuchungen über die päpstlichen Justizbriefe und die päpstliche Delegationsgerichtsbarkeit vom 13. bis zum Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts, I (Tübingen, 1970), pp. 57–65; P.  Rabikauskas, Diplomatica Pontificia (Rome, 1972), p. 120; B.  Schwarz, Die Organisation kurialer Schreiberkollegien von ihrer Entstehung bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1972), pp. 96–100. See also the chancery rules of John XXII (p. 71, 82, 84, 133–4), Benedict XII (p. 149) and Gregory XI (p. 160): https:// www.uni-marburg.de/de/fb06/mag/institut/prof-dr-andreas-meyer/kanzleiregeldateien/johannes22. pdf (accessed on 17 July 2018).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

64

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Innocent III’s register and addressed to King John was to be read out before the English envoys.54 The aurality of documents in later Medieval Europe made the case for employing rhetorical devices, which could reinforce their performance. In particular, from the late twelfth century rhetorical treatises and manuals of the Italian and French ars dictaminis revived the use of Latin rhythmical prose, known as cursus, alongside the employment of punctuation and figures of speech.55 Although classical r­ hetoricians, such as Cicero and the Church Fathers, had already employed as a mark of good prose writing the cursus through the use of metrical clausulae, between the sixth and the twelfth centuries the cursus had fallen into disuse. Its revival at the end of the twelfth century was initially championed at the papal curia thanks to Albert of Morra, elected pope as Gregory VIII in 1187, who sought to reintroduce the cursus through the use of rhythmical clausulae as a standard feature of papal correspondence. Here the cursus was not only adopted as a rhetorical and stylistic device, but also as a means to stop forgeries. Indeed, the papal curia developed its own rules for the employment of the cursus, which became known as cursus Romane curie and was considered, by the thirteenth century, as an essential component of the curial in-house style of composition (the so-called stylus supremus).56 Meanwhile, Peter de Vineis, chancellor of Emperor Frederick II, also employed the cursus in his work, substantially contributing to its dissemination across Europe during the thirteenth century.57 Although the need for good prose-writing when petitioning the papal curia was already well known in thirteenth-century England, before the early fourteenth century its use in English chancery documents was however pretty rare. According to Denholm-Young the cursus Romane curie was in fact consistently employed in England only from 1310, as evidenced in a number of English petitions addressed to the papal curia and enrolled in the Roman rolls.58 Thereafter the cursus is 54  Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, XVIII, no. lvii, p. 217: ‘Et statim ipsemet pulsavit unam campanam et fecit aportari sibi unum librum registralem et legit complete tenorem litterarum Innocentii Tercii et litterarum regis Johannis continentium recognitionem homagii et census annui supradicti’. 55  Camargo, ‘Special Delivery’, pp. 179–82; B. Grévin, ‘La musica del dictamen. A proposito della percezione dell’ars dictaminis come tecnica musicale nell’Italia del Duecento (c. 1200–c. 1330)’, in The Languages, pp. 209–27. On the dictamen and Peter de Vineis see also Chapter 2. 56  While the classical cursus using metrical clausulae was based on the knowledge of syllabic quantity (length of vowels), which had decayed by the beginning of the fifth century, the Medieval cursus using rhythmical clausulae followed the stress-pattern of words. A.C. Clark, The Cursus in Mediaeval and Vulgar Latin (Oxford, 1910), pp. 13–21; M.G. Nicolau, L’origine du ‘cursus’ rythmique et les débuts de l’accent d’intensité en Latin (Paris, 1930), pp. 141–55; F. di Capua, Il ritmo prosaico nelle lettere dei papi e nei documenti della cancelleria romana dal IV al XIV secolo III (Rome, 1946), pp. 33–46; T.  Janson, Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin from the 9th to the 13th Century (Stockholm, 1975), pp. 92–103; Frenz, I documenti, pp. 42–3; Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 138–47. 57 Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 134–5, 172–80, 247–50. A case could be also made for the rhetoric adopted in the fourteenth-century private petitions read before parliament, since their formulaic and rhetorical language responded to the need of reading them publicly: W.M. Ormrod, ‘Murmur, clamour and noise: voicing complaint and remedy in petitions to the English crown, c.1300–c.1460’, in Medieval Petitions: Grace and Grievance, ed. W.M. Ormrod, G. Dodd, and A. Musson (Woodbridge, 2009), p. 136; Dodd, Justice, pp. 279–316. See also Chapter 2. 58  P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery and English Documents in the 14th and Early 15th Centuries’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen. Studien zur ihrer formalen und rectlichen Kohärenz von 11. bis 15. Jahrhundert, ed. P. Herde, H. Jakobs (Köln—Weimar—Wien, 1999), pp. 205–6, 211;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

65

more commonly found in the arenga of English documents, especially in letters close concerning matters in the king’s personal interest.59 A good example of how the cursus was employed in fourteenth-century English diplomatic correspondence is represented by the littere recommendatorie, addressed on 27 August 1320 to Pope John XXII, the cardinals and the king’s ‘friends’ at the papal curia in order to solicit Master Roger of Northburgh’s promotion to the cardinalate.60 Significantly, these letters of recommendation adopted the cursus Romane curie because of precise instructions given by Edward II to the keeper of the great seal in a French privy seal writ, where the king ordered that the letters should be compiled ‘en aussi bone et especiale forme come vous saverez et porrez’.61 Meanwhile, Latin instructions were also sent to the keepers of the great seal, listing the topics that had to be included in the letter to the pope ‘sub forma competenti et ornate’.62 These instructions maintained that the letter introducing the English crown’s nuncii seu ambassatores before the papal curia had to take the form of a littera recommendatoria.63 This example ultimately shows that not only the crown administrative departments, but also the king and his closer advisers, were aware of the fact that the cursus Romane curie had to be employed in Anglo-papal diplomatic correspondence. Edward II indeed ordered through the privy seal that the appropriate writing style should be adopted in the letters of recommendation to facilitate the solemn embassy of his representatives. Although we do not know whether the English envoys—led by Edward II’s half-brother, Edmund Woodstock—actually read aloud or expanded upon their letters of recommendation before the pope and his officials, their letters of credence maintained that they had been asked to convey orally the king’s requests before the pope and the cardinals.64 Interestingly, probably because of their use of the cursus Romane curie, these letters of recommendation were further copied in the Liber epistolaris, a formulary including about 1500 documents possibly compiled in order to instruct the English chancery personnel on the different rhetorical and administrative tools which should be adopted in outgoing ­correspondence. Its compiler, Richard of Bury, is indeed considered responsible for the implementation of the cursus Romane curie in the English chancery.65 Richard was in fact one of the most trusted advisers of Edward III, famous for his literary interests and bibliophile activity, further evidenced in the compilation of another Denholm-Young, ‘The Cursus in England’, pp. 56–61. On the Roman rolls of Edward II see Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 597–616. 59 Chaplais, English diplomatic documents, pp. 47–8; Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery’, pp. 205–15. 60 TNA, C 70/4, m. 3; Rymer, II/1, pp. 432–3; EMDP, I/2, no. 324c, pp. 703–4. See also J.R. Wright, The Church and the English Crown, 1305–34 (Toronto, 1980), pp. 126–7. 61 EMDP, I/2, no. 324a, p. 702. N. Denohlm Young (The Liber epistolaris of Richard de Bury, ed. N. Denholm-Young (Oxford, 1950), pp. xxvi–xxvii), maintained that: ‘There seems to be ground here for the suggestion that a letter in “special form” is one in which the phraseology was left to the discretion of the clerk who wrote it. . . . The clerks, Wardrobe or Chancery, who composed the “special letters” had to be trained in the Ars dictaminis.’ 62  TNA, C 47/27/12/25; EMDP, I/2, no. 324b, p. 702. 63  EMDP, I/2, no. 324b, p. 702: ‘recommendacio affectuosa, specialis et multum ornata’. 64 EMDP, I/2, no. 324c, p. 703: ‘in exponendis nostris negociis’. 65  The Liber epistolaris of Richard de Bury, no. 229, p. 103. See also Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 96–7; Denholm-Young, ‘Richard de Bury’, pp. 4–5. See Chapter 2 and below n. 82.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

66

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

treatise, the Philobiblon, written by 1345, where Richard himself extensively employed the cursus Romane curie.66 During his long career in Edward III’s service, Richard of Bury acted as keeper and treasurer of the wardrobe (21 August 1328– 23 September 1329); keeper of the privy seal (24 September 1329–7 April 1333); and chancellor (28 September 1334–6 June 1335). After 1330 he was dispatched on a number of delicate diplomatic missions to the papal curia, where he had the chance to become more acquainted with curial administrative and ceremonial practices, in other words with the so-called stilus curie.67 All in all, we can therefore conclude that the traditional division between orality and literacy fails to represent the complexity of the fourteenth-century diplomatic discourse, since orality and writing de facto coexisted in fourteenth-century administrative and diplomatic practices.68 This was especially the case for betterdeveloped bureaucratic systems, such as the one implemented at the papal curia, where the aurality of documents became part of administrative and diplomatic procedures and was implemented through the employment of the in-house ­rhetorical style, the so-called stilus curie, which contributed to both the public reading and writing of documents. W R I T T E N D I P L O M AT I C D O C U M E N T S AND PETITIONS As Clanchy put it, from the mid-eleventh century the increasing use of literacy occasionally created tension between orality and writing and doubts were raised that oral evidence could be as trustworthy as written documents. Admittedly, by the fourteenth century the importance of orality and aurality are undeniable, but orality never completely supplanted the written evidence, especially during diplomatic negotiations.69 Indeed, by the fourteenth century both the papal curia and the English crown administrative departments had implemented their own in-house styles, which set quite precise rules with regard to the formulaic language and diplomatic features that written documents should employ.70 Formulaic language was also used in diplomatic and political correspondence as well as in the documentation concerning more routine business, such as provisions to benefices and dispensations, which fell under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and became an integral component of Anglo-papal relations in the first half of the fourteenth century.71 The formulaic language which had to be employed in papal letters and petitions presented to the papal curia was substantially determined by the judicial p ­ rocedures and ceremonial practices of the stilus curie. Indeed, formulaic expressions and diplomatic features were not only adopted in petitions and papal letters as rhetorical devices, but essentially expressed the legal principles, underlying claims to papal 66  Denholm-Young, ‘Richard de Bury’, pp. 34–5. 67  Denholm-Young, ‘Richard de Bury’, pp. 1–41. 68 For Coleman’s critique of Ong’s traditional interpretation see Coleman, Public Reading, pp. 1–51. On this point see also Clanchy, From memory, pp. 208–14. 69 Clanchy, From memory, pp. 208–11; Plöger, England, p. 186. 70  See Chapter 2. 71  See above n. 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

67

power over ecclesiastical and temporal jurisdictions. The same is arguably true for the formulaic language adopted in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century English documents, which came increasingly to articulate the basis of royal power.72 In other words, administrative language and practices were rooted in different legal systems, expressed in the diplomatic of the documents through ad hoc formulae.73 From the second decade of the thirteenth century at the papal curia such ­rhetorical and procedural rules were summarized in formularies and treatises, which guided petitioners and their representatives through the correct use of the stilus curie. The first well-known example of such literature is the Libellus de formis petitionum secundum cursum Romane curie of Guala Bicchieri, cardinal priest of San Martino, compiled in about 1226–7.74 This listed thirty-two forms of petitions, covering the full set of business, which fell under papal jurisdiction and for which papal arbitration ought to be sought. Significantly, in its introduction the Libellus addresses the issue of aurality of petitions and papal documents, clearly distinguishing between petitions for letters of simple justice (de simplici iustitia), concerning more routine matters to be submitted to the pope only in writing and which should not be read aloud before him, and letters of grace regarding more substantial matters, which required direct papal intervention and were to follow a different procedure.75 Guala’s formulary was officially approved by the pope for the use of petitioners and was probably based on a lost formulary compiled by the papal chancery for its own consumption. Indeed, such formularies, composed in the papal chancery to instruct its personnel, survive from the pontificate of Gregory IX (1227–41) onwards. During the thirteenth century these papal chancery’s formularies evolved with different internal arrangements, ultimately acquiring a set format in the so-called Formularium notariorum curie, devised as a working tool for notaries at the papal curia in the second decade of the fourteenth century.76 Alongside the formularies put together to instruct the curia’s personnel, 72  O. Guyotjeann, ‘Écrire en chancellerie’, in Auctor et Auctoritas: invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale, ed. M. Zimmermann (Paris, 2001), pp. 34–5; Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, p. 602, 606. See also L.  Shepard, Courting power. Persuasion and Politics in the Early Thirteenth Century (New York—London, 1999), pp. 351–94. 73  O.  Hageneder, ‘Probleme des päpstlichen Kirchenregiments im hohen Mittelalter (Ex certa scientia, non obstante, Registerführung)’, in Lectiones eruditorum extraneorum in facultate philosophica Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis factae 4 (1995), pp. 71–6; O. Hageneder, ‘Päpstliche Reskripttechnik: Kanonistische Lehre und kuriale Praxis’, in Stagnation oder Fortbildung? Aspekte des allgemeinen Kirchenrechts im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, ed. M. Bertram (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 195–6; D. D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities. A Weberian Analysis (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 142–9. On the stilus curie as the written procedure to be followed in lawsuits at the papal curia see S. Peralba, ‘La reception de la procedure Romano-canonique d’après le Stilus curie parlamenti de l’avocat Guillaume Dubreuil, vers 1331’, in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. M. Bellomo, O. Condorellli, (Città del Vaticano, 2006), pp. 625–48. 74  R. von Heckel, ‘Das päpstliche und sicilische Registerwesen’, in Archiv für Urkundenforschung 1 (1908), pp. 502–10; Herde, Beiträge, pp. 54–5; Herde, Audientia, pp. 33–4; J. Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227) (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 21–3. 75  Von Heckel, ‘Das päpstliche’, p. 502: ‘Sunt enim quedam de simplici iusticia que de facili impetrantur, quia coram papa non leguntur, veluti de violentia, de spoliatione, de usuris et similibus. Alie vero sunt de privilegiis, de protectionibus, de confirmationibus et indulgentiis et huiusmodi, que ex beneficio pape impetrantur et ex pura eius conscientia debent emanare’. See above n. 51–52. 76 G. Barraclough, Public Notaries and the Papal Curia. A Calendar and a Study of a Formularium notariorum curie from the Early Fourteenth Century (London, 1934), pp. 10–11, 51–90, 129–31; Herde, Audientia, pp. 35–74; Sayers, Papal Government, pp. 22–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

68

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

in the first half of the fourteenth century proctors active at the papal curia also composed compilations of rhetorical and stylistic models. Two examples are particularly well known: the register of Andrea Sapiti, who was proctor of Edward II and Edward III in Avignon between 1308 and 1338; and the formulary of Heinrich Bucglant, who represented the town of Hamburg at the papal curia in the 1340s.77 Equally, during the thirteenth century a set formulaic language and diplomatic practice also came into use in English administrative departments, notably in the offices of the great seal and privy seal.78 Furthermore, from the 1260s different forms from the ones used in documents concerning domestic affairs were increasingly adopted in English diplomatic correspondence issued in Latin and AngloNorman French.79 Indeed, diplomatic documents seem to have been more frequently subject to foreign imports, borrowing clauses and formulae outside the English administrative tradition.80 As Chaplais suggested, it is likely that the English chancery employed continental styles and formulaic language in its diplomatic correspondence with foreign polities in order to conform to foreign practices and incorporate legal continental traditions.81 Nevertheless, unlike the papal chancery, which summarized its rules and administrative practices in formularies and treatises from the second decade of the thirteenth century, English administrative and diplomatic models were not collected together in such compilations for the consumption of the crown administrative personnel until the fourteenth ­century.82 On the contrary, it is likely that the English crown administrative personnel learned the in-house style and rules through practice. Arguably, the only exceptions to this pattern were those rhetorical treatises, attributed to English authors, which built on the Italian and French traditions of the ars dictaminis, documented from the 1240s in England, where they became increasingly popular during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.83 As argued in Chapter 1, the circumstances which led to cross-fertilization and borrowings among different diplomatic and administrative practices have been the subject of much debate among historians, who have explained the similarities in the use of language and procedures in different administrative traditions either as ‘parallel developments’ or ‘mutual influences’.84 In Barraclough’s opinion, it was 77  Das Formelbuch des Heinrich Bucglant. An die päpstliche Kurie in Avignon gerichtete Suppliken aus der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts, ed. J. Schwalm (Hamburg, 1910); B. Bombi, ‘Introduzione’, in Il Registro di Andrea Sapiti, procuratore fiorentino presso la curia papale nei primi decenni del XIV secolo (Rome, 2007), pp. 49–51; B. Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti, His Origins and His Register as a Curial Proctor’, EHR 500 (2008), pp. 136–9. 78 P.  Chaplais, English Royal Documents. King John—Henry VI, 1199–1461 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 12–20, 23–45. 79 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 108–17; Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents’, pp. 46–8. 80  Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents’, pp. 48–54. 81  Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre’, p. 188. See also P. Chaplais, ‘The Making of the Treaty of Paris (1259) and the Royal Style’, EHR 67 (1952), pp. 248–51; P. Chaplais, ‘The chancery of Guyenne, 1289–1453’, in P. Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981), p. 75. 82  One of such cases is the Liber epistolaris of Richard of Bury mentioned above: see above n. 65. See also Chapter 9. 83  Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus in England’, pp. 50–4. 84  For the debate on this point see Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 606–9. See also Chapter 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

69

the thirteenth-century circulation of models and formularies, which were initially collected at the papal curia to record its in-house style, that ultimately favoured the dissemination of papal administrative and diplomatic practices across Europe.85 Equally, Cuttino and Cheney suggested that the implementation of continental administrative and diplomatic practices in England has to be ascribed to the activity of notaries in the English administration from the late thirteenth century while, more recently, Grévin maintained that continental rhetorical and stylistic models were disseminated in England from the 1270s through the activity of some Italian dictatores, such as Stephen of San Giorgio, who represented the English crown at the papal curia between 1276 and 1291 and employed in his work the southern Italian rhetorical tradition of Peter de Vineis.86 Arguably, the suggestion that the expertise of trained individuals was crucial to incorporating administrative practices and formulaic language in the English administrative tradition is very persuasive.87 Indeed, the adoption of formulaic clauses in England is particularly revealing, since it not only evidences the ­dissemination of the continental rhetorical tradition, but also the adoption of some principles of the ius commune, particularly the canonical procedures for provisions to ecclesiastical benefices, which, in Sayers’s opinion, circulated from the mid-twelfth century in England owing to the activity of papal legates and judges delegates.88 Yet, by the early fourteenth century similarities between English diplomatic ­correspondence written in Latin and continental models are evidenced in at least three respects: the employment of the cursus Romane curie which not only concerned writing practices, but also responded to the need to read documents in public during diplomatic negotiations and missions;89 the adoption of the continental dating style, namely the ‘Nativity style’, which occasionally replaced the ‘Annunciation style’ in mid-fourteenth English diplomatic documents, as noted by Chaplais;90 and finally the use of continental formulaic language, most 85 Barraclough, Public Notaries, pp. 31–2. The same argument is put forward by Denholm-Young, ‘The cursus’, pp. 54–5. 86 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 116–17; C.R.  Cheney, Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford, 1972), pp. 52–71; F.  Delle Donne, ‘Introduzione’, in Una silloge epistolare della seconda metà del XIII secolo (Firenze, 2007), pp. xiv–xxvi; Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 434–46. See also Chapter 2. 87  Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, p. 606. See also Chapter 5. 88  Sayers, ‘The Influence’, p. 174: ‘the real influences are to be seen in the legal/business spheres in the phraseology which was introduced through the judge delegate system from the late twelfth century onwards and through the benefice business of the mid to late thirteenth century’. 89  Camargo, ‘Special delivery’, pp. 182–4; Grévin, ‘La musica’, pp. 217–20. See also above n. 57–67. For a detailed analysis of these instances see also B. Bombi, ‘ “Solom le cours de leglise de Rome”. The use of the stilus curie in Anglo-papal correspondence during the first half of the fourteenth century’, in Stilus curiae: Spielregeln der Konflikt- und Verhandlungsfürung am Papsthof des Mittelalters, ed. G. Strack, J. Nowak (Turnhout, 2019), pp. 177–196. 90 P.  Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre and the office of notary in Chancery, 1355–1375’, Journal of the Society of Archivists 4 (1971), pp. 187–8 and Appendix II, pp. 193–6, no. no. 5, 7, 8, 27. On these documents see also Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery’, pp. 206–7. As Chaplais pointed out, the dating in the Nativity style of these documents, which all deal with continental and diplomatic affairs, is occasionally followed by the expression ‘solom le cours de leglise de Rome’, namely ‘according to the style of the Church of Rome’, as opposed to the stylus/consuetudo ecclesie Anglicane, namely the Annunciation style, commonly adopted in English diplomatic documents before 1359 as well as by

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

70

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

notably the expressions ‘Ad perpetuam rei memoriam’, ‘Supplicat’, and ‘Fiat’, as well as clauses, such as ‘non obstante’, ‘motu proprio’, and ‘ex certa scientia’, which began appearing in English diplomatic correspondence from the mid-thirteenth century.91 This was especially the case for the clause ‘non obstante’, which English royal documents used from 1205–6 and the English chancery adopted in grants confirming royal patronage from 1242, ultimately becoming a common expression in royal grants by the early fifteenth century.92 Accordingly, royal grants of land, offices and annuities from the reign of Henry IV (1399–1413) commonly used the clauses ‘motu proprio’ and ‘ex certa scientia’, similarly employed in papal mandates with reference to a grant that derived from the pope’s own wish and knowledge of the circumstances.93 Stylistically the employment of rhetorical language and set expressions, which followed in the tradition of the dictamen and adopted the use of rhythmical prose, namely the cursus, shows the implementation of continental practices in English diplomatic correspondence written in Latin.94 This is not to say that during lengthy diplomatic negotiations letters and petitions presented before the papal curia did not occasionally have to be rewritten for reasons other than the need to employ the correct formulaic language. For instance, changing political circumstances often altered the nature of Anglo-papal discourse, as evidenced in the case of letters of credence cancelled and rewritten in Treaty roll C 76/10, which records the ­negotiations to end the war of St Sardos between 1324 and 1325.95 Accordingly, by the fourteenth century the recurrent employment of vernacular languages alongside Latin in diplomatic correspondence occasionally prompted the translation and reformulation of petitions and letters presented to the papal curia, whose the English royal chancery and English episcopal chanceries. On this point, Chaplais seems to challenge C.R. Cheney, M. Jones, A Handbook of Dates For students of British History. Revised Edition (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 9–13, who noted that the Annunciation style is found in England as early as the middle of the eleventh century and came into common use late in the twelfth century and so continued to 1752. 91  On shared formulaic language see Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre’, pp. 169–99; Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery’, p. 205–11. On shared clauses see G. Barraclough, ‘The English Royal Chancery and the Papal Chancery in the reign of Henry III’, MIÖG 62 (1954), pp. 365–78; J. Sayers, ‘The Influence of Papal Documents on English Documents before 1305’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen, p. 172; C.G.  Crump, ‘Ex quod expressa mentio’, in Essays in History presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. H.W.C. Davis (Oxford, 1927), pp. 35–45. See also Bombi, ‘ “Solom le cours”, pp. 181–189. 92  Barraclough, ‘The English Royal Chancery’, pp. 374–8; Sayers, ‘The Influence’, p. 172; Crump, ‘Ex quod expressa mentio’, pp. 35–45; Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery’, p. 208. On the use of these clauses in papal letters see Hageneder, ‘Päpstliche Reskripttechnik’, pp. 181–96. On the use of the formulaic clause ‘non obstante’ in papal letters see also B. Meduna, Studien zum Formular der päpstlichen Justizbriefe von Alexander III. bis Innocenz III. (1159–1216): die non obstantibus Formeln (Vienna, 1989). See also D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities, pp. 143–5. 93  Crump, ‘Ex quod expressa mentio’, pp. 30–5; Zutshi, ‘The papal chancery’, pp. 207–8. On the formulaic clause ‘ex certa scientia’ see also O. Hageneder, ‘Die Rechtskraft spätmittelalterlicher Papstund Herrscherurkunden “ex certa scientia”, “non obstantibus” und “propter importunitatem petentium” ’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen, pp. 402–10; O. Hageneder, ‘Päpstliche Reskripttechnik’, pp. 183–6; D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities, pp. 144–5. 94 Some of the rhetorical expressions employed in the rhythmical prose known as cursus are addressed in Denholm-Young, The cursus, pp. 59–61; Grévin, Rhétorique, pp. 172–80. 95  See Chapter 7. See also Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 615–16, discussing the rewriting of a petition concerning Anglo-Scottish negotiations and Chapter 5 on Henry of Canterbury.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

71

official means of communication was Latin.96 Equally, English and French kings and their closer advisers did not refrain from writing to the pope in French, especially when the matter touched upon in their letter concerned personal or secret business which the king did not wish to have translated into Latin by administrators. This was notably the case for the notorious letter Pater sancte, which Edward III’s secretary, Richard of Bury, addressed to John XXII in French in 1330, as well as at least three letters sent by Edward III under the privy and secret seal to Innocent VI in 1360 and to Urban V in 1363.97 Undoubtedly, the conversion of letters and petitions from one style to the other was the specific task of English crown administrative personnel and diplomatic representatives. As argued above, by the early fourteenth century the latter quite routinely in fact received precise instructions on the style and language that should be employed in particular kinds of diplomatic correspondence.98 The failure to comply with such stylistic rules could in fact complicate diplomatic negotiations, as happened during the First Avignon Conference in 1344, when the English envoys had to record Cardinal Galhard de la Mothe’s outrage at the form and contents of Edward III’s letter.99 Ultimately, the letter was sent back to the English chancery, which was asked to rewrite it in a more ‘courteous form’ (curteise).100 Equally, on other occasions the English crown assigned the task of rewriting petitions and letters dispatched to the papal curia to members of its embassies, which increasingly included administrative personnel alongside experienced diplomats and the king’s political advisers.101 Redrafting petitions was also the duty of professional curial proctors, who generally acted as freelancers, knowing not only how to navigate the rhetorical and procedural rules of the stilus curie, but 96 Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 127–33; Haye, ‘Die lateinische Sprache’, pp. 29–32; Plöger, England, pp. 189–93. See also above n. 44–46. 97  CPL, I: Petitions, p. 356; EMDP, no. 22, pp. 21–2; no. 23, pp. 29–30. For French examples from the reigns of Philip V and Charles IV see Coulon, no. 799; 1827; 1848–1851. See also W.A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 77–9; N. Vincent, ‘The Personal Role of the Kings of England in the Production of Royal Letters’, in ‘Manu propria’. Vom eigenhändigen Schreiben der Mächtigen (13.–15. Jahrhundert), ed. C. Feller, C. Lackner (Wien, 2016), pp. 171–84; M. Vale, ‘With mine own hand. The use of the autograph by English rulers in the later Middle Ages, c. 1350–c. 1480’, in ‘Manu propria’, pp. 185–95. Similar practices were adopted in France from the 1350s onwards. In Jeay’s opinion, the king’s direct contribution to the issue of documents through his signature was prompted by the Anglo-French negotiations between 1357 and 1360, which required quick and direct royal interventions, especially owing to John II’s captivity in England: C.  Jeay, ‘L’autographie comme épiphanie du pouvoir. Écrits et signatures autographes des rois de France dans la seconde moitié du XIVe siècle’, in ‘Manu propria’, pp. 197–217. 98  See above n. 59–61. See also Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents’, pp. 47–8. 99  Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, XVIII, no. lvii, p. 224: ‘Hesterna die lectum fuit in consistorio predictum breve regium domino cardinali de Mota et magistro Raymundo Peregrini procuratori suo directum, cujus materia et loquendi modus, attenta dicti domini cardinalis dignitate, ad indignationem magnam, prout dicitur, propter irreverentiam, dominum papam et totum collegium provocarunt’. 100  Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, XVIII, no. lvii, p. 225: ‘lequele brief est molt dure chalange si bien endroit de la matire come de la manère de parler qui puist avoir esté plus curteise’; p. 226: ‘dont nostredit Seint-Pière et tut le collége sount esmuts et ennuyés si bien de la matire dudit brief come de la manière du parler, en taunt que est dist en meysme le brief “A toy Gaillard de la Mote” sauns plus cortoysement parler’. 101  See Chapter 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

72

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

also how to employ the correct formulaic language and clauses when petitioning the pope and curial departments.102 Overlooked evidence, often concerning routine business and recorded in the Roman rolls, further shows that from the third decade of the fourteenth century the English chancery increasingly built its expertise in the rhetorical and p ­ rocedural practices used at the papal curia. Before the 1330s the English chancery used to draft the petitions sent to the papal curia in the royal house style, usually having them rewritten in accordance with the stilus curie by a professional proctor once they reached Avignon. Indeed, between 1306 and 1338 the Roman rolls only record one enrolled petition written according to the stilus curie, clearly evidencing that petitions were redrafted in this style at a later stage. Yet, the style of the Roman curia was adopted in a number of English petitions, dating between 1330 and 1337, recorded in the register of the king’s proctor Andrea Sapiti. The latter shows how the proctor rewrote these documents in accordance with the stilus curie and took advice from the papal chancery’s personnel in so doing.103 However, this administrative practice seems to have been discontinued between March 1339 and May 1342, when some petitions sent to the papal curia were enrolled twice in the Roman rolls. In their first incarnation these petitions conformed to the style of the English chancery, while in their second version they complied with the stilus curie. Most of the petitions, which were rewritten according to the stilus curie and enrolled in the Roman rolls, concerned provisions to benefices.104 The reasons behind this change in practice in the English chancery records are a matter of speculation. On the one hand, it should be noted that the enrolment of petitions in accordance with the stilus curie coincided with the contemporary practice of the papal chancery, which began registering approved supplications in the so-called Registra Supplicationum probably during the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334–42).105 Arguably, English chancery personnel were well aware of the new papal chancery’s practice and began keeping precise records of the petitions sent to the curial departments according to both their own house style and the style of the papal curia. Indeed, the majority of the petitions rewritten in accordance with the stilus 102  Bombi, ‘Der Geschäftsgang’, pp. 260–71; Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti’, pp. 142–4; Appendix 1, p. 147. 103  See TNA, C 70/14, m. 6 (dated 4 June 1336) and Bombi, Il Registro di Andrea Sapiti, Parte Seconda; Bombi, ‘Der Geschäftsgang’, pp. 256–71. 104  TNA, C 70/17–18. I could identify a total of sixteen petitions rewritten in accordance to the stilus curie and enrolled twice: ten in C 70/17 on a total of sixty-nine petitions and letters enrolled in this enrolment (about 14.5%), forty-six of which regarded provisions to benefices (about 66%); and six in C 70/18 on a total of twenty-five entries (about 25%), thirteenth of which concerned provisions to ecclesiastical benefices (about 50%). Two further petitions dealt with dispensations from defect of birth and violence against the clergy, although these requests concerned a cleric who had to be dispensed before taking possession of his benefice (C 70/18, m. 3). 105  Benedict XII’s registers of supplications are however now lost. Bresslau, Manuale, p. 688 n. 49; E. Göller, ‘Der Geschäftsgang bei Verleihung von Benefizien und Gnadebewilligungen an der Kurie’, in Repertorium Germanicum, I: Clemens’ VII von Avignon, 1378–1394 (Berlin, 1916), pp. 79–83; B.  Katterbach, Specimina supplicationum ex registris vaticanis (Rome, 1927), pp. XIV–XVII; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The origins of the registration of petitions in the papal chancery in the first half of the fourteenth century’, in Suppliques et requêtes. Le gouvernement par la grace en Occident (XIIe–XIVe siècle), ed. H. Millet (Rome, 2003), pp. 177–91; Bombi, ‘Der Geschäftsgang’, pp. 276–7; Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti’, pp. 139–40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

73

curie and enrolled in the Roman rolls were often only approved a number of years after their presentation. In this respect, it would have been undoubtedly useful for the English chancery to have a precise record of the petitions originally submitted to the curial departments, especially when facing lengthy lawsuits either at the papal curia or in partibus. On the other hand, it is quite striking that the enrolment of petitions in the Roman rolls in accordance with the stilus curie began soon after the death of the king’s long-standing proctor at the papal curia, Andrea Sapiti, who probably died in the first half of 1338.106 One could therefore speculate that, in addition to the creation of registers of approved supplications at the papal chancery, the lack of Andrea Sapiti’s personal expertise and records (for example, the fact that his register records a great number of petitions drafted in the stilus curie) may have prompted the English chancery personnel to enrol some petitions dispatched to Avignon in two different versions. Furthermore, textual comparisons between the petitions in the stilus curie enrolled in the Roman rolls and the approved supplications recorded in the papal registers of supplications is highly revealing. Two examples actually show that the formulaic language and contents of those English petitions already drafted in the style of the Roman curia could still be revised, once curial personnel examined them. The extent to which petitions were redrafted at this stage could vary greatly. In the first example, Edward III’s petition in support of the Augustinian priory of Leeds, approved on 24 May 1345, was not amended save for a small but highly significant detail in the intitulatio, where Edward’s original claims to the French crown were forcibly removed.107 Indeed, this minor change was of seminal ­importance for Anglo-papal relations in the 1340s, since it was requested and implemented after the failure of the First Avignon Conference, where the papal arbitration of the Anglo-French conflict had focused on negotiating Edward III’s claims over the French throne.108 On the contrary, in the second example concerning the dispensation from defectu natalium of a beneficed clerk, the original petition was completely rewritten and resubmitted in a different version, substantially more detailed than the first one, probably owing to the fact that the matter had been outstanding for so long that the petitioner’s personal circumstances had significantly changed.109 106  Bombi, ‘Introduzione’, in Il Registro, p. 47. 107  Compare TNA, C 70/21, m. 3 (‘Edwardus rex Francie et Anglie et dominus Hibernie’) with ASV, Reg. Supp. 10, fol. 10v (‘Edwardus rex Anglie’). See also CPL, I: Petitions, p. 85; CPL, III, p. 213. On this point see also Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 237–41. 108  This point is explicitly mentioned in the so-called Journal des conférences d’Avignon as discussed during the negotiations during the First Avignon Conference in 1344 (Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, XVIII, no. lviii, p. 246): ‘diu post locutus est rex vester de iure ad regnum, quod apparet ex stylo tituli sui quem ponit in litteris suis, videlicet Dat. anno regni nostri Francie quinto, regni vero Anglie xviii’. See also R. Lützelschwab, Flectat Cardinales ad velle suum? Clemens VI. und sein Kardinalskolleg. Ein Beitrag zur kurialen Politik in der Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 2008), pp. 165–6; Plöger, England, pp. 34; Willershausen, pp. 129–32. See below Chapter 5. 109  The petition concerns John Seys of the diocese of St Davids, who became rector of the parish church of Shalfleet on the Isle of Wight between 1342 and 1349, despite being of illegitimate birth and being accused of violent acts against the clergy. In 1342 Edward III recommended John at the papal curia so that he could be dispensed from these defects. John was only dispensed from his defect

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

74

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Moreover, the few draft petitions addressed to the Apostolic See between 1327 and 1342, preserved at The National Archives, show that the picture provided by the Roman rolls is by no means complete, since not all petitions dispatched to the papal curia were actually enrolled in the chancery enrolments. These draft petitions further show that the English chancery occasionally already drafted its requests to Avignon according to the style of the Roman curia, even when these petitions were only recorded in the Roman rolls according to English house style. This was for instance the case for a petition in support of the request of a royal clerk, Walter of Langecestre, whom Edward III recommended to the pope and the cardinals on 3  February 1333 to be provided to an ecclesiastical benefice. While the petitions enrolled in the Roman rolls on this issue were written according to the English house style, the draft surviving on a parchment strip was rewritten according to the stilus curie.110 Accordingly, at least four more draft petitions, which were not enrolled in the Roman rolls and concerned provisions to ecclesiastical benefices for royal protégés or recommendation of ecclesiastical institutions, were written according to the style of the Roman curia in the English chancery between 1327 and 1342.111 The practice of recording petitions in accordance with the stilus curie in the Roman rolls was ultimately discontinued at the beginning of Clement VI’s pontificate. After 1342 only two petitions were in fact enrolled in the Roman rolls in accordance with the stilus curie. Significantly, none of them concerned provisions to benefices.112 Once more, the explanation for this new administrative practice can be twofold. On the one hand, from 1342 the papal chancery systematically implemented the registration of approved supplications in its Registra Supplicationum, which served as official records of what the pope had approved, often giving full reports on the reasons behind the papal decisions. In this respect, the registers of supplications made redundant the need to keep similar records in the English chancery. Indeed, the evidence for the earlier period shows that at most the English crown’s employment of the stilus curie could speed up the process of approval, but did not influence the successful outcome of petitions and messages sent to the papal curia. On the other hand, it is likely that from 1343, alongside Edward III’s absences during his military campaigns on the continent, which weakened the crown’s engagement in routine business, the clash between the English crown and the Apostolic See over alien provisions to English ecclesiastical benefices had repercussions for the new administrative practice implemented in

of birth in 1349, while there is no evidence of a dispensation from the attack on the clergy—although the latter could have been issued by the apostolic penitentiary, whose records for this period do not survive. Compare TNA, C 70/18, m. 3 (dated 20 March 1342) and ASV, Reg. Supp. 20, f. 116v (dated 16 August 1349). See also CPL, I: Petitions, p. 171; CPL, III, p. 90. 110  TNA, SC 1/37/154; C 70/13, m. 4. Walter of Langecestre had been presented by Edward III to the church of Middleton-in-Teesdale, diocese of Durham, on 30 January 1333, and as abbot of St Mary’s in York on 6 April 1333: CPL, II, pp. 397, 426. 111  TNA, SC 1/37/155; SC 1/37/156; SC 1/37/158; SC 1/37/159. 112  TNA, C 70/19, m. 4 (dated 12 May 1343); TNA, C 70/21, m. 3 (dated 24 May 1345). The first of these petitions explicitly asked for confirmation of Benedict XII’s earlier approval on the same matter and may have been drafted in accordance with the stilus curie for this reason.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Conveyance of Messages at the Papal Curia

75

the Roman rolls.113 Indeed, the Roman rolls dating between 1346 and 1357 became shorter and increasingly focused on diplomatic negotiations, clearly evidencing the impact of the crown’s policy on provisions to ecclesiastical benefices, notably in the aftermath of the Ordinance of Provisors of 1343 and the Statute of Provisors of 1351, which declared void papal provisions in England, as well as the Statute of Praemunire of 1353, which forbade appeals to the papal court from England.114 C O N C LU S I O N S This chapter has investigated the extent to which by the early fourteenth century a ‘shared language of diplomacy’ was adopted in Anglo-papal relations and employed in oral and written communications. Highly suitable for the public reading of diplomatic documents and messages thanks to use of rhetorical devices and rhythmical prose (known as cursus), in its Latin incarnation this language of diplomacy was very much shaped by the French and Italian traditions of the dictamen, which the papal curia included under the umbrella of the stilus curie from the late twelfth century and arrived in the 1270s to England. While ceremonial diplomatic ­performances, especially in Avignon, created the framework for the implementation of such oral and written communications, the evidence suggests that actual diplomatic practice was less clear-cut and there was plenty of scope for flexibility. Indeed, the modalities of oral and written communication very much depended upon two distinct factors. On the one hand, the expertise of the administrative and diplomatic personnel involved in Anglo-papal diplomacy influenced the form, employment and implementation of the ‘shared language of diplomacy’ in both its oral and written forms. As shown above, the training of the envoys in fact strongly influenced the use of oral and written modes of communication among polities, as happened during the embassy of 1311, when the English envoys read out their letters of credence before the consistory in French, and in the Roman rolls, where three different administrative practices were implemented over two decades owing to the changing expertise in the English chancery as well as owing to contingent needs. On the other hand, specific administrative and diplomatic modes of oral and written communication were often dictated by sensitive political circumstances rather than standard administrative and diplomatic procedures. The formalized style of oral and written diplomatic discourse could in fact be discounted with a preference for less conventional modalities, even allowing for the use of the vernacular alongside Latin and more informal meetings among the parties. Arguably, the exploitation of such informal communication and networks was crucial for the effective performance of Anglo-papal relations during the fourteenth century and will therefore be duly addressed in the next chapter of this book.115 113  TNA, C 70/19–25. On the Ordinance of Provisors of 1343 see A.D.M. Barrel, ‘The Ordinance of Provisors of 1343’, Historical Research 64 (1991), pp. 264–77; W.E. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England, II (Cambridge, MA, 1962), pp. 334–5, 639–40. 114 Pantin, The English Church, pp. 81–7; Plöger, England, pp. 50–1; W.M. Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven, CT—London, 2011), pp. 367–8. 115  See below Chapter 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

4 The Importance of Unofficial Contacts While earlier chapters of this book mainly dealt with the official side of ­Anglo-papal diplomacy, conducted through diplomatic correspondence as well as the dispatch of diplomatic and administrative personnel, in the later Middle Ages the English crown also actively cultivated unofficial contacts at the papal curia thanks to networks of ‘friends’ and ‘protégés’. The study of such informal contacts is of crucial importance for the investigation of Anglo-papal relations during the first half of the fourteenth century, especially in light of the framework outlined in the first chapter of this book, which questions the significance of the Weberian ideal-types of legal formality and bureaucracy in the context of Medieval diplomatic relations. Indeed, during the fourteenth century informal contacts between England and the Apostolic See supplemented administrative deficiencies, whereas the process of bureaucratization in both polities facilitated Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse.1 We may concur with Wright that ‘much of the crown’s success at this time in manipulating papal measures on finances and provisions as well as in safeguarding its own prerogative in its dealings with the Roman see . . . was worked out in both unofficial and official channels’.2 Yet, the contribution to fourteenth-century Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse of such informal contacts can be further investigated thanks to the examination of records of the papal chancery and chamber as well as English diplomatic correspondence, especially the Roman rolls, which record the petitions sent from England to Avignon between 1306 and 1357.3 In this respect, three specific questions arise, which I will attempt to answer in this chapter: first, who were the English crown’s contacts at the papal curia during the first half of the fourteenth century? second, how did informal networks at the papal curia facilitate Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse, particularly during the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War? and finally, how did the English crown reward its ‘friends’ at the papal curia for their services?

1  See Chapter 1. 2 R. Wright, The Church and the English Crown, 1305–1334 (Toronto, 1980), p. 101. 3  B. Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti: His Origins, and His Register as a Curial Proctor’, EHR 150 (2008), pp. 140–1; B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as a source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research 85 (2012), pp. 597–216; S.  Zanke, Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa. Das politische Papsttum im Spiegel der kurialen Register (1316–1334) (Leiden—Boston 2013), pp. 264–71.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

77

T H E E N G L I S H C ROW N ’ S C O N TA C T S AT T H E PA PA L   C U R I A D U R I N G T H E F I R S T H A L F O F T H E F O U RT E E N T H C E N T U RY Together with nuncii, legati, procuratores, and messengers, whose role I will ­specifically address in Chapter 5, throughout the fourteenth century the English crown actively exploited informal networks of friends at the papal curia, namely the pope’s relatives, cardinals, curialists, and lobbyists. Guillemain’s pivotal prosopographical study of the Avignonese curia first emphasized the extent to which such connections contributed to late Medieval diplomatic discourse. More recently, Wright and Plöger similarly highlighted the importance of informal networks of papal officials, curialists, lobbyists, and merchants involved in diplomatic activities at the papal curia on behalf of the English crown during the fourteenth century.4 Yet, the crown not only networked with curial personnel and lobbyists on account of their English background, but selected its contacts on the basis of strategic and political considerations.5 Indeed, the crown’s choices were arguably dictated by the fact that the English were under-represented in Avignon, especially when compared with their main rivals, the French. In particular, during the first half of the fourteenth century the greatest challenge for the English crown was the absence there of an English cardinal. The only English cardinal promoted under Clement V, the Dominican Thomas Jorz, died in 1310 and was not replaced with another Englishman, despite Edward II’s requests in support of the Friar John Lenham between 1310 and 1311.6 Accordingly, the English crown particularly found the lack of an English cardinal very problematic during the long papal vacancy of 1314–16.7 After the death of the Gascon pope Clement V, who had demonstrated his allegiance to the English on several occasions, securing election to the Apostolic See of a candidate favourable to England was in fact crucial to Edward II’s policy on the continent, especially given the on-going quarrels with the French crown concerning the control over the Duchy of Aquitaine.8 As a matter of fact, the English crown was unable to influence directly the election of Clement’s successor through any cardinal of its own and had to negotiate with a conclave, which was highly divided in three parties (the Gascons, the Italians, and the French-Provençals) and dominated by the Gascon cardinals, who numbered ten and who represented the majority under the external control of two nephews of Clement V, Bertrand de Got, viscount of Lomagne et Auvillars, and Raimond 4 B.  Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon, 1309–1376. Étude d’une société (Paris, 1966), pp. 561–91; Wright, The Church, pp. 101–8; K. Plöger, England and the Avignon Popes. The Practice of Diplomacy in Late Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2005), pp. 83–105. 5 Plöger, England, pp. 83–105. 6  TNA, C 70/3, m. 23v; Rymer, II/1, p. 140; Wright, The Church, p. 126. For a comparison with the mid-thirteenth century see J.  Maubach, Die Kardinäle und ihre Politik um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Bonn, 1902). 7  B.  Bombi, ‘The English Crown and the Election of Pope John XXII’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 68 (2017), pp. 260–84. 8  On Anglo-papal relations after the consecration of Clement V see Chapter 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

78

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Guilhem de Budos.9 Likewise, in 1320, after John XXII’s election, Edward II unsuccessfully sought the promotion to the cardinalate of Roger of Northburgh, archdeacon of Richmond, who, in the king’s words, met the requirements for the cardinalate on a personal level and was a trusted adviser of the king.10 In his instructions, contained in Edward II’s writ to his chancery, the king explicitly asked that the letters to the curia should highlight the absence of an English ­cardinal, who could properly represent English interests, since none of the extant cardinals in the college came from his ‘nation’ or spoke his ‘language’.11 In other words, the king seemed to imply that he could not count on the allegiance of the Gascon cardinals, clearly seen as aliens in terms of nationality and language.12 Nevertheless, Edward II’s repeated attempts at securing an English cardinal were unsuccessful and during the reign of Edward III Anglo-papal diplomacy still suffered from the lack of English representation in the college of cardinals. This was especially the case in the 1340s and the 1350s when Anglo-French negotiations overseen by the papacy to resolve the Hundred Years’ War and the English crown’s statutory legislation against alien provisions in England led Anglo-papal relations to break down and to English accusations of pro-French bias against Clement VI and Innocent VI, who were both considered as having strong connections with the French crown.13 In the end, Edward III was forced to wait until 1368, when the Benedictine Simon Langham, former archbishop of Canterbury, was finally promoted to the cardinalate.14 We can therefore concur with Guillemain that ‘for the English, Avignon was not a good place’.15 Indeed, the English were not doing much better when it came to being represented among the curialists. Out of a total of 4253 curialists accounted for between 1309 and 1376, Guillemain in fact found only twenty-four Englishmen. This was a tiny proportion if compared with the number of French (1552) and Italians (521). Notably, of the Englishmen, only one was appointed by Clement V to a curial office as auditor of causes, while nine were appointed during John XXII’s pontificate. The latter were three auditors of causes, two minor penitentiaries, two chaplains, one scribe of apostolic letters and one scribe of the penitentiary. The small number of English curialists is paralleled in the small number of papal officials, only eighteen, who were beneficed in England between 1305 and 1334.16 9  On the relationship between Edward II and the Gascon cardinals between 1314 and 1316 see Bombi, ‘The English Crown’, pp. 262, 270. 10  EMDP, I/2, no. 324a, p. 702. 11 EMDP, I/2, no. 324b: ‘summis desideriis affectamus ut de nacione et lingua nostris esset cardinalis’. 12  See above n. 10. 13 W.A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 81–7; Plöger, England, pp. 50–1, 197–8; W.M. Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven, CT—London, 2011), pp. 367–8. On Clement VI and Innocent VI’s connections with the French crown see P.N.R.  Zutshi, ‘The Avignon Papacy’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, ed. M. Jones, VI (Cambridge, 2000), p. 658. See also Chapter 5. 14 Wright, The Church, p. 127. 15 Guillemain, La cour, p. 614. 16 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 612–15. Guillemain’s calculations only include curialists of English birth. The same approach has been followed by Plöger, England, pp. 83–105, who distinguishes between English and non-English crown’s contacts in Avignon.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

79

Yet, in Wright’s words, ‘these small numbers do not tell the full story’. Including in his calculations not only curialists of English birth, but also non-English curialists who had known links with the English crown, Wright suggested that the English were especially well-represented in two curial departments, namely the penitentiary, where two English minor penitentiaries also served as English diplomatic envoys, and the audientia sacri palacii, where alongside the four English auditors there were two non-English auditors beneficed in England and seven more with strong English connections. These curialists were in fact associated with the English crown in various ways, either as members of the crown’s council in Aquitaine (three of them), as royal clerks working in Avignon (one of them) or as papal envoys in England (two of them).17 Wright’s approach arguably sheds new light on the unofficial contacts of the English crown not only among the curia’s personnel, but also among non-English professional lobbyists who resided in Avignon and managed royal business at the papal curia. The latter could in fact exploit their own personal connections among members of the cardinalate and the papal household on the king’s behalf. This was the case for individuals such as the Florentine Andrea Sapiti, who served as a clerk and proctor of the English crown between 1308 and 1338, developing important contacts at the papal curia, where he was especially familiar with Cardinal Niccolò Albertini da Prato.18 Yet, Sapiti’s associates at the papal curia were by no means new acquaintances. The proctor had in fact already built connections in Florence, his town of origin, before moving to the Midi, where he joined his old network of Florentine ‘friends’. Since the 1290s this network had been in business partnership with the Frescobaldi trading company and had supported the Bianchi faction in Florence, where between 1303 and 1304 they also probably met Cardinal Niccolò Albertini, who had been sent as a legate to pacify the Bianchi and Neri factions in Arezzo and Florence. In the first decade of the fourteenth century, because of the political turmoil in Florence and the move of the Apostolic See to France, this network of professionals also profited from their connections with the Frescobaldi merchant company, which had established its businesses in England, France, and the papal curia, where they engaged in professional activities on behalf of English clients as well as the crown and were employed as agents on several occasions.19 17 Wright, The Church, pp. 102–5. 18  B. Bombi, ‘Introduzione’, in Il Registro di Andrea Sapiti, procuratore fiorentino presso la curia papale nei primi decenni del XIV secolo, ed. B. Bombi (Rome, 2007), pp. 24–49. A comparable picture emerges in Berthe’s examination of the French proctors at the Avignonese curia: P.M. Berthe, Les procureurs français à la cour pontificale d’Avignon (1309–1376) (Paris, 2014), pp. 363–414. See also Chapter 5. 19  B.  Bombi, ‘The “Avignon Captivity” as a means of success. The circle of the Frescobaldi’, in Images and Words in Exile. Avignon and Italy during the First Half of the 14th Century, ed. E. Brilli, L. Fenelli, G. Wolf (Florence, 2015), pp. 271–81. See also B. Bombi, ‘The “Babylonian Captivity” of  Petracco di ser Parenzo dell’Incisa, father of Francesco Petrarca’, Historical Research 83 (2010), pp. 431–44. Accordingly, Sapiti’s clients took advantage of the proctor’s acquaintances at the papal curia in the execution of papal mandates, which was often given to individuals belonging to the same network: see Bombi, ‘Introduzione’, pp. 31–7. The issue of execution of papal mandates and the strategy in the choice of executors have been recently addressed in K.  Hitzbleck, Exekutoren. Die außerordentliche Kollatur von Benefizien im Pontifikat Johannes’ XXII. (Tübingen, 2009), pp. 553–9, who mainly focused on French, Italian, and German examples.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

80

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Indeed, this example further highlights the importance of Italian banking companies as informal contacts of the English crown at the papal curia in the first half of the fourteenth century. Owing to the constant need of cash to fund the Scottish and French military campaigns, the crown in fact relied heavily on the services of Italian merchants, such as the Frescobaldi, the Bardi, the Peruzzi, and the Malabaila, who acted as tax collectors and money-lenders in England and Avignon, where they were also informally employed as lobbyists and occasionally served in more formal capacities as royal envoys.20 This was, for instance, the case for Amerigo Frescobaldi, appointed constable of Bordeaux in 1306, and Berto Frescobaldi, who was an adviser and diplomatic agent of the English crown at the papal curia in 1310;21 the Genoese merchant and money-lender to the crown, Anthony Pessagno, who associated himself in England with Aymer of Valence, Earl of Pembroke, acted as a royal agent at the papal curia in the 1310s and the 1320s and was appointed seneschal of Gascony in 1317;22 and Nicolino Fieschi, who was a relative of Cardinal Luca Fieschi, himself a very good acquaintance of the English crown, and became a trusted English envoy at the papal curia between 1336 and 1349.23 Despite the relatively small number of English curialists and the lack of an English cardinal, the crown also managed to secure a ‘special friendship’ with some 20 A. Sapori, La crisi delle compagnie mercantili dei Bardi e dei Peruzzi (Firenze, 1926); A. Bearwood, Alien Merchants in England, 1350 to 1370 (Cambridge, 1931), p. 4, 111; W. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England (Cambridge, MA, 1939), I, pp. 599–603; II, pp. 201–17; Y. Renouard, Les relations des papes d’Avignon et des compagnies commerciales et bancaires de 1316 à 1378 (Paris, 1941), pp.  570–1; Y.  Renouard, Les hommes d’affaires Italiens du Moyen Age (Paris, 1949), pp. 134–40; Y.  Renouard, ‘I Frescobaldi in Guyenne (1307-1312)’, Archivio storico Italiano 122 (1964), p. 460; A. Sapori, La compagnia dei Frescobaldi in Inghilterra (Firenze, 1947); E.B. Fryde, ‘Italian maritime trade with England c. 1270-c1530’, in Les grandes escales 32 (1974), pp. 291–337; E.S. Hunt, ‘A new look at the dealings of the Bardi and the Peruzzi with Edward III’, Journal of Economic History 50 (1990), pp. 149–62; I. Del Punta, ‘Tuscan merchants-bankers and moneyers and their relations with the Roman Curia in the 13th and early 14th centuries’, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 64 (2010), pp. 39–53; Plöger, England, pp. 101–5. On the loans of Italian bankers to the English crown see also R.J. Whitwell, ‘Italian bankers and the English Crown’, TRHS 17 (1903), pp. 175–233; E.B.  Fryde, ‘Loans to the English Crown 1328–31’, EHR 70 (1955), pp. 198–211. On the Malabaila’s business in England during Innocent VI’s pontificate see Die Einnahmen der apostolischen Kammer unter Innozenz VI., ed. H. Hoberg, Vatikanische Quellen zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Hof- und Finanzverwaltung: VII (Paderborn, 1955), pp. 102, 111, 138, 167, 186; M. Chiaudano, ‘Note sui mercanti astigiani: I Malabaila’, Bollettino storico-bibliografico subalpino 41 (1939), pp. 213–28; P. Cancian, ‘L’Archivio Malabaila conservato nel castello di Canale’, Bollettino storico-bibliografico subalpino 95 (1997), pp. 593–638. In 1356 Innocent VI further asked his nuncio Talleyrand de Périgord to support Antonio Malabaila who was trying to recover what he had been taken away in France: Reg. Inn. VI (curiales), no. 2486. 21 Sapori, La compagnia, p. 33; Renouard, Les hommes, p. 135; Renouard, ‘I Frescobaldi’, pp. 462–3. See also TNA, SC 1/58/6; SC 1/58/14. 22 D.  Hughes, Antonio Pessagno, merchant of Genoa (PhD, Yale, 1968), pp. 83–116; N.  Fryde, ‘Antonio Pessagno of Genoa. King’s merchant of Edward II of England’, in Studi in memoria di Federigo Melis, II (Napoli, 1978), pp. 159–78. A letter, dating 12 February 1312, sent by Biagio Aldebrandini to Bettino and Pepo Frescobaldi mentions Anthony with reference to his close relationship with Hugh Despenser: TNA, SC 1/58/6. 23  K.  Plöger, ‘Die Entführung des Fieschi zu Avignon (1340): Zur Entwicklung der diplomatischen Immunität in der Frühphase des Hundertjährigen Krieges’, Francia 30/1 (2003), pp. 73–105; S. Phillips, Edward II (New Haven, CT—London, 2010), pp. 593–6. Another relevant example is provided by a member of the Bardi trading company, Nicolaus, magister in curia, who informed the English representative at the papal curia of the imminent arrival in Avignon of other English envoys in November 1344: Jean Froissart, Oeuvres de Froissart: Chroniques, ed. K. de Lettenhove, XVIII (Bruxelles, 1870–1877), no. lvii, pp. 228–9. See also Chapter 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

81

non-English members of the college of cardinals. As Wright pointed out, thanks to the evidence enrolled in the Roman rolls it is in fact partly possible to identify which cardinals were the favourite addressees of the English crown during the pontificate of Clement V and John XXII (1305–34).24 The examination of these records clearly shows that the crown specifically targeted certain cardinals who either occupied key positions at the papal curia, such as the vice-chancellors Gaucelm de Jean and Arnaud Novel and the chamberlains Bertrand de Bordes and Arnaud d’Aux; or who were personally related to the pope, such as Raymond de Got (Clement V’s nephew) and Jacobus da Via (John XXII’s nephew). However, if we revise Wright’s calculations and focus on Edward II’s relationship with individual popes during his reign (1307–27), further speculation is possible. Indeed, there is considerable scope for this, especially in light of the personal acquaintance between Clement V and the English crown, which was arguably lost after John XXII’s election in 1316.25 In particular, we should notice that among the English crown’s preferred cardinals, who only served during Clement V’s pontificate, three were Gascon and the pope’s nephews (Raymond the Got, Arnaud de Canteloup, William Ruffat); one was the English cardinal Thomas Jorz; and one was the chamberlain Bertrand de Bordes.26 Likewise, three of the pope’s nephews were among the crown’s preferred cardinals, who only served during John XXII’s pontificate: Jacobus da Via; Gaucelm de Jean, who was also vice-chancellor; and Raymond de Roux.27 Similar patterns of preference emerge when examining the background of the ten cardinals who served under both popes. In particular, during Clement V’s pontificate the English often chose to address two of the pope’s nephews (Arnaud Pellagrue and Raymond de Farges), as well as the chamberlain Arnaud d’Aux, appointed in 1312, and the vice-chancellor, Arnaud Novel. Conversely, Edward II preferred to write to William Testa and Michel du Bec only during John XXII’s pontificate, while he addressed Luca Fieschi, Arnaud de Falgères, Guillaume de Mandagout and Napoleone Orsini during both pontificates.28 Ultimately, the evidence suggests that Edward II followed a conservative approach when choosing his ‘special friends’ among the cardinals, selecting them because of nepotistic considerations and favouring key office holders, especially the vice-chancellor and the chamberlain. However, some exceptions to this rule stand out. For instance, it should be noticed that the Gascon cardinal Arnaud Falgères, promoted by Clement V, survived the turnover after the Gascon pope’s death, while other cardinals were clearly favoured despite the criteria above. This was for instance the case for Guillaume de Mandagout, a well-known canonist and one of the favourites for election to the Apostolic See after Clement V’s death, who was consistently 24 Wright, The Church, pp. 119–29; Appendix 4, pp. 310–12. For a prosopography of the cardinals listed below see Guillemain, La cour, pp. 183–224. See also Chapter 4. 25  See Chapter 6 and Bombi, ‘The English Crown’, p. 260–2, 278–9. 26 Wright, The Church, p. 310. See also below n. 41. 27 Wright, The Church, p. 310. The other two cardinals, who were favoured by the English crown and only in office during John XXII’s pontificate, were Simon d’Archiac and Bertrand of Montfavès. 28 Wright, The Church, p. 310. To my knowledge there was no obvious connection between the English crown and the Norman cardinal Michel du Bec, who was addressed by Edward II on several occasions during the pontificate of John XXII.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

82

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

addressed by the English crown before and after 1316; and Simon d’Archiac, a former clerk of the French crown, who was similarly considered as a good representative of the English interests at the papal curia during both pontificates. Furthermore, if we examine the trend for the years 1334–57, interestingly we see that the nepotistic agendas pursued in the previous decades were clearly abandoned. During the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334–42) Edward III in fact established a special relationship with the master of the papal palace, Guillaume de Peyre de Godin, and Pedro Gomez de Barroso, who acted as papal nuncius in England and France after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337 alongside Bertrand of Montfavès, another favourite of the English crown in the college of cardinals.29 In those years the English king further entertained close links with long-serving members of the college of cardinals, such as Napoleone Orsini, Raymond de Farges, and Galhard de la Mothe, as well as with upcoming ­personalities, most notably the vice-chancellor Pierre de Prés and Annibaldo da Ceccano, who also played an important part in Anglo-papal relations during the following two decades.30 By contrast, from Benedict XII’s pontificate Edward III only rarely addressed directly letters to curialists of lower rank and lobbyists, requesting that they should intercede on his behalf before the pope.31 In a similar fashion, during the pontificate of Clement VI and Innocent VI (1342–57), when Anglo-papal relations reached an impasse, Edward III still seems to have especially trusted some of the same long-serving Italian and southern French members of the college, most notably Raymond de Farges, Giovanni Colonna, Galhard de la Mothe, the latter loosing the French crown’s trust in 1346 after two members of his household had been accused of misconduct before the French court, and Adhémar Robert, who was Galhard’s protégé and cardinal priest of Santa Anastasia.32 Furthermore, Edward III preferred to correspond with those cardinals who had served as papal diplomatic envoys in England and were well acquainted with the problems arising from the on-going Anglo-French conflict and the crown’s prohibition of alien provisions in England.33 Among Edward III’s favourite addressees in those years we in fact find the cardinals who oversaw between 1343 and 1345 Anglo-French negotiations at the time of the First Avignon Conference 29 Guillemain, La cour, p. 193. See Chapters 5 and 8. 30  My statement is here based on the examination of TNA, C 70/14–18. Following the criteria outlined in Wright, The Church, Appendix 4, pp. 310–12, and Plöger, England, Appendix V, pp. 248–9, I am able to list the preferences of the English crown when addressing the papal curia in its corres­ pondence during the pontificate of Benedict XII: Guillaume de Peyre de Godin (0.5); Pedro Gomez de Barroso (0.22); Napoleone Orsini (0.12); Annibaldo da Ceccano and Pierre de Prés (0.11); Galhard de la Mothe (0.10); Raymond de Farges (0.09); Bertrand of Montfavès (0.08). For instance, as early as 1335, soon after Benedict XII’s consecration, Edward III had supported the provision to wealthy prebends in England of Guillaume de Peyre de Godin, cardinal of Santa Sabina, and Napoleone Orsini, cardinal of Sant’Adriano: see E. Déprez, Les préliminaires, de la Guerre de Cent Ans. La papauté, la France et l’Angleterre (1328–1342) (Paris, 1902), p. 104. 31  See for instance, TNA C 70/15, m. 2; Rymer, II/2, p. 1002; and C 70/16, m. 2. 32  G. Mollat, ‘La Saint-Siège et la France sous le pontificat de Clément VI (1342-1352)’, Revue d’histoire ecclèsiastique 55 (1960), p. 20; R. Lützelschwab, Flectat Cardinales ad velle suum? Clemens VI. und sein Kardinalskolleg. Ein Beitrag zur kurialen Politik in der Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 2008), pp. 424, 451–2. See also Plöger, England, pp. 99–100. 33 Plöger, England, Appendix V, pp. 248–9. On Raymond de Farges and Giovanni Colonna see also Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 457–8, 493–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

83

and in its aftermath (Gaucelm de Jean, Annibaldo of Ceccano, Jean Comminges, Pedro Gomez de Barroso, Pierre de Prés, Bertrand de Déaux and Étienne Aubert);34 Guy de Boulogne, cardinal bishop of Porto and chief negotiator appointed by Innocent VI to arrange a new Anglo-French peace conference at Guines in 1354;35 and Talleyrand de Périgod, cardinal bishop of Albano, who, along with Niccolò Capocci, cardinal priest of San Vitale, led the arbitration that sanctioned three Anglo-French truces between 1357 and 1359 and eventually prepared the ground for the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais in 1360.36 T H E A DVA N TA G E O F F O S T E R I N G T H E R I G H T S O RT   O F   C O N N E C T I O N S Ultimately, the English crown’s need to cultivate unofficial contacts at the papal curia arose from the modalities of fourteenth-century papal government, since popes increasingly shared their judicial and decision-making power with the ­cardinals, delegated some of their faculties to curial officials and often employed curialists and relatives as advisers. In this respect, as pointed out in Chapter 2, while the Avignon papacy developed increasingly sophisticated bureaucratic procedures, petitioners faced growing difficulties in gaining direct access to the pope in person.37 This state of affairs raised many eyebrows among contemporaries, ­epitomized in Petrarca’s description of the papal curia at Avignon as an ‘inextricable maze’ (inextricabilis curie labyrintus), and arguably explains the growing i­ mportance of cultivating personal and informal connections when dealing with the Apostolic See.38 Whereas Guillemain defined the fourteenth-century papal curia as a ‘patriarchal community (une communauté patriarcale), more recently Bresc has described it as a ‘compartmentalized society composed of enclosed sections: horizontal cliques of cardinals, vertical groups which corresponded to their households and . . . which were complicated by horizontal allegiances (professional bodies, university training) and regional groups, and which were further divided in sub-groups, each one with its own agenda and leader’.39 In this respect, regional and personal connections played a very important part, especially when it came to cardinals’ households and clienteles.

34 Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 431–3, 438–41, 449–51, 453–4, 473–5, 481–2, 488–90; Plöger, England, pp. 109–10. See also Chapter 5. 35  P.  Jugie, ‘L’activité diplomatique du cardinal Gui de Boulogne en France au milieu du XIVe siècle’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 145 (1987), pp. 123–4; J. Favier, Les papes d’Avignon (Paris, 2006), pp. 406–7; Plöger, England, pp. 39–40; Willershausen, p. 204. See also Chapter 5. 36 N.P. Zacour, Talleyrand: the Cardinal of Périgord (1301–1364) (Philadelphia, 1960), pp. 45–64; Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 476–8. See also below n. 119 and Chapter 5. 37  See Chapter 2. 38 Francesco Petrarca, Le Familiari, ed. V.  Rossi (Florence, 1933–1942), III, p. 112. See also Guillemain, La cour, especially pp. 698–9. 39 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 38–42; H. Bresc, ‘La genèse du schisme: les parties cardinalices et leurs ambitions dynastiques’, in Genèse et débuts du Grand Schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1980), p. 49 (my translation).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

84

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

The English crown’s informal contacts with members of the papal entourage, cardinals, and curialists were therefore advantageous for the success of Anglo-papal diplomacy in two respects. On the one hand, the crown’s contacts in Avignon helped it to negotiate the complex administrative, diplomatic and ceremonial procedures of the stilus curie and to gain direct access to the pope and his closest advisers. On the other hand, informal contacts with members of the papal entourage and the cardinalate secured more efficient gathering of information and rumours, which could heavily influence the outcome of diplomatic negotiations, as seen especially during the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War.40 Throughout the first half of the fourteenth century English attempts at gaining insights into and access to the curia thanks to informal and unofficial contacts with its personnel and lobbyists are evidenced in several instances, mostly recorded in the English diplomatic correspondence, especially in the Roman rolls. As pointed out previously, while the quantitative analysis of these sources highlights which individuals the English preferred to target during the first half of the fourteenth century, qualitative examination of this evidence emphasizes the extent to which Anglo-papal relations could benefit from close connections at the curia. This was especially the case for the cardinals, who certainly played a pivotal informal role as the pope’s advisers and because of their capacity to influence papal decision-making. Therefore it was common practice for the English crown to write to the c­ ardinals at the same time as the pope either to ask for their intercession on important political matters or to recommend its protégés. In such cases, the cardinals were normally addressed as ‘dearest friends’ (amici karissimi) of the crown, which clearly chose specific individuals on the basis of their personal connections with English interests and current affairs. A common example of this practice is for instance provided by the three petitions which Edward II sent to the papal curia on 6 September 1307, requesting a marriage dispensation for Duncan IV Macduff, earl of Fife, and Mary de Monthemer, daughter of the earl of Gloucester and Edward’s niece. The first petition was directed to Pope Clement V; the other two were respectively addressed to two of the pope’s nephews in the college of cardinals, namely Raymond de Got, cardinal of Santa Maria Nuova, and Arnaud de Canteloup, cardinal of San Marcello, referred to as ‘amicus suus karissimus’.41 While all these petitions mentioned the political importance of this marriage, which had been arranged by the king’s father, Edward I, in order to secure alliances with the anti-Bruce nobility in Scotland, in the petition addressed to the cardinal of San Marcello Edward II mentioned ‘his special gratitude’ to him for his ‘loyal intercession’ on this matter during Edward I’s reign.42 Although highly formulaic, 40 D. Queller, The office of ambassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1967), 87–109; W. Maleczek, ‘Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zusammenfassung’, in Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zum geistlichen und weltlichen Gesandtschaftswesen vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Zey, C. Märtl, (Zürich, 2008), p. 349; B. Beattie, ‘The cardinals and diplomacy in the fourteenth century’, in Die Kardinäle des Mittelalters und der Frühen-Renaissance, ed. J. Dendorfer, R. Lützelschwab (Firenze, 2013), p. 167. 41  On the importance of these cardinals as special friends of the English crown during Clement V’s pontificate see above n. 26. 42  TNA, C 70/2, m. 13: ‘Licet vos, ut fuisset concessa, prout datum est nobis intelligi studiose interposueritis partes vestras, de quo vobis grates referimus speciales, per quod dictum matrimonium

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

85

the use of this language of love and friendship is very interesting, since conventionally it highlighted a special relationship between the ruler and his addressee, who was often rewarded through the reciprocation of gifts.43 Significantly, on some occasions, such as the crown’s petitions in favour of Duncan Macduff, the request that some cardinals should be addressed as ­intermediaries before the pope came directly from the king and his closest advisers.44 A number of surviving privy seal warrants and notes in the Roman rolls in fact clearly outline instructions on how to petition the papal curia and who should be addressed there.45 Evidence in the Roman rolls further suggests that this practice of annotating petitions, compiled on the orders of the privy seal, was particularly common during Edward II’s reign, who frequently sent instructions through the privy seal to the chancery when petitioning Clement V and John XXII, but this practice was discontinued after 1329, when the chancery went ‘out of court’, and was only sporadically resumed in 1349.46 In this respect, a welldocumented ­example is provided by the writ of Edward II, which supported Roger of Northburgh’s promotion to the cardinalate in 1320, mentioned above. On this occasion the king in fact ordered the chancery that petitions should be sent to twenty-one cardinals, explicitly requesting special favours of those receiving pensions from the English crown.47 Furthermore, in addition to the cardinals, the king asked that other special friends of the crown at the papal curia should be petitioned, notably John of Veroli, Peter Duèse (John XXII’s brother), two of the pope’s iuxta votum eiusdem genitoris nostri, hactenus produci non potuit ad effectum’. On the political importance of this petition see Chapter 6. 43 F.  Senatore, ‘Un mundo de carta’. Forme e strutture della diplomazia sforzesca (Napoli, 1998), pp. 282–95; G. Schwedler, ‘Diplomatische Geschenke unter Königen im Spätmittelalter. Freundschaft und Gebentausch zwischen politischer Praxis un der schriftlichen Norm der Fürstenspiegelliteratur’, in Geschenke erhalten die Freundschaft. Gebentausch und Netzwerkpflege im europäischen Mittelalter, ed. M. Grünbart (Berlin, 2011), pp. 145–85; J.M. Moeglin, S. Péquignot, Diplomatie et « relations internationales » au Moyen Age (IXe–XVe siècle) (Paris, 2017), pp. 147–55. 44  TNA, C70/1, m. 4: ‘pro littere de privato sigillo’. The warrant (dated Lanercost, 12 October 1306) is calendared in CCW, p. 256. 45  On the collaboration of privy seal and chancery during Edward II and Edward III’s reign see Chapter 2. 46  TNA, C 70/1, m. 4; C 70/2, m. 1, 2, 4, 5, 5v, 7v; C 70/3, m. 4, 15v, 21v, 24; C 70/4, m. 1, 2; C 70/5, m. 2, 8v; C 70/7, m. 1, 2; C 70/9, m. 4; C 70/24, m. 2. On the privy seal, its activity in 1311–1313 and its role during the period of baronial opposition to Edward II see J.H. Trueman, ‘The Privy Seal and the English Ordinances of 1311’, Speculum 31 (1956), pp. 611–25. The compilers of the Roman rolls may have ceased to note down the reception of privy seal warrants in their records because of the reorganization of seals during Edward III’s reign, marked by the increasing separation between the great seal and the king, who also lost direct control over the privy seal and intensified the use of the secret seal for his private correspondence, as he did in November 1327, when he dispatched to Avignon Bernard Pellegrini with letters of recommendation sealed under his secret seal (TNA, C 70/7, m. 1). Meanwhile, as Wilkinson pointed out, the number of privy seal warrants steadly increased in its bulk: T.F. Tout, Chapters in administrative history, V (Manchester, 1930), p. 3–4; 7–10; B. Wilkinson, The chancery under Edward III (Manchester, 1929), pp. 11–26. 47  EMDP, I/2, no. 324a, p. 702: ‘Nous vous mandoms que sur la matere que nous vous enveoms en un escrouet enclos dedeinz cestes facez faire, veues cestes lettres, a plus en haste que vous unques purrez lettres souz nostre dit seal a nostre seint piere le pape et as cardinaux, aussi bien noz pensioners come autres, et a touz noz autres amis en la court de Rome, en aussi bone et especiale forme come vous saverez et porrez’. In this case, while the original chancery warrant and instructions survive (EMDP, II, no. 324a and b), there is no note in the Roman rolls indicating that these petitions were instructed through the privy seal (TNA, C 70/4, m. 3).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

86

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

nephews, and the Gascon Bernard Jourdain d’Isle.48 The cardinals and the pope’s relatives were asked to exercise their patronage as ‘trusted friends’, interceding before the pope ‘by virtue of their love for the king’.49 Even more significant is the fact that privy seal warrants were sent to chancery during Edward III’s minority, when after Edward II’s deposition a turnover of administrative personnel took place in English government and the new king had to negotiate his role vis-à-vis Isabella and Mortimer. Indeed, during his minority Edward III requested through the privy seal that letters should be issued in order to recommend Wulfstan de Bransford, bishop-elect of Worcester, to the pope, the cardinals and the pope’s nephew, Arnaud Duèse, who were asked to intercede before the pope on the king’s behalf in September 1327. Accordingly, in March 1329 he presented William, king’s clerk, and Roger de la Zouche to the pope in the same way.50 Finally, evidence suggests that in 1349, at a crucial time in the clash between the Church and the crown over the control of ecclesiastical benefices in England, Edward III sent to chancery privy seal warrants to promote the provisions of Simon Langham to Westminster Abbey and Thomas de la Mare to St Albans Abbey as well as to confirm the election to the see of Canterbury, initially provided to Thomas de Bradwardine, who had died from plague before his consecration in August 1349 and was ­succeeded by Simon Islip.51 Not only were the cardinals asked to intercede remotely on behalf of the crown, but also to provide important insights and information for the English representatives visiting the papal curia, facilitating their business and access to the pope. For instance, thanks to their informal networking with the cardinals the English representatives in southern France, Andrea Sapiti and Raymond Subirani, managed to gather essential intelligence on the papal vacancy in the late summer of 1314, after the attack against the conclave in Carpentras in July, which had halted the process of election of Clement V’s successor. At that time the English envoys frantically moved around the different locations where the cardinals had repaired and carefully informed Edward II about the negotiations, the timing and location for a new conclave, the names of the possible candidates for papal election, and the French crown’s views on this matter. Meanwhile, between 1315 and 1316 another English envoy, Richard de Plymstock, also toured the cardinals’ households in Provence in order to fulfil his mission.52 These informal liaisons with the cardinals in southern France were arguably crucial to fulfilling Edward II’s ambitions, since he particularly 48  EMDP, I/2, no. 324c, pp. 703–4; Rymer, II/1, pp. 432–3. Those listed among the king’s friends at the curia are John of Veroli, John XXII’s brother, Peter Duèse, two of the pope’s nephews, and Bernard Jourdain d’Isle. Zanke recently maintained that the latter were members of John XXII’s household and papal political advisers: Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 200–2. See also Chapter 4. 49  Rymer, II/1, p. 433: ‘Paternitatem vestram, quanto possumus affectu, requirimus et rogamus, quatinus, penes eundem dominum summum pontificem, ut votis nostris gratiose annuat in hac parte, opem et consilium, sicut de vestra dilectione confidimus, amore nostri, velitis apponere quae potestis.’ 50 TNA, C 70/7, m. 2; Rymer, II/2, pp. 715–16; C 70/9, m. 4. On the controlling nature of Mortimer and Isabella during Edward III’s minority see I. Mortimer, The greatest traitor. The life of Sir Roger Mortimer, ruler of England, 1327–1330 (London, 2003), pp. 196–218. 51  TNA, C 70/24, m. 2. See The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, ed. D.M. Smith, II (Cambridge, 2001), p. 64, 79; FEA, 1300–1541, IV, pp. 3–5. 52  TNA, E 101/309/20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

87

needed to raise his profile in the international political milieu and vis-à-vis the French crown at a time when he was facing opposition at home and still suffered from the consequences of his recent humiliating defeat at Bannockburn against the Scots.53 Similarly, in September 1344, after Clement VI accused Edward III of rebellion and threatened him with excommunication over the implementation in England of the Ordinance of Provisors of 1343, the prompt advice of an unnamed cardinal to the English envoy William Bateman, dean of Lincoln, allowed the English to anticipate the pope’s intended moves. In a letter sent to John Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury, Bateman in fact maintained that, while he was approaching Lyons on his way to the curia, a cardinal had warned him that he had to speed up his journey, without waiting for fresh horses, and arrange a meeting with the pope as soon as possible in order to stop the proceedings against Edward III, deemed guilty of undermining the freedom of the Church in England.54 In a similar fashion, the gathering of information through informal contacts was also an essential part of the duties assigned to the papal envoys dispatched to England. For instance, in May 1325, in his dispatch to John XXII, Hugh of Angouleme dismissed the rumours that John, king of Bohemia, Lewis of Bavaria, the count of Hainaut and other German nobles were preparing an attack against Avignon in retaliation for the papal excommunication of Lewis of Bavaria in July 1324. Hugh of Angouleme’s intelligence came at a crucial time for the Anglo-French n ­ egotiations overseen by the papal envoys to end the war of St Sardos, confirming that the news spread by Edward II’s most trusted adviser, Hugh Despenser, were in fact misleading, since John of Bohemia and Lewis of Bavaria had not met at that time and the intended attack was possibly going to target England rather than Avignon.55 The extent to which examples of secret information-gathering through informal contacts, as the ones illustrated above, involved espionage is a matter open to further speculation. On the one hand, there was in fact often reticence with regard to secret agents, simply referred to as ‘friends’, while even ambassadors were occasionally regarded as spies.56 On the other hand, from the mid-thirteenth century the Italian city-states formalized and legitimized the duties of spies (called exploratores), who were supposed to acquire secret information alongside official diplomatic representatives and ambassadors in order to guarantee the security of their polities and 53  Bombi, ‘The English Crown’, pp. 270–2, 280–3. 54  Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, no. lvii, p. 206. See also A.D.M. Barrel, ‘The Ordinance of Provisors of 1343’, Historical Research 64 (1991), pp. 264–77; Plöger, England, pp. 43–5. 55  Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum, IV: Constitutiones VI/I (Hannover, 1914–1927), no. 62, p. 42. On the importance of information-gathering see Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 623–45. It is not clear where Hugh of Angouleme gathered information concerning a possible attack against England. One could speculate that Hugh was aware of the alliance between John of Bohemia and France, sanctioned through the marriage of John’s son, Wenceslas, to Blanche of Valois, which took the king of Bohemia and France closer, making the former a possible threat for the English. See also Chapter 5. 56  J.R. Alban, C.T. Allmand, ‘Spies and Spying in the Fourteenth Century’, in War, Literature and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, ed. C.T. Allmand (Liverpool, 1976), pp. 74–9; A. Cirier, ‘Diplomazia e retorica comunale: la comunicazione attraverso lo spionaggio politico nell’Italia medievale (secc. XII–XIII)’, in Comunicazione e propaganda nei secoli XII e XIII, ed. R. Castano, F. Latella, T. Sorrenti (Rome, 2005), pp. 212–13; Moeglin –Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 645–70.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

88

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

safeguard the common good.57 Indeed, as Allmand and Alban pointed out, by the late thirteenth century espionage became a vital part of diplomacy, especially at times of long-lasting international conflicts, such as the Hundred Years’ War.58 This was for instance first the case in the winter of 1337–8, when a French spy notoriously gathered intelligence on Lewis of Bavaria’s threatened invasion of French territories. Such unofficial information gathering was crucial, since it could be used by different parties in the official diplomatic negotiations, which Benedict XII oversaw in July 1338, when he further reassured the French king, Philip VI, about on-going negotiations concerning papal reconciliation with Lewis of Bavaria that would have safeguarded the kingdom of France from German invasion.59 Similarly, in December 1323–January 1324, soon after the outbreak of the war of St Sardos, English messengers in France had secretly dispatched to Edward II very detailed accounts concerning the King of France’s movements in northern France.60 Finally, evidence suggests that during the pontificates of John XXII, Urban V and Gregory XI ciphers were employed in secret correspondence addressed to the pope by his envoys and it is possible to speculate that ciphers were occasionally adopted in papal letters as well.61 Significantly, as Alban and Allmand put it, ‘a striking feature of the secret agents employed by the English Crown . . . was that many of them were aliens’, holding important positions in their home area, which further favoured their activity.62 This was especially the case for foreign merchants who, cultivating the right connections at the papal curia and in England, could count on messengers’ services and enjoy relative freedom of movement owing to their international businesses. For instance, soon after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1339, the Catalonian merchant Peter Sesers speculated on the advantages of a possible English alliance with Aragon in a memorandum addressed to the English crown.63 Likewise, as fears of French espionage grew in England during the summer of 1359 in the run up to the Treaty of Brétigny, some Englishmen were accused of having leaked to the French an accurate list of the 57  Alban, Allmand, ‘Spies’, pp. 79–81; A. Cirier, ‘La face cachée du pouvoir. L’espionnage au service d’ètats en construction en Italie à la fin du Moyen Age (XIIIe – fin XIVe siècle)’, in L’envers du décor. Espionnage, complot, trahison, vergeance et violence en pays bourguignon et liégeois, ed. J.M. Cauchies, A. Marchandisse (Neuchatel, 2008), pp. 7–28. 58  Alban, Allmand, ‘Spies’, pp. 73–4, 100–1; Cirier, ‘Diplomazia’, pp. 204–10. 59  Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 457, col. 285–9. On this issue see H. Thomas, ‘Französische Spionage im Reich Ludwigs des Bayern’, Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 5 (1978), pp. 1–21. See also Chapter 8. 60  CCW, pp. 548–9; Alban, Allmand, ‘Spies’, p. 75. 61  F. Bock, ‘Die Geheimschrift in der Kanzlei Johanns XXII.’, Römische Quartalschrift 42 (1934), pp. 279–303; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The political and administrative correspondence of the Avignon popes, 1305–1378: a contribution to papal diplomatic’, in Aux origines de l’État Moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Rome, 1990), pp. 380–1; S. Weiß, ‘Das Papsttum und seine Geheimdiplomatie’, in Geheimdienste in der Weltgeschichte. Spionage und verdeckte Aktionen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, ed. W. Krieger (Munich, 2003), pp. 86–96. On the use of ciphers in Late Medieval diplomatic correspondence see also Senatore, ‘Un mundo de carta’, pp. 396–409. 62  Alban, Allmand, ‘Spies’, pp. 81–9. 63  TNA, C 47/32/23. Another piece of evidence is probably provided in a letter sent from Avignon by Amerigo to Guglielmo Frescobaldi in 1311, where the former mentioned the dispatch of a box of secret letters, including one of the papal vice-chancellor: TNA, SC 1/49/177.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

89

towns that Edward III planned to attack.64 Yet, from the mid-fourteenth century rumours about the employment of foreign agents in espionage ultimately raised concerns in England, prompting well-known initiatives against non-English clergy in parliament, which further coincided with campaigns against the provisions of aliens to English ecclesiastical benefices in the same decades.65 Once more, the gathering of secret information during lengthy and complex diplomatic negotiations evidences how the dividing line between formal and informal discussions was often thin and difficult to draw with absolute clarity. As is the case nowadays, in the later Middle Ages a degree of informality in fact characterized diplomatic negotiations and talks, which took place either in preparation for or outside the formal setting of summits and diplomatic conferences. In particular, informal occasions for diplomatic negotiations were provided by what modern political scientists define as ‘gastronomic diplomacy’, namely discussions of diplomatic affairs during festive and dining occasions.66 Weiß and Plöger have in fact shown that such diplomatic practice was widespread in later Medieval diplomatic discourse, especially at the papal curia where special guests were honoured through invitations to the pope’s table to discuss more informally diplomatic matters with the pope, his entourage, and the cardinals.67 This was the case for high-ranking English diplomatic envoys, such as Edmund Woodstock in 1320, John Eltham in 1329, and the Duke of Lancaster in 1354, who were invited to dine at the pope’s table during their respective missions at the papal curia, as well as lower-ranking envoys, such as John Offord and Hugh Neville, who dined with the pope during their mission to Avignon in August–September 1344, allowing them the chance to discuss their business with Clement VI and five cardinals more informally before the beginning of the actual negotiations.68 In a similar fashion, on 26 May 1325 64  Rymer, III/1, p. 442; Archives administratives de la ville de Reims, ed. P. Varin, III (Paris, 1848), no. dcciii, pp. 140–1. See also J. Sumption, Trial by Fire. The Hundred Years War, II (London, 1999), p. 419. 65  Alban, Allmand, ‘Spies’, pp. 89–93. 66 C.M. Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy (London, 1996), pp. 125–47. On the importance of banquets and dining occasions in the Medieval diplomatic practice see also J.  Benham, Peacemaking in the Middle Ages. Principles and Practice (Manchester, 2011), pp. 82–5. 67 S. Weiß, Die Versorgung des päpstlichen Hofes in Avignon mit Lebensmitteln (1316–1378): Studien zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte eines mittelalterlichen Hofes (Berlin, 2002), pp. 226–64; Plöger, England, pp. 208–9. See also A. Tomasello, Musical culture in papal Avignon (1309–1403) (PhD, Yale University, 1982), pp. 302–3. 68  Die Ausgaben der apostolischen Kammer unter Johann XXII., ed. K.H.  Schäfer, Vatikanische Quellen zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Hof- und Finanzverwaltung: II (Paderborn, 1911), p. 60; Weiß, Die Versorgung, p. 452: both Schäfer and Weiß mistook Edmund of Woodstock, brother of Edward II, who was actually at the papal curia in 1320, for John of Eltham, brother of Edward III. On John Eltham’s mission to France in 1329 see Die Ausgaben, II, p. 130; Weiß, Die Versorgung, p. 471. On Henry, Duke of Lancaster, see Die Ausgaben der apostolischen Kammer unter Benedikt XII., Klemens VI., und Innocenz VI. (1335–1362), ed. K.H. Schäfer, Vatikanische Quellen zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Hof- und Finanzverwaltung: III (Paderborn, 1914), p. 558; G. Mollat, ‘Innocent VI et les tentatives de paix entre la France et l’Angleterre (1353–1355)’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 10 (1909), pp. 740–1; Weiß, Die Versorgung, p. 508; Plöger, England, p. 208. On the 1344 mission to the papal curia see Froissart, Oeuvres, no. lvii, pp. 202–5; EMDP, I/1 (London, 1982), no. 155, pp. 294–5; Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, p. 231; Plöger, England, pp. 201, 208–9. Two areas of the papal palace were dedicated to dining events: the so-called tinellum parvum, generally used by the pope and his household;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

90

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Queen Isabella and the English envoys famously agreed a peace plan to end the war of St Sardos in the presence of the papal nuncios during a dinner hosted by the French king at Fontainebleau.69 Last but not least, occasions for informal networking at the papal curia were arguably provided during liturgical celebrations in the papal chapel (capella) and in the public consistory, to which ambassadors visiting the papal curia and high-ranking visitors were usually invited.70 Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the English representatives’ personal acquaintance with administrative curial personnel could facilitate and occasionally speed up administrative procedures. In this respect, especially from the 1330s, the English crown increasingly employed curialists and well-connected freelancers as members of their ‘teams of diplomatic representatives’, such as the lawyers Thomas Fastolf and William Bateman, who also acted as auditores sacri palacii in Avignon, and the proctor Andrea Sapiti.71 Accordingly, it is worth highlighting that the English crown’s envoys not only fostered liaisons with high-ranking curialists, but also with lower-status members of pope’s and cardinals’ households as well as clerks of the papal palace, especially guards, doorkeepers, and squires, who could advise the diplomatic envoys practically on how to gain quick access to the pope and his officials. In this respect, the surviving accounts rendered to the exchequer by and the tinellum magnum, used in formal and festive occasions: see B. Schimmelpfennig, ‘Ad maiorem papae gloriam. La fonction des pièces dans le palais des Papes d’Avignon’, in Architecture et vie sociale. L’organisation intérieure des grandes demeures à la fin du Moyen Age et à la Reinaissance, ed. J. Guillaume (Tours, 1994), pp. 34–7; B. Schimmelpfennig, ‘Der Palast als Stadtersatz. Funktionale und zeremonielle Bedeutung der Papstpaläste in Avignon und im Vatikan’, in Zeremoniell und Raum, ed. W. Paravicini (Sigmaringen, 1997), pp. 244–5. 69 Phillips, Edward II, p. 474. See Chapter 7. 70  Die Zeremonienbücher der römischen Kurie im Mittelalter, ed. B. Schimmelpfennig (Tübingen, 1973), no. xlviii.15, p. 255: ‘Deinde portat pacem ambaxiatoribus, si sunt in capella’; no. cxxxii, pp. 332–3 (dated in 1413). On the participation of the ambassadors to public consistories see also Le cérémonial papal de la fin du Moyen Age à la Renaissance, ed. M. Dykmans, II (Rome, 1977–1985), p.  425. On the ceremonial participation of the English ambassadors at the council of Perpignan (1408) and Pisa (1409) see Le cérémonial, III, no. 32 pp. 415: ‘Item ambasciatores atque alii nuntii solemnes sedent in scamnis a dextris et sinistris intra coronam cardinalium in primis scamnis’; no. 33, p. 416. On the spaces used for such liturgical celebration in the papal palace in Avignon see Schimmelpfennig, ‘Ad maiorem’, pp. 38–9; Schimmelpfennig, ‘Der Palast’, pp. 244–6. On the presence of foreign ambassadors and important secular rulers in the so-called missa coram papam, namely the mass celebrated in the pope’s presence, see Tomasello, Musical culture pp. 267–8. The English ambassadors’ participation in liturgical performances is evidenced in the early fifteenth-century diary of François de Conzié, written in 1406 and 1407 and revised in 1421–2 by Pierre Assalbit. The latter recorded a clash between the Castilian and English ambassadors who were to be the first to receive candles from the pope during the liturgical celebration of Candlemas: Le cérémonial, III, pp. 398–9; IV, p. 39. See also Chapter 3. On the papal chapel and its importance in the social and cultural life of the curia see M.D. Ross, The papal chapel, 1288–1304: a study in institutional and cultural exchange (PhD, UCL, 2013), pp. 197–244. 71 J.H.  Baker, ‘Fastolf, Thomas’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/ article/49670?docPos=3 (accessed on 8 December 2015); R.M.  Haines, ‘Bateman, William’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/1672?docPos=15 (accessed on 8 December 2015). See also Chapter 5. Berthe has pointed out the existence of similar networks, facilitating the business of French petitioners at the papal curia: Berthe, Les procureurs, pp. 363–413. On Andrea Sapiti see Il registro di Andrea Sapiti, no. xxxii–xxxiii, pp. 271–4; B. Bombi, ‘Der Geschäftsgang der Suppliken im ersten Viertel des 14. Jahrhunderts. Einige Beispiele anhand des Registers des Kurienprokurators Andrea Sapiti’, Archiv für Diplomatik 51 (2005), pp. 279–80. See also above n. 18.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

91

the English diplomatic envoys returning from Avignon are an invaluable source. This is especially the case for the accounts of John Stratford’s mission to Avignon in 1322–3 as well as the embassy of Richard of Bury and John Shoreditch in 1333, which show how the envoys took advice and profited from their connections with the cardinals and members of the papal entourage, notably John XXII’s nephews, Peter de Via and Arnaud Duèse, as well as liaising with curial personnel, members of cardinals’ households, guards, and door-keepers of the papal palace.72 R E WA R D S A N D G I F T S The evidence provided in the surviving accounts of the English envoys returning from the papal curia further help us to investigate how the crown rewarded its ‘friends’ and contacts in Avignon for their services. As pointed out in Chapter 1 of this book, the question concerning payments and rewards is in fact fundamental to the Weberian definition of ‘impure’ models of bureaucracy, since the latter notably remunerated administrative officials for their service through patrimonial ­maintenance by means of fiefs, gifts, and benefices.73 When examining fourteenth-century Anglo-papal diplomacy, this Weberian classification arguably applies to administrative and diplomatic personnel as well as freelancers and individuals, whom the English crown either employed on a provisional basis as members of their teams of representatives or liaised with in a more informal and unofficial way during diplomatic negotiations at the papal curia.74 Indeed, by the fourteenth century those acting as informal contacts of the English crown in Avignon were generally rewarded for their services through two means: occasional gifts in cash or goods; and provisions to ecclesiastical benefices and pensions, which gave a steadier income for those individuals, securing their long-term allegiance and services. While the employment of such means of remuneration substantially helped the English crown and the papacy to face the mounting costs arising from the growth of their bureaucratic apparatus and the management of international relations, its use was, however, problematic. Indeed, contemporaries commonly termed such forms of gift-giving in return for services as corruption and bribery, ultimately prompting, as Chester Jordan recently argued, anti-corruption campaigns in France, England, Norway, the kingdom of Aragon, and some Italian city-states during the second half of the thirteenth century.75 These campaigns were often directly promoted by rulers, who also introduced the practice of remunerating royal officials through salaries, used in Chester Jordan’s words ‘as 72  TNA, E 101/309/27; Plöger, England, Appendix VII, pp. 256–9. For Adam Orleton’s accounts dating 1327–1328 see TNA, E 101/309/38; Plöger, England, Appendix VII, p. 257. See also Wright, The Church, p. 123. 73 Weber, Economy and Society, I, p. 215, 235–41; III, pp. 1036–42. See Chapter 1. 74  On the funding of diplomatic envoys in England and at the papal curia during the fourteenth century see Chapter 5. 75 W.  Chester Jordan, ‘Anti-corruption campaigns in thirteenth-century Europe’, Journal of Medieval History 35 (2009), pp. 204–19. On the critique commonly moved in England against the financial burden of papal legates and nuncios see Chapter 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

92

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

means of administrative discipline’.76 By the fourteenth century English diplomatic envoys and agents were therefore largely paid their daily fees through the exchequer and the wardrobe on the basis of their status, although in the case of long and successful careers clerks and officials in clerical orders also received more profitable rewards in kind, namely provisions to ecclesiastical ­benefices and pensions openly supported through royal patronage.77 However, as Chester Jordan also noted, the Church only adopted this system in part to remunerate its administrative officials and diplomatic personnel, mostly because of its unique administrative and governmental structure.78 As argued in Chapter 1, while the Avignon papacy reformed and centralized both its control over ecclesiastical fiscal revenues and their collection during the fourteenth century, increasingly paying its personnel through salaries, it still depended on the income arising from the granting of dispensations and taxation on benefices.79 Such financial means, known as service taxes (servitia), were further deployed to pay for the maintenance of curialists and papal officials (the so-called servitia minuta or petty services). Accordingly, the so-called servitia communia or ‘common services’ were used to fund the pope and the cardinals as well as to cover some of the costs of cardinals’ activity as papal diplomatic envoys, who also relied heavily on monetary procurations collected in partibus as income taxes on local clergy.80 Finally, petitioners were taxed on the business transacted in Avignon on their behalf. These one-off payments in return for services represented the main source of income for papal officials involved in such transactions.81 Some of the receipts rendered by the diplomatic envoys of the English crown returning from Avignon explicitly noted the payment of fees to the papal curia’s personnel, such as scribes, notaries, and abbreviatores involved in administrative tasks during the production of papal letters.82 This was, for instance, the case for the English envoy Paul of Monteflore who not only distributed the king’s gifts in kind to the pope and prominent curialists but also paid fees for the dispensations asked by himself and the son of Andrea Sapiti, the king’s proctor, during his journey to the papal curia in 1336–8.83 As happened in other polities, by the mid-thirteenth century anti-corruption 76  Chester Jordan, ‘Anti-corruption campaigns’, p. 212. 77  See Chapter 5. 78  Chester Jordan, ‘Anti-corruption campaigns’, p. 208. See also W.  Maleczek, ‘Die Kardinale von 1143 bis 1216. Exklusive Papstwähler und erste Agenten der päpstlichen plenitudo potestatis’, in Geschichte des Kardinalats im Mittelalter, ed. R. Lützelschwab, J. Dendorfer (Stuttgart, 2011), pp. 132–3. 79 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 488–9; Favier, Les papes, pp. 181–258, 739. See also Chapter 1. 80 Guillemain, La cour, p. 490. See also Chapter 5. Papal envoys dispatched to England on diplomatic missions seem to have received gratuities and gifts from the English wardrobe: EMDP, I/2, no. 406, pp. 818–19; no. 407, pp. 819–20. 81 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 490–1; T. Frenz, I documenti pontifici nel Medioevo e nell’Età Moderna (Città del Vaticano, 1998), pp. 75–83; B. Schwarz, Die Organisation kurialer Schreiberkollegien von ihrer Entstehung bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1972), pp. 25–39; P.N.R.  Zutshi, ‘Innocent III and the reform of the papal chancery’, in Innocenzo III. Urbs et Orbis, ed. A. Sommerlechner (Rome, 2003), pp. 85–6, 98–9. These payments are recorded either on the original papal letters or, more rarely, in petitioners’ records: Zutshi, pp. lxix–lxxii; W.P. Müller, ‘The Price of Papal Pardon. New Fifteenth-Century Evidence’, in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A. Meyer, C. Rendtel, M. Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen, 2004), pp. 457–81. 82 Plöger, England, pp. 214–15, 257–8. 83  TNA, E 101/311/25. While at the curia, Paul of Monteflore, using Andrea Sapiti as proctor, tried to be provided to a canonry in York: Il registro di Andrea Sapiti, p. 337.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

93

campaigns were also pursued at the papal curia, where Innocent IV had issued constitutions against the practice of bribing judges, advocates and chancery personnel, and made this punishable by excommunication, while in 1295 Boniface VIII echoed the same concerns in the constitution Excommunicamus (5.10.1), collected in the Extravagantes communes by the late fifteenth century, which ordered the excommunication of anyone who gave or received small or great ‘gifts’ in order to obtain favours at the papal curia.84 To some extent gift-giving and reward through provisions to ecclesiastical ­benefices and pensions were therefore endemic to the fourteenth-century English and papal bureaucratic systems. Whereas their employment to pay for administrative and diplomatic personnel by no means provides evidence of widespread corruption, as commonly maintained in some contemporary sources, we can concur that pre-modern bureaucracies, heavily relying on gift-giving, fiefs, and benefices as the main sources of income to fund their personnel, were more exposed to abuses and misconduct because they severely failed to draw a clear line between legitimate and formal rewards for services and unlawful and informal gifts. This was especially the case at the papal curia, where by the fourteenth century diplomatic gifts and tips were regarded as part of diplomatic routine and customary practice. Indeed, alongside the formal payment of fees to curial officials and personnel, which could either be made in cash or goods, the surviving accounts of the English envoys commonly list the distribution of gifts and tips, once more in cash or goods, to cardinals, their household, the pope’s relatives, and lower-ranking clerks of the papal palace. These individuals generally received such gratuities on the basis of their rank, because of their practical counsels (per consilium nuncii) and for their services (per servitium).85 For instance, when in 1322–3 John Stratford distributed tips in cash (donacio) to lower-ranking employees of the papal palace, such as squires, masters of the stables, guards, door-keepers and servants, who could clearly facilitate petitioners’ access to the palace and its inner areas, he justified his expenses as ‘customary practice at the papal curia’ (ut moris est in curia Romana). In other words, gratuities and gifts were unofficially expected as part of the intricate unwritten customary diplomatic practice, which by the fourteenth century came under the umbrella of the mos or stilus curie.86 All in all, while these gifts were part of fourteenth-century diplomatic protocol evidencing the overlap of diplomatic and courtly cultures, they were also presented in order to preserve the king’s honour, to influence decision-making procedures and to secure access to the pope.87 This was especially the case for gifts presented 84  Extravagantes Communes, 5.10.1. See also A. Meyer, ‘Eine Verordnung gegen die Korruption an der päpstlichen Kurie aus der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts’, in Kurie und Region. Festschrift für B. Schwarz zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. B. Flug, M. Matheus, A. Rehberg (Stuttgartm 2005), pp. 169–73; Wright, The Church, p. 124. 85  See especially John Stratford’s account (1322–1323): TNA, E 101/309/27; Plöger, England, pp. 256–7; the of account Richard of Bury and John Shoreditch (1333): TNA E 101/386/11; Plöger, England, pp. 257–9. 86  TNA, E 101/309/27; Plöger, England, pp. 210–11, 256–7. 87 Plöger, England, p. 214. On the special relationship established through reciprocal gift-giving during diplomatic negotiations see Schwedler, ‘Diplomatische Geschenke’, pp. 145–85. Historians have been debating at length the debt of the fourteenth-century papal ceremonial practices to the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

94

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

to the pope himself and to more prominent members of the papal entourage, such as the pope’s relatives and the cardinals involved in political negotiations concerning English matters. Indeed, diplomatic gifts to the pope were considered a means to enhance the donor’s prestige and receive a favourable reception at the papal curia.88 Such gifts however varied in kind and value and, as Weiß pointed out, their symbolic status is not to be underestimated. The surviving English and papal accounts recording the bequest and reception of diplomatic gifts list a great variety of items, from precious and expensive jewellery and liturgical items (so-called jocalia) to consumable goods, especially fish, which had strong symbolic Christological references.89 Precious items produced by English and French craftsmen were usually given to the pope as gifts on his election or consecration, as happened after the election of Clement V and John XXII, or on the side of solemn embassies, such as the one led by Richard of Bury and John Shoreditch in 1333, who presented John XXII with one cup, two ewers and one salt cellar to the value of £66 13 s., as well as three sturgeons for the pope’s dining table.90 Similarly, during their missions to England papal envoys and their entourage often received such gifts in cash or goods, which the English crown distributed in order to highlight its symbolic ‘inferiority’ to the Apostolic See (ut patet inferius).91 Furthermore, in Avignon diplomatic envoys remunerated cardinals and curialists, informally acknowledging their ability to influence papal decision-making. For instance, in 1322 John Stratford rewarded in cash the cardinals Bérenger Frédol the younger and Bertrand tradition of the French court. For two opposite views on this point see Schimmelpfennig, ‘Ad maiorem papae’, pp. 25–46; Schimmelpfennig, ‘Der Palast’, pp. 247–9; and G. Kerscher, ‘Das mallorquinische Zeremoniell am päpstlichen Hof. Comederunt cum papa rex maioricarum’, in Zeremoniell als höfische Ästhetik in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. J.J.  Berns, T.  Rahn (Tübingen, 1995), pp. 125–49. 88 Plöger, England, pp. 210–13. On the reciprocation of gifts as part of English diplomatic practice see Benham, Peacemaking, pp. 71–81. 89 Weiß, Die Versorgung, pp. 258–63. 90 Plöger, England, pp. 255–6. On the mission of Richard of Bury and John Shoreditch see p. 257; Die Ausgaben, II, p. 119; Weiß, Die Versorgung, p. 477; Wright, The Church, Appendix 2, pp. 283–4; pp. 299–309. On the English diplomatic gifts to the cardinals and the pope see J. Gardner, ‘Il patrocinio curiale e l’introduzione del gotico: 1260–1305’ in Il Gotico europeo in Italia, ed. V.  Pace, M. Bagnoli (Napoli, 1994), pp. 85–8; N. Morgan, ‘L’Opus Anglicanum nel tesoro pontificio’, in Il Gotico europeo, pp. 299–309; J.  Gardner, ‘Opus Anglicanum and its Medieval Patrons’, in English Medieval Embroidery. Opus Anglicanum, ed. C.  Browne, G.  Davies, M.A.  Michael (New Haven, CT—London, 2017), pp. 49–59; J. Gardner, ‘Papal Exactions, Royal gifts and Fashionable Cardinals: The Curial Clientele for Opus Anglicanum’, c. 1300–1370’, in The Age of Opus Anglicanum: A Symposium, ed. M. Michael (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 23–35. On books as diplomatic gifts given to the curia see M.A. Bilotta, I libri dei papi. La curia, il Laterano e la produzione manoscritta ad uso del papato nel Medioevo (secoli VI–XIII) (Città del Vaticano, 2011), pp. 33–42; M.J. Pommerol, J. Monfrin, La bibliothèque pontificale à Avignon et à Peniscola pendant le Grand Schisme d’Occident et sa dispersion, I (Rome, 1991), pp. 62–7. A list of books kept in the papal treasury is also available in the inventory compiled in Perugia in 1311: ‘Inventarium thesauri ecclesie Romane’, in Reg. Clem. V, Appendices, I (Rome, 1892), pp. 465–511. On the gifts distributed by the papacy to petitioners visiting the curia at the end of the thirteenth century see also C. Elster, ‘Liturgical textiles as papal donations in Late Medieval Italy’, in Dressing the part: textiles as propaganda in the Middle Ages, ed. K.  Dimitrova, M. Goehring (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 65–79. 91  EMDP, I/2, no. 406, pp. 818–19; 407, pp. 819–20: ‘jocalia provisa et presentata cardinali et aliis inferius nominatis per dominum Johannem de Droken’ ex parte domini regis et domini principis, ut patet inferius’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

95

of Montfavès, who had been responsible for managing Scottish matters at the papal curia (qui habebant negocia Scocie in manibus) and had advised the English representatives (iuxta consilium nunciorum). On this occasion, Stratford also tipped two of the pope’s nephews, Peter de Via and Arnaud Duèse, as well as the cardinals’ auditors for their advice (per consilium nunciorum).92 In a similar fashion, in 1333 the English envoys at the papal curia, Richard of Bury and John Shoreditch, who had been dispatched to Avignon after Bury’s election to the see of Durham and were to pay the census to the apostolic chamber, rewarded with precious gifts bought in Avignon two cardinals, Talleyrand de Périgod and Pierre de Prés, as well as the Gascon Bernard Jourdain d’Isle, some of John XXII’s relatives and members of the papal household.93 On top of these direct costs of diplomacy, the English crown also made use of other means to reward diplomatic personnel and curialists, who had shown their loyalty to the English interests in Avignon, by trying to exploit its control over ecclesiastical provisions in England. By the fourteenth century English diplomatic missions commonly addressed official matters alongside more routine business, especially provisions to benefices for curialists and pensions for the cardinals. Indeed, the right of collation to ecclesiastical benefices remained the focus of Anglo-French diplomatic discourse even at the time of the Treaty of BrétignyCalais in 1360, when the English and the French crowns unanimously declared void the provisions to vacant benefices collated during the Anglo-French wars.94 On the one hand, these practices allowed the English crown to secure a network of protégés and friends at the papal curia, which arguably underpinned the unofficial diplomatic discourse, on which the management of foreign affairs heavily relied.95 This was for instance the case in the early part of 1337, when, along with discussing the military activity in the Channel and the French-Scottish alliance, the English envoys Laurence Fastolf and Paul of Monteflore dealt with a number of petitions concerning provisions to benefices in England, requested by King Edward III and Queen Philippa in favour of their clerks and protégés.96 On the other hand, thanks to such informal means of remuneration the English managed to offload part of the cost of their diplomatic activity on the Church. This was for instance the case for the royal representatives in Avignon, Andrea Sapiti and John Piers. During the first three decades of the fourteenth century the former, who worked on the crown’s behalf as a freelancer, was in fact provided to benefices in the dioceses of Bath and 92 TNA, E 101/309/27; Plöger, England, pp. 213–14, 256–7. On the importance of unofficial networks as means to receive informal advice during diplomatic negotiations see Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 153–5. 93  TNA, E 101/386/11; Plöger, England, pp. 213–14, 257–8. See also above n. 47; Guillemain, La cour, p. 158; S. Pollastri, ‘Jacques Dueze à la cour des Angevins de Naples’, in Jean XXII et le Midi (Tolouse, 2012), pp. 89–90; V. Theis, ‘De Jacques Duèse à Jean XXII: la construction d’un entourage pontifical’, in Jean XXII et le Midi, pp. 103–30. On Richard of Bury’s election to the see of Durham and his business at the papal curia in 1333 see Il registro di Andrea Sapiti, p. 47, 141, 148–9, 267–8, 307–10. 94  Paris, ANF, J//638B, no. 10; J//639, no. 5; Rymer, III/2, pp. 544–5. 95  See also Chapter 5. On the importance of routine business in late Medieval diplomatic discourse see B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 597–616; Wright, The Church, pp. 117–18. 96  Il registro di Andrea Sapiti, Parte Seconda, no. lxxviii, § 1–17, pp. 337–48; no. lxxx, pp. 351–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

96

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Wells and Coventry and Lichfield along with some members of his family, further acquiring estates in Ireland, while his sons Simon and Philip were appointed papal chaplains.97 In a similar fashion, in the 1330s the royal clerk and envoy John Piers received on top of his wages provisions to b­ enefices in the dioceses of Exeter, Salisbury, and Bath and Wells.98 Similarly, the English crown remunerated with ecclesiastical benefices and pensions its ‘special friends’ at the papal curia, namely cardinals, curialists, and pope’s relatives who had facilitated English businesses in Avignon, securing their long-term allegiance to the crown’s interests. The practice of providing cardinals to English benefices is particularly interesting and deserves further attention, especially in light of Pantin’s argument that only a relatively small number of English benefices were provided to aliens during the first three decades of the fourteenth century.99 Conversely, in Wright’s opinion, during his pontificate John XXII (1316–34) particularly sought to provide cardinals and curialists to benefices in English cathedrals (especially Lincoln, York, and Salisbury) and parish churches, which had been vacated by virtue of the constitution Execrabilis in 1317, through consecrations, or owing to the death of the litigants.100 According to Wright’s calculations, of the 70 cardinals alive in the first thirty years of the fourteenth century, at least twenty-nine were beneficed in England with a total of 103 English benefices provided to or claimed by cardinals during this period.101 Similarly, a decrease in the provision to English benefices of cardinals and curialists occurred during the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334–42), whom Guillemain labelled as ‘moderate’ in his ‘beneficial policy’ in England, while a slight increase is recorded in the last thirty years of the Avignon period (1349–78), studied by Highfield, who counted at least thirty-eight cardinals holding claims to about 128 English ­benefices.102 By contrast, in the first three decades of the fourteenth century the English crown did not resist but encouraged John XXII’s practices, exempting cardinals from the payment of the tenth, as happened during Edward II’s reign in 1319 and 1325 and 97  Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti: His Origins’, p. 135. 98  BRUO, III, pp. 1481–2; FEA, 1300–1541, IX, pp. 17–18; 30; FEA, 1300–1541, III, p. 87. During his first mission to Avignon in 1334 John Piers tried to be provided to a canonry in York, using as representative the king’s proctor at the papal curia, Andrea Sapiti: Bombi, Il registro, Parte Seconda, no. lxii, pp. 315–16. See also Chapter 5. 99 Pantin, The English Church, pp. 56–9. 100 Wright, The Church, pp. 132–3. As Wright pointed out, Execrabilis further exempted pluralist cardinals from resigning their benefices, whereas John XXII dispensed cardinals from pluralism, when needed: Wright, The Church, pp. 12–13, 72–93, 129–32. 101 Wright, The Church, p. 131. As Wright pointed out, of the total of 103 English benefices claimed or held by cardinals between 1305 and 1334, about fifty were clearly granted during John XXII’s pontificate and fifteen were granted by Clement V: Wright, The Church, p. 132. 102  Basing his analysis exclusively on the papal registers Guillemain counted 104 papal provisions concerning English benefices during the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334–42). Twelve foreigns were provided in England in this period: six Italian and French cardinals; four Italians, all holding close links with the English crown; and two French: B. Guillemain, La politique bénéficiale du pape Benoit XII, 1334–1342 (Paris, 1952), pp. 79–83. Plöger revised these calculations, maintaining that Benedict XII made twenty-three provisions and granted seventy-one expectancies to English benefices during his pontificate: Plöger, England, p, 43. See also J.R.L. Highfield, The Relations between the Church and the English Crown, 1349–1378—from the Death of Archbishop Stratford to the Outbreak of the Great Schism (PhD, Oxford, 1951), pp. 346–63.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

97

again during the first six years of Edward III’s rule.103 All in all, we can therefore concur with Wright that in the first three decades of the fourteenth century both the crown and the papacy saw the advantages of this policy: while the papacy in fact secured extra revenues for the cardinals, the English crown retained important friends at the papal curia, safeguarding its own prerogatives despite the absence of Englishmen in the college of cardinals.104 The evidence in fact shows that among the cardinals listed above as favourite contacts of the English crown at the papal curia between 1305 and 1334, Napoleone Orsini, William Testa, Bertrand of Montfavès, and Luca Fieschi were provided to benefices in England and received royal and episcopal pensions and gifts. Amongst these cardinals one individual arguably stands out, namely the Genoese Luca Fieschi, addressed by Edward I in 1302 as his consanguineus. Luca Fieschi was especially favoured after his arbitration in the delicate Anglo-Scottish negotiations in 1317–18, while his family members had been in the English service since the mid-thirteenth century as advisers and diplomatic envoys. For instance, Carlo Fieschi was an adviser of Edward II in 1315, while, as mentioned above, Nicolino Fieschi was an English envoy to the papal curia in the 1340s.105 Furthermore, it is remarkable that all these cardinals apart from Napoleone Orsini at some point were also dispatched as papal nuncios to England, showing the close connections between official diplomatic activities and informal connections within the Anglo-papal diplomatic milieu.106 Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that this trend definitely shifted after the election of Clement VI in 1342, when, in Pantin’s words, Anglo-papal relations faced ‘a period of crisis and struggle’.107 According to Plöger’s calculations during the first year of his pontificate (1342–3) Clement VI in fact granted far more English benefices than his predecessor, namely thirty-six provisions and no less than 122 expectancies, and collated to aliens the wealthier provisions in England, provoking harsh complaints in the English parliament. On 28 April 1343 this ultimately led to the issuing of the Ordinance of Provisors, which aimed at limiting papal collation and provisions of aliens to English benefices in contempt of royal prerogatives.108 It was however the enforcement of the Ordinance of Provisors between 1343 and 1345 that had the most serious repercussions for Anglo-papal 103 Wright, The Church, pp. 129–30. 104 Wright, The Church, p. 133. Wright’s argument revises Mollat’s idea that Edward II’s attempts at challenging papal provisions to cardinals in England were often ignored by the papacy. Accordingly, in Mollat’s opinion after 1316 Edward II’s weak position before the barons, caused by the AngloScottish war and in the aftermath of the war of St Sardos, prompted the king to agree with cardinals’ provisions in England in order to secure papal support: G.  Mollat, Lettres communes de Jean XXII (1316–1334). La collation des bénéfices ecclésiastiques à l’époque des papes d’Avignon (1305–1334) (Paris, 1921), pp. 102–4. 105 Wright, The Church, Appendix 3, no. 11, p. 290; Plöger, ‘Die Entführung’, pp. 75–9; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 589–90. See Chapter 5. 106 Wright, The Church, Appendix 3, pp. 285–308. For the individuals mentioned above see Wright, The Church, Appendix 3, no. 11, p. 290; no. 22, p. 297; no. 26, p. 299; no. 41, pp. 306–7. See above n. 24–28. 107 Mollat, Lettres communes, pp. 104–8; Pantin, The English Church, p. 81; Plöger, England, p. 43. 108 Pantin, The English Church, pp. 81–3; Barrel, ‘The Ordinance’, p. 271; Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 334–5, 639–40; Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 185–95; Plöger, England, p. 43.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

98

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

relations, especially after 15 June 1343 when Edward III ordered the arrest in Aquitaine of the proctors of Adhémar Robert, cardinal of Santa Anastasia, and Gérard de Daumar, cardinal of Santa Sabina, who were coming to England to claim possession of the benefices provided to their patrons.109 In 1344–5 Anglopapal ­negotiations on the issue of alien providees to English ecclesiastical benefices notoriously risked jeopardizing the complicated Anglo-French peace negotiations overseen by the Apostolic See, which ultimately resulted in the First Avignon Conference being unsuccessful in Autumn 1344.110 We can concur with Barrel that ‘the 1343 Ordinance died of a natural death within two years of its promulgation’, although on 12 February 1346 the king once more ordered the confiscation of the revenues of all non-resident aliens in England, including cardinals.111 However, the clash over the royal right of collation to English ecclesiastical benefices newly came to the forefront of Anglo-papal relations after Clement VI granted at least 449 provisions to English benefices between 1348 and 1350.112 In the parliament of 9 February 1351 the commons’ complaints once more prompted Edward III to issue the Statute of Provisors, which gave the king the right to fill vacant benefices under clerical patronage, if the ordinary collator had not done so. In return, on 15 October 1352 Clement VI asked that the confiscation of the cardinals’ benefices demanded in 1346 was revoked and threatened the king and his officials with excommunication and interdict.113 Nevertheless, taking advantage of Clement VI’s death, right from the beginning of Innocent VI’s pontificate, Edward III continued his aggressive policy towards papal prerogatives in England. In January 1353 he prohibited the papal collector Hugh Pellegrini from levying the annates on benefices which had not been taken up by their providees.114 Ultimately, on 23 September 1353 in the Statute of Praemunire the king forbade any appeal from England to foreign courts, especially the papal court, under threat of imprisonment and confiscation of property.115 Although, as Pantin pointed out, Edward III’s legislation against alien 109  Barrel, ‘The Ordinance’, pp. 266–72; Plöger, England, pp. 43–7. 110 Plöger, England, pp. 44–8. See also Chapter 5. 111  TNA, C 70/22, m. 2; Rymer, III/1, p. 68; Rotuli Parlamentorum: ut et petitiones et placita in parliamento, ed. J.  Stacey (London, 1767–1777), II, p. 162. See also Mollat, Lettres communes, pp. 108–9; Barrel, ‘The Ordinance’, p. 275. 112 Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 338–42; J.R.L. Highfield, ‘The Statute of Provisors of 1351’, History 39 (1954), pp. 331–2. 113  Reg. Clem. VI (de curia), no. 5431. The draft version of this letter, registered in the Avignonese register, containing a more direct warning to the English crown, was revised in the fair copy, recorded in the Vatican register. ASV, Reg. Aven. 120, fol. 525v–526r: ‘Sperantes igitur quod memoratus rex laudabilibus pro genitorum suorum, qui ecclesias et personas ecclesiasticas multipliciter honorarunt, ampliarunt libertatibus et privilegiis decorarunt, inherens vestigiis et sue quoque erga Deum et eandem Romanam ecclesiam prosequens fidei puritatem, mandatis’; Reg. Vat. 146, fol. 71r: ‘Sperantes igitur quod memoratus rex, sicut nobis per nuncios suos ad nos et sedem apostolicam propterea destinatos significare evitarunt reatum suum, in hac parte favori consilio persuasus, agnoscens mandatis et monicionibus nostris huiusmodi in hac parte devote parebit’. See also Mollat, Lettres communes, p. 109; Pantin, The English Church, pp. 84–5; Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 342–8; Barrel, ‘The Ordinance’, pp. 275–6; Plöger, England, p. 50. 114  Rymer, III/1, p. 250. 115 Mollat, Lettres communes, pp. 109–10; Pantin, The English Church, pp. 85–7; Plöger, England, p. 51.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

99

provisions in England in the 1350s simply followed thirteenth-century attempts by the English crown to protect its judicial prerogatives over the Church and was not perceived by contemporaries as having any major impact, its introduction once more coincided with the complex negotiations to end the Anglo-French conflict, overseen by the papacy.116 Indeed, after 1346 Anglo-papal relations came to a halt. On the one hand, between 1346 and 1358 the number of petitions sent from England to the papal curia declined dramatically. Furthermore no major papal diplomatic missions were dispatched to England between 1347 and 1353 and no English mission was sent to Avignon between January 1355 and March 1359.117 On the other hand, Anglo-French negotiations were hindered by English suspicions of Clement VI and Innocent VI’s bias towards the French crown, expressed in English envoys’ refusal to take part at the peace talks organized by the papal envoy Guy de Boulogne at Guines in May 1353.118 Indeed, between the 1340s and the 1350s the crown’s crackdown on alien provisions in England directly affected the established practice of rewarding its ‘special friends’ at the papal curia with ecclesiastical benefices, especially at a time when these curial contacts were acting as diplomatic envoys in Anglo-French negotiations. In this respect, a notorious case is represented by cardinal Talleyrand de Périgord, one of Edward III’s preferred addressees and papal nuncius involved in the negotiations that sanctioned three Anglo-French truces between 1357 and 1359.119 Before his promotion to the cardinalate in 1331, Talleyrand was already a pluralist, who had collated through papal provision a number of French benefices since 1307 and five English b­ enefices between 1317 and 1332. Talleyrand engaged in lengthy litigations at the papal curia over his collation of the archdeaconry of London (1320–3), the archdeaconry of Richmond (1322–8), and the canonry of St Paul’s London (1320–1333), while he acquired English prebends in Newchurch, Kent, in 1332, and at Lincoln in 1335.120 However, on 27 December 1341 Talleyrand became a victim of Edward III’s enforcement of the royal prerogatives against alien providees in England, when his prebend in Lincoln was confiscated and he was accused of being too close to the French crown.121 Accordingly, when in June 1342 Clement VI granted to Talleyrand a canonry in York and the prebend of Loughton and reserved for him 116 Pantin, The English Church, pp. 86–7. Furthermore, as Mollat and Plöger pointed out, neither the statute of 1351 nor the 1353 one were ever published: Mollat, Lettres communes, p. 109; Plöger, England, p. 51. Accordingly, in Graves’s opinion the Statute of Praemunire of 1353 was not specifically anti-papal, but it was issued to reinstate the royal rights to bring to justice the infringers of the Statute of Provisors of 1351: E.B. Graves, ‘The legal significance of the Statute of Praemunire of 1353’, in Anniversary Essays in Medieval History Presented to Charles Homer Haskins, ed. C.H. Taylor, J.L. La Monte (Boston—New York, 1929), pp. 57–80. On the legacy of the Statute of Praemunire in the fifteenth century see also W.T. Waugh, ‘The Great Statute of Praemunire, 1353’, EHR 37 (1922), pp. 173–205. 117  TNA, C 70/22–25. Unlike those compiled in the previous forty years, none of these enrolments includes more than 3 membranes. See also Plöger, England, p. 51. 118  See Chapter 5. 119 Zacour, Talleyrand, pp. 45–64, 74–5; Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 476–8. For the role of Talleyrand alongside Annibaldo da Ceccano, Raymond de Farges, Pierre de Prés in the mediation between England and France in 1345 see Plöger, England, p. 99. See also above n. 36 and Chapter 5. 120 Zacour, Talleyrand, p. 47; Wright, The Church, Appendix 3, no. 30, pp. 301–2. 121 Mollat, Lettres communes, p. 105; Zacour, Talleyrand, p. 47.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

100

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the deanery of York, Edward III challenged these provisions, which were ultimately jeopardized by royal anti-alien legislation issued in the Ordinance of Provisors in 1343.122 Likewise, when in 1346 Edward III confiscated the fruits of the benefices of non-resident aliens, Talleyrand once more lost the income of the deanery of York, only obtaining in exchange a canonry and prebend in York in 1353.123 Why Talleyrand became the focus of Edward III’s attempts at enforcing his legislation on alien provisions remains an open question. Indeed, as Plöger pointed out, Talleyrand’s English interests appear to have been especially targeted unlike other cardinals, such as Annibaldo da Ceccano, Pierre de Prés and Pierre Roger de Beaufort, who were instead allowed to retain financial control over their benefices through exemptions, even after the confiscation of the fruits of benefices of non-resident aliens in February 1346.124 Finally, alongside provision to benefices, an established way of rewarding ‘special friends’ at the papal curia was the grant of pensions, usually allocated by the crown and English prelates visiting the curia to those cardinals who were key office-holders in Avignon, members of the king’s council in Aquitaine and diplomatic envoys in England.125 According to Wright’s calculations at least eighteen cardinals received such pensions between 1305 and 1334, five during the first seven years of Edward III’s reign.126 These figures differ significantly from those provided by Plöger for the following three decades, when, during the pontificates of Benedict XII, Clement VI, and Innocent VI, no cardinal appears to have been granted a pension in England.127 Nevertheless, in Plöger’s opinion Edward III gave some cardinals alternative forms of monetary rewards. He exempted them from debts and the payment of subsidies to the English crown in 1343; he conceded special economic privileges for the export of wool to cardinal Pedro Gomez in 1340 and cardinal Annibaldo da Ceccano in 1343; and finally he granted special protections to the proctors of cardinal Raymond de Farges in 1345 and to the officials of cardinal Annibaldo da Ceccano in 1350. Remarkably, all these individuals were employed as papal representatives in the Anglo-French diplomatic negotiations, evidently showing the extent to which in the mid-fourteenth century the issue of provisions to benefices and pensions given to cardinals was inseparable from Anglo-papal and Anglo-French diplomacy. C O N C LU S I O N S The evidence gathered in this chapter notably corroborates the importance of informal and unofficial contacts between England and the papal curia in the first 122 Zacour, Talleyrand, pp. 47–9. 123 Zacour, Talleyrand, pp. 49–50. 124  Rymer, III/1, pp. 29–30. Accordingly, in February 1345 the general levy issued on the triennial tenth in England only applied to five of the thirteen cardinals beneficed there: Plöger, England, p. 98. 125 Wright, The Church, pp. 119–23. 126 Wright, The Church, pp. 122–3; Appendix 3, no. 5, p. 287; no. 17, p. 294; no. 22, p. 297; no. 23, p. 298; no. 28, p. 300; Plöger, England, p. 97. Evidence that receipts of the pensions given to ­cardinals were kept in the royal archives is given in Stapeldon’s Calendar, compiled between 1320–3: The Antient Kalendars and Inventories of His Majesty’s Exchequer, ed. F. Palgrave, I (London, 1836), p. 84. See also Chapter 7. 127 Plöger, England, p. 97.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



The Importance of Unofficial Contacts

101

half of the fourteenth century. Indeed, the existence and endurance of informal networks derived from the governmental structure of the fourteenth-century papacy, which intrinsically relied on and functioned thanks to individuals often linked to the pope and his close advisers by means of personal connections. In this respect, the English crown was clearly disadvantaged, especially when compared to its French and Italian counterparts, because of the relatively small number of English curialists in Avignon and the absence of an Englishman in the college of cardinals between 1310 and 1368. Nevertheless, this chapter has shown that the English crown remedied such deficiencies through an extensive web of contacts at different levels among curial personnel, the cardinalate and freelancers at the papal curia in Avignon, which facilitated Anglo-papal diplomatic negotiations and information-gathering. Like other contemporary polities, the English crown secured the allegiance of its informal contacts at the papal curia through payment in kinds, which mostly consisted of gifts, pensions, provisions to benefices and various other kinds of favours. In this respect, the English crown’s establishment and employment of informal contacts at the papal curia clearly show the extent to which by the fourteenth century papal and English administrative and diplomatic practices were still ­underdeveloped and had to supplement their deficiencies in the management of international relations through more unconventional means. Yet, while the deployment of unconventional means to remunerate the English crown’s friends at the papal curia had the advantage of offsetting the cost of Anglo-papal diplomacy against income derived from English benefices, the English crown’s decision to cease using English provisions to support Anglo-papal diplomacy backfired quite dramatically from the 1340s. In this respect, the long-term consequences of fostering and rewarding unofficial liaisons at the papal curia through unconventional means of payment were unforeseen, since the royal statutes against alien provisions in England after 1343 not only led Anglo-papal relations into an impasse, but, to a great extent, also jeopardized papal attempts at mediating in the Anglo-French conflict for about two decades.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

5 Representatives and Proctors In his recent book on Medieval rationalities D’Avray argued that in the later Middle Ages ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions operated without the support of fully developed bureaucratic and fiscal organizations, thanks to the expertise of men who had generally received some legal training, had some administrative experience, were remunerated with benefices and favours rather than salaries, and were employed on a part-time basis. These men, whom Weber had described as honoratiores, were indispensable to the successful performance of the Late Medieval bureaucratic apparatus, since they were responsible for implementing the ruler’s decisions in the localities and could supplement any administrative deficiency of the formal legal systems with ad hoc solutions.1 Arguably, together with the personnel of the English and papal chanceries, investigated in Chapter  2, diplomatic envoys, proctors, and representatives fall into this category, especially if we accept, as has been suggested earlier, that late Medieval diplomacy was closely interrelated with the growth of administrative practices. Diplomatic representatives and proctors were in fact responsible for managing and shaping the written and oral communication among polities and were to different degrees involved in actual diplomatic missions.2 Nevertheless, diplomatic envoys acted in accordance with the commission delegated to them by their clients, while the extent of their faculties was determined in the legatine mandate, letters of credence and procurations, which recorded their commission. Indeed, Medieval canon law had borrowed the concept of representation from Roman law, where it belonged to the domain of private law as a contract between two individuals ratified through a mandate.3 By the end of the thirteenth century representative however extended to the sphere of public law, where representatives could act on behalf of their client in accordance with the faculties, which were delegated to them through either a general or special mandate of delegation.4 Thanks to the broad legal definition of representation, borrowed from the Roman legal tradition, Medieval diplomatic representation therefore comprised a 1 D. D’Avray, Medieval Religious Rationalities, pp. 137–8, 147–9. See also Weber, Economy and Society, II, pp. 792–7. 2  See above Introduction, n. 7. 3  L. Mayali, ‘Procureurs et représentation en droit canonique médiéval’, MEFR 114 (2002), p. 50 n. 47, quoting Dig. 3.3.1: ‘procurator est qui aliena negotia mandato domini administrat’. See also D.E. Queller, The office of ambassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ, 1967), pp. 26–8. 4  Mayali, ‘Procureurs’, pp. 41–57. See also P. Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London—New York, 2003), pp. 56–61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

103

number of different envoys, who held the right to act as diplomatic representatives in different capacities in accordance with the faculties listed in their appointment mandate and instructions.5 Thirteenth-century canon lawyers especially debated the power of representation when they referred to papal representatives or legates, who were delegated faculties reserved to the Apostolic See through general mandates of legation and were often employed as papal diplomatic representatives in partibus.6 Accordingly, Mattingly and Queller both dwelled on the definitions and faculties of diplomatic envoys in late Medieval secular polities and agreed that there were two main categories of diplomatic representatives: the nuncii, who were essentially messengers and represented their client without any power of ­negotiation, and the procuratores, who had the power to negotiate but no symbolic representative function.7 While both Mattingly and Queller concurred on the confusion of the Medieval Latin terminology, which invariably made use of the words procurator, nuncius, legatus, and ambassiator, they disagreed on the moment when ideas of representation and the terminology were formalized. Mattingly in fact maintained that the office of ambassador firstly developed during the mid-fifteenth century in the Italian city-states, which vindicated their rights to diplomatic representation and created resident ambassadors along with their claims to political independence, whilst Queller contended that between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries public authorities as well as private citizens already dispatched ambassadors to deal with public and private affairs and emphasized the substantial difference between an ambassador and a resident proctor.8 Equally, Cuttino and Chaplais attempted to define the taxonomy of diplomatic envoys, looking at English and French diplomatic sources up to the fifteenth century. They substantially agreed with Mattingly and Queller on the confusion in the use of the words legatus, nuncius, and ambassador until the late fourteenth century, since earlier English diplomatic sources do not make a clear distinction between these terms, generically referring to those envoys who were bearers of a letter. However, Chaplais further distinguished between nuncii solempnes and ambassiatores solempnes, who were envoys chosen among persons of high rank and dignity, and nuncii simplices, namely simple knights, clerks, priests, burgesses or merchants. The former were generally dispatched either for important political missions or to 5 On this point see also K.  Rennie, The Foundations of Medieval Papal Legation (Basingstoke, 2014), pp. 20–36. 6 See also G.P.  Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), pp. ­108–12; P. Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents to the End of Edward III’s Reign’, in The Study of Medieval Records. Essays in honour of K. Major, ed. D.A. Bullough, R.L. Storey (Oxford, 1971), pp. 27–32. 7 G.  Mattingly, Renaissance diplomacy (Baltimore, MD, 1964), pp. 24–7; Queller, The office of ambassador, pp. 3–59. Queller’s conclusions have been recently shared by J. Benham, Peacemaking in the Middle Ages. Principles and practice (Manchester, 2011), pp. 115–42, who mainly focused on twelfth- and early thirteenth-century evidence from England, France, and Scandinavia. For the early Middle Ages see also Rennie, The Foundations, pp. 67–72. 8  G. Mattingly, ‘The First Resident Embassies: Mediaeval Italian Origins of Modern Diplomacy’, Speculum 12 (1937), pp. 423–39; Mattingly, Renaissance diplomacy, pp. 61–78; Queller, The office of ambassador, pp. 60–84; J.M. Moeglin, S. Péquignot, Diplomatie et « relations internationales » au Moyen Age (IXe–XVe siècle) (Paris, 2017), pp. 355–74.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

104

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

stress the status of the recipient, while the latter were occasionally chosen to keep the secrecy of a diplomatic embassy.9 Equally, Cuttino and Chaplais maintained that English diplomatic sources referred to diplomatic agents as procuratores, when those intermediaries had both power of legal representation and right to speak on behalf of their client. In Chaplais’s opinion by the late fourteenth century English diplomatic sources therefore distinguished between the functions of the nuncius, who dispatched diplomatic correspondence; the ambassador, who was more than a mere letter-bearer and could also deliver a message viva voce; and the proctor, who was appointed through a letter of procuration to transact business and could not exclusively be the bearer of an oral message.10 When looking at diplomatic correspondence and administrative practice as an integral part of the Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse, the role of proctors is therefore of pivotal importance because of their specific expertise in legal and administrative practices and their potential involvement in actual diplomatic negotiations among polities (indeed Queller defined proctors as plenipotentiaries within the diplomatic discourse).11 The presence of such agents is especially recorded at the papal curia from the late twelfth century, as a result of the increasing demands of legal and administrative training that petitioners were required to have in order to deal with the curial departments.12 The duties of a proctor could therefore differ greatly depending on the curial department involved and on the terms of his appointment, specified in the mandate of procuration or procuratorium.13 Proctors could in fact be appointed: ad negotia, when they negotiated financial transactions; 9  Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents’, p. 40; Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 155–6. See also below n. 114. 10 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 85–7; Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents’ pp. 39–43; Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 56–74, 153–4. See also Chapter 3. 11 Queller, The office of ambassador, pp. 26–59. 12  P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Proctors acting for English petitioners in the chancery of the Avignon popes (1305–1378)’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35 (1984), pp. 15–22; P.N.R.  Zutshi, ‘Petitioners, popes, proctors: the development of curial institutions, c. 1150–1250’, in Pensiero e sperimentazioni istituzionali nella ‘Societas Christiana’ (1046–1250), ed. G. Andenna (Milan, 2007), pp. 265–93. 13  R. von Heckel, ‘Das Aufkommen der ständigen Prokuratoren an der päpstlichen Kurie im 13. Jahrhundert’, in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, II (Rome, 1924), pp. 290–321; P. Herde, Beiträge zum päpstlichen Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen im 13. Jahrhundert (Kallmünz, 1961), pp. 125–48; P. Herde, Audientia litterarum contradictarum. Untersuchungen über die päpstlichen Justizbriefe und die päpstliche Delegationsgerichtsbarkeit vom 13. bis zum Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts, I (Tübingen, 1970), pp. 1–78, 372–5, 412–13; B. Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon, 1309–1376. Étude d’une société (Paris, 1966), pp. 567–72; W. Stelzer, ‘Aus der päpstlichen Kanzlei des 13. Jahrhunderts. Magister Johannes de Sancto Germano, Kurienprokurator und päpstlicher Notar’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 11 (1969), pp. 210–21; W.  Stelzer, ‘Niederaltaicher Prokuratorien. Zur Geschichte der Impetrationsvollmachten für die päpstliche Kurie im 13. Jahrhundert’, MIÖG 77 (1969), pp. 291–313; W. Stelzer, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kurienprokuratoren im 13. Jahrhundert’, AHP 8 (1970), pp. 113–38; W.  Stelzer, ‘Über Vermerke der beiden Audientiae auf Papsturkunden in der zweiten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts’, MIÖG 78 (1970), pp. 308–22; P.  Linehan, ‘Proctors Representing Spanish Interests at the Papal Court, 1216–1303’, AHP 17 (1979), pp. 69–123; A. Sohn, Deutsche Prokuratoren an der römischen Kurie in der Frührenaissance (1431–1474) (Köln—Vienna, 1997), pp. 61–82; H. Weigl, ‘Ein Prokurator um sechs Gulden und ein Buch für die Zukunft. Taverninus von Novara, Bischof Konrad III. von Freising und das bischöfliche “Notizbuch”’, MIÖG 112 (2004), pp. 238–71. K. Plöger, England and the Avignon Popes. The Practice of Diplomacy in Late Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2005), pp. 83–8, wrongly includes proctors among the curial personnel, while such agents actually worked as freelancers.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

105

ad impetrandum, when they dealt with the issuing of papal letters in different curial departments; and ad agendum et deferendum (namely, ad causas or ad litem), when they engaged with litigation before papal tribunals.14 As Zutshi has pointed out, from the early thirteenth century the ordinances for the papal chancery extensively dealt with the regulation and limitation of the activities of resident proctors. The proctor’s terms of appointment were limited to two years, while only persons of high status, namely sublimes persone, could be represented by agents at the papal curia, although humble and poor petitioners were not excluded from appealing to the papal curia, as maintained in clause 4 of the papal chancery ordinances.15 In other words, while from the early thirteenth century the papacy was worried about the broader implications of resident representation before its departments, de facto high-status petitioners already employed resident agents at the Apostolic See. In Zutshi’s opinion this practice was ultimately formalized from the early fourteenth century, when the English crown employed resident proctors dealing with both judicial matters and diplomatic correspondence at the papal curia.16 Likewise, while in the first half of the fourteenth century the French crown simultaneously dispatched different embassies to the papal curia with diverse mandates and was often represented by more than one proctor at the same time, from 1350 it endorsed Pope Clement VI’s requests to appoint a resident agent at the papal curia.17 Mattingly and Queller have indeed argued that these resident proctors were the precursors of the fifteenth-century resident ambassadors.18 However, it ought to be stressed that from around the mid-thirteenth century a similar form of representation is already recorded at the papal curia, where religious orders 14  According to the thirteenth-century canonist Durand, these faculties differentiated the procurator from the nuntius: W. Untergehrer, Die päpstlichen nuntii und legati im Reich (1447–1484). Zu Personal und Organisation des kurialen Gesandtenwesens (PhD, Munich, 2012), p. 123. See also Zutshi, ‘Proctors’, pp. 16–19; J.A. Brundage, The Medieval origins of the legal profession (Chigaco, IL, 2008), pp. 353–4; P.M. Berthe, Les procureurs français à la cour pontificale d’Avignon (1309–1376) (Paris, 2014), pp. 79–83. 15  Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen von 1200–1500, ed. M. Tangl (Innsbrick, 1884), c. 7, p. 54: ‘Item nemo per alium petitiones offerat vel procuret nec quisquam petitiones alterius offerendas vel promovendas assumat, sed quilibet hoc faciat per se ipsum, nisi forte sit sublimis persona, que per certum et idoneum nuntium id decenter et honeste procuret’. C. 3 (Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen, p. 54) further specified the identity of these sublimes persone: ‘. . . sublimium personarum ut regum, ducum, marchionum, comitum vel baronum archiepiscoporum episcoporum abbatum decanorum archidiaconorum aut huiusmodi personarum que proprium consueverunt habere sigillum . . .’. C. 4 (Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen, p. 54) finally allowed petitioners of lower status to appeal the papal curia: ‘Petitiones autem humilium et maxime miserabilium personarum libere porrigat et licenter, dummodo multitudinem effrenatam evitet.’ See also von Heckel, ‘Das Aufkommen’, pp. 306–9. On the limitation of proctors’ appointments to two years see c. 12 in Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen, p. 55. See also P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Innocent III and the reform of the papal chancery’, in Innocenzo III. Urbs et Orbis, ed. A.  Sommerlechner (Rome, 2003), pp. 91–2, 96–8; P.N.R.  Zutshi, ‘Petitioners, popes’, pp. 281–3. 16  Zutshi, ‘Proctors’, pp. 23–7. See also J.R. Wright, The Church and the English Crown, 1305–1334 (Toronto, 1980), pp. 109–13. 17  B. Barbiche, ‘Les procureurs des rois de France à la cour pontificale d’Avignon’, in Aux origines de l’État modern. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Rome, 1990), pp. 81–112, p. 67. Accordingly, Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 86–7, emphasized that the terminology ‘proctor-general’ was used with reference to the royal agent defending the rights of the crown and administering royal business in questions of commerce, industry, and diplomacy before the French parliament. 18  See also above n. 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

106

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

appointed resident agents, known as general proctors, who acted on behalf of the entire order before the various departments of the papal curia as well as agents of individual houses.19 At the bottom of the scale of diplomatic personnel stood bearers, messengers and cursores, who were only employed to dispatch written diplomatic correspondence. As Chaplais put it, by the reign of Edward II these message-bearers were further sub-divided into nuncii, who were messengers with robes, and cursores, namely foot-messengers without robes. While in Chaplais’s opinion before the fourteenth century these message-bearers were generally members of the household, the fourteenth-century Anglo-Scottish and Anglo-French conflicts prompted the increasing popularity of squires and serjeants-at-arms as message-bearers.20 Likewise, Hill maintained that from 1342 the messenger service of the English crown expanded outside the domestic household and was managed by the e­ xchequer.21 Significantly, a similar use of message-bearers, namely cursores, was formalized at the papal curia in the early fourteenth century, when the statutes of the papal cursores are documented from about 1306. The papal cursores were especially employed to dispatch curial letters and political correspondence issued by the apostolic chamber and their number exponentially grew until the 1340s, when the papal curia began using their correspondents’ messengers as well as professional messengers, generally attached to Italian banking companies, in order to deliver its correspondence.22

19  G.  van den Broek, Procuratore generale, in Dizionario degli Istituti di perfezione, VII (Rome, 1983), pp. 879–83; P. Hofmeister, ‘Die Generalprokuratoren der Ordensleute beim Hl. Stuhl’, in Im Dienste des Rechtes in Kirche und Staat. Festschrift zum 70. Geburstag von Franz Arnold, ed. W. M. Plöchl, I. Gampl (Vienna, 1963), pp. 235–60; A. Sohn, ‘Les procureurs à la curie romaine. Pour une enquête internationale’, MEFR 114/1 (2002), pp. 371–89. On specific religious orders see P.N. Racanelli, ‘La Gerarchia Agostiniana: I Procuratori Generali dell’Ordine (1216–1931)’, Bollettino Storico Agostiniano, 10 (1934), pp. 109–14; E. Boaga, ‘Il procuratore generale nell’ordine Carmelitano. Origine e sviluppo della figura e del ruolo’, Carmelus, 43 (1996), pp. 42–98; K.  Forstreuter, Die Berichte der Generalprokuratoren des Deutschen Ordens an der Kurie. Die Geschichte der Generalprokuratoren von den Anfängen bis 1403 (Göttingen, 1961), pp. 62–3; J.-E. Beuttel, Der Generalprokurator des Deutschen Ordens an der römischen Kurie (Marburg, 1999); B. Bombi, ‘I procuratori dell’Ordine Teutonico tra il XIII e XIV secolo. Studi sopra un inedito rotolo pergamenaceo del Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz di Berlino’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 44 (2002), pp. 193–297; B. Bombi, ‘Un inedito memoriale dell’Archivio dei procuratori dell’Ordine Teutonico del principio del XIV secolo’, QFIAB 82 (2002), pp. 47–121. It has to be noted that the statutes of the papal cursores, dated in 1306, make a distinction between procuratores and ambassiatores: T.  Schmidt, ‘Das päpstliche Kursorenkollegium und seine Statuten von 1306’, Deutsches Archiv 50 (1994), no. 8, p. 598. 20 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 87; Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 134–51, 176–7. See also Untergehrer, Die päpstlichen nuntii, p. 125. 21  M.C. Hill, ‘Jack Faukes, King’s Messenger, and His Journey to Avignon in 1343’, EHR 57 (1942), pp. 19–30; M.C.  Hill, ‘King’s Messengers and Administrative Developments in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, EHR 61 (1946), pp. 315–28; M.C. Hill, The King’s Messagers, 1199–1377. A Contribution to the History of the Royal Household (London, 1961), pp. 87–90; Willershausen, pp. 79–80. 22  P.M. Baumgarten, Aus Kanzlei und Kammer. Erörterung zur kurialen Hof- und Verwaltungsgeschichte im XIII., XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1907), pp. 216–47; Y. Renouard, ‘Comment les papes d’Avignon expédiaient leur courrier’, in Études d’histoire médiévale, II (Paris, 1968), pp. 739–64; Guillemain, La cour, pp. 301–3; Schmidt, ‘Das päpstliche Kursorenkollegium’, pp. 581–601; B. Schwarz, ‘Im Auftrag des Papstes. Die päpstlichen Kursoren von ca. 1200 bis ca. 1470’, in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A.  Meyer, C.  Rendtel, M. Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen, 2004), pp. 49–71.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

107

Arguably, while the historiographical attempts to classify diplomatic envoys and agents contribute to a better understanding of the process leading to the institutionalization of different forms of representation especially during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, they distract us from focusing on the complexity of late Medieval diplomatic missions, which often included several representatives with diverse expertise and faculties who worked through both official and unofficial channels.23 In particular, as Cuttino suggests, the changing domestic and international political circumstances and conflicts that characterized the first decade of Edward III’s reign between 1327 and 1339 led to the increasing specialization of administrative and diplomatic personnel in England and in other leading European polities. In other words, it was the technical nature of the business transacted in the management of foreign affairs that made essential the contribution of a number of specialized representatives to each diplomatic mission.24 When investigating the nature of Anglo-papal diplomatic representation in the first half of the fourteenth century, we therefore ought to focus on ‘teams of representatives and agents’ with complementary specializations rather than on individuals. In the remaining part of this chapter I will therefore try to exemplify through the means of relevant case studies how between 1306 and 1360 the Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse was managed owing to teams of agents and representatives, firstly focusing on the English representatives at the papal curia and then moving on to papal envoys in England. E N G L I S H R E P R E S E N TAT I V E S AT T H E PA PA L C U R I A Guillemain suggested a conservative figure of only ten embassies dispatched by the English crown to Avignon between 1305 and 1378. However, these calculations ought to be revised in light of the works of Wright and Plöger, who have ­convincingly demonstrated the intense nature of Anglo-papal relations during the Avignon period.25 Wright in fact counted twenty-five royal embassies sent to the papal curia between 1305 and 1334, whilst Plöger listed eighty embassies alone dispatched to Avignon during the pontificate of Clement VI (1342–62).26 Anglo-papal relations arguably improved after the move of the papal curia to southern France in 1305, which coincided with the consecration to the Apostolic See of a former subject and clerk of the King of England, namely the Gascon Bertrand de Got, as Pope Clement V. As I will contend at length in Chapter 6, Clement V’s election was in fact followed by frenetic diplomatic activity on behalf of the English crown, which dispatched to the papal curia two missions in July and October 1305 and developed new administrative practices in order to inform its diplomatic discourse. These missions included a number of envoys with different specializations, who could 23  On the importance of unofficial diplomatic channels see above Chapter 4. 24 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 96–7. See also Wright, The Church, p. 114. 25 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 612–13. 26 Wright, The Church, pp. 115–17; Plöger, England, Appendix I, pp. 233–44.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

108

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

carry on actual negotiations with the curial departments and the pope, cultivate informal contacts with curialists and cardinals, and compile the paperwork in support of English claims against France.27 Similar patterns were followed in the subsequent decades, when there is evidence of a steady presence of English envoys, agents and representatives at the papal curia, even during periods of papal vacancy, as happened between 1314 and 1316.28 Likewise, in early 1317 Edward II dispatched a major mission to the papal curia led by Aymer of Valence, earl of Pembroke, and Bartholomew of Badlesmere, king’s councillor, in order to negotiate about the revenues of the Duchy of Aquitaine, the king’s departure for the crusade in the Holy Land, the collection of the crusading tenths and the war against the Scots. This diplomatic team included the bishops of Norwich and Ely, John Salmon, and John de Hotham; the Italian merchant Anthony Pessagno; the royal clerks Otto Grandisson, John Cromwell, William de Briston, and James of Florence; and finally Adam Murimuth, Andrea Sapiti, Adam Orleton, and Raymond Subirani, who acted as Edward II’s proctors and representatives at the papal curia.29 The latter were also instructed to produce the paperwork and deal with administrative tasks in support of the embassy, which was carried out by Edward II’s diplomatic envoys, especially Aymer of Valence and Bartholomew of Badlesmere, who were called in their letter of credence nuncii nostri and given plena potestas ad tractandum with the cardinals.30 Meanwhile, alongside their official diplomatic mission, the English envoys cultivated more informal networks of friends and protégés who were willing to support English requests at the papal curia, and borrowed a substantial sum of money from the Bardi in January 1317 in order to grant pensions to curialists.31 Similar patterns were followed in the subsequent missions to Avignon between 1319 and 1320, which often dealt at the same time with both political and ecclesiastical matters. In February 1320 Edward II dispatched to Avignon Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, the Elder Despenser, Bartholomew Badlesmere, and 27  See Chapter 6. 28  B. Bombi, ‘The English Crown and the Election of John XXII’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 68 (2017), pp. 270–3, 280–3. See Chapter 4. 29  Rymer, II/1, p. 305. S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 1307–1324. Baronial Politics in the Reign of Edward II (Oxford, 1972), pp. 107–11; S. Phillips, Edward II (New Haven, CT— London, 2010), pp. 284–7; S. Zanke, Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa. Das politische Papsttum im Spiegel der kurialen Register (1316–1334) (Leiden—Boston 2013), 214–22. See also B.  Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti: His Origins, and His Register as a Curial Proctor’, EHR 150 (2008), p. 134. Other royal clerks were involved in instructing this mission, such as Thomas de Cherleton: CCW, p. 457–8; London, Soc. Ant., Ms. 120, fol. 23v–24, 27, 53v–54. 30  Rymer, II/1, p. 303–5 = C 70/3, m. 4–5; Rymer, II/1, p. 305 = C 70/3, m. 5. On the activity of Andrea Sapiti see also his register, where some documents concerning this mission were copied: Il registro di Andrea Sapiti, procuratore alla curia avignonese, ed. B. Bombi (Rome, 2007), p. 28; Parte Prima, V, pp. 86–9; Parte Prima, XXV, pp. 139–40. On the copies of papal bulls produced to instruct the 1317 mission see Phillips, Aymer de Valence, p. 109 n. 2; Zanke, Johannes XXII., p. 217. On the copies of papal bulls produced to instruct the 1305 mission to the papal curia, see Chapter 6. 31  On 21 December 1316 Edward II asked his nuncii to grant pensions and benefices in England to cardinals and curialists in order to gain support at the papal curia, instructing through a writ of the privy seal his clerk Ingeland de Wake to borrow money from the Bardi to finance this mission: TNA, SC 1/45/192; Rymer, II/1, p. 308; CCW, p. 453. See also Phillips, Aymer de Valence, p. 109; Zanke, Johannes XXII., p. 217.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

109

Edmund Woodstock, his half-brother, in order to obtain the election of Henry Burghersh, Badlesmere’s nephew, to the bishopric of Lincoln. Furthermore, the mission aimed at countering the activities of the Scots and, according to the chronicle of Nicholas Trivet, at obtaining the annulment of the Ordinances of 1311, which had imposed a considerable degree of baronial and episcopal control over the king and his household.32 Adam Orleton was already at the curia in November 1319, when he solicited Burghersh’s provision together with another English envoy, the knight John Neville, who was later suspected of wrongdoings and eventually excused by Edward II at John XXII’s request.33 On this occasion, Orleton also profited from the service of Andrea Sapiti, the king’s proctor at the papal curia who had been involved in soliciting Burghersh’s provision since 1319 and u ­ ltimately became his proctor ad impetrandum and ad negotia after his appointment as bishop of Lincoln on 27 May 1320.34 In early November 1319, Badlesmere had in fact asked Edward II to support Burghersh’s provision through Adam Orleton and Andrea Sapiti before the papal curia, while on 7 December the king recommended this matter to John XXII and Luca Fieschi, cardinal of Santa Maria in Via Lata, through his royal clerks James of Florence, archdeacon of Winchester, and Richard Woodlock, canon of St Paul’s London, who were dispatched to Avignon in order to report on this matter viva voce.35 Furthermore, on 4 December 1319 Burghersh’s provision coincided with the Scottish war, when Edward II further entrusted James  of Florence to deliver letters dealing with the negotiations for a truce with  the Scots, in which Bartholomew Badlesmere was involved along with Despenser, John Hotham, bishop of Ely, and Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke.36 On 28 February 1320 Edward II finally commended to the pope and the cardinals the Elder Despenser, Bartholomew Badlesmere and Adam Orleton, who had been

32  EMDP, no. 45, p. 61; R.M. Haines, The Church and Politics in Fourteenth-Century England. The career of Adam Orleton, c. 1275–1345 (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 23–5; Phillips, Aymer de Valence, pp. 359–60. For the Chronicle of Nicholas Trivet see BL, Cotton, Nero D, X, fol. 110v: ‘Ad presenciam pape deductus est a quo impetravit absolucionem domini regis Anglie et optinuit a iuramento prestito super ordinacionibus observandis alias factis per comites et barones’. On Trivet’s evidence see J.R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, 1307–1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II (Oxford, 1970), pp. 255–6. Haines, The Church and Politics, p. 24, n. 90, pointed out that Trivet’s statement is supported in the Chronicle of Adam Murimuth, which argues that, despite the cost of the 1320 mission to the papal curia, nothing was achieved apart from Burghersh’s promotion: Adam Murimuth, Continuatio chronicarum, ed. E.M. Thompson (London, 1889), p. 31). 33  TNA, C 70/4, m. 7r = Rymer, II/1, pp. 406–7; CPL, II, p. 445. Haines, The Church and Politics, p. 25, points out that Orleton’s mission to Avignon in 1319 was also associated with the canonization of Thomas Cantilupe, which took place on the same day when Henry Burghersh was provided to the see of Lincoln (27 May 1320: CPL, II, p. 198). 34  Il registro di Andrea Sapiti, pp. 33–4. Andrea Sapiti and his clerk Gualterus acted as proctors ad negotia for the English crown’s payment of £1,000 to the apostolic chamber, which was done by Adam Orleton on 27 May 1320, the day of Burghersh’s provision to Lincoln and Cantilupe’s canonization: Zutshi, no. 109, p. 55; CPL, II, p. 206. 35  TNA, SC 1/33/10; C 70/4, m. 8v = Rymer, II/1, p. 412; C 70/4, m. 7 = Rymer, II/1, p. 411; C 70/4, m. 6r = Rymer, II/1, pp. 414–15. Initially, Badlesmere tried to secure Burghersh’s provision to the see of Winchester rather than Lincoln, which had become vacant after the death of John Sandale on 2 November 1319. 36  TNA, C 70/4, m. 7v = Rymer, II/1, p. 411.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

110

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

appointed to present the king’s demands viva voce.37 Most interestingly, the letters of credence of the envoys dated 28 February 1320, the originals of which survive at The National Archives, were enrolled in the Roman rolls and were later crossed out there, since, as a note in the margin of the enrolment points out, the royal clerk Henry of Canterbury, who accompanied the party to Avignon, rewrote them.38 In subsequent diplomatic correspondence, dating from March 1320 and recommending the mission to the pope and the cardinals, Edward II called his envoys nuncii nostri speciales and entrusted them with his secret deliberations on Burghersh’s provision to Lincoln.39 Ultimately, the nuncii were asked to inform the king about the pope’s response viva voce, while between March and April four cardinals, who had supported the English requests, were granted pensions and benefices in England in return for their service to the crown.40 Arguably, this example shows how administrative and diplomatic practices complemented each other in late Medieval diplomatic discourse thanks to the employment of a ‘team of representatives and agents’ who had diverse expertise. Alongside the official diplomatic mission, assigned to representatives of higher rank, namely Badlesmere and the Elder Despenser, the English crown employed trusted diplomats, such as Adam Orleton and James of Florence, as well as experienced clerks, who dealt with the paperwork needed to instruct the mission, namely Henry of Canterbury and the king’s proctor at the papal curia, Andrea Sapiti. Interestingly, the services of such men as administrators, political advisers, and diplomats intertwined for some of the crown’s agents over relatively long periods. This was the case for Andrea Sapiti, king’s proctor mentioned above who was a resident agent at the papal curia between about 1313 and 1338 and acted at the papal curia as proctor ad impetrandum, ad negotia and ad causas not only for the English crown, but also for a number of English prelates and members of the royal entourage. Likewise, Henry of Canterbury acted as clerk of the keeper of processes and adviser of the royal council on foreign matters between 1310 and 1339.41 37  TNA, SC 1/32/78–82. See also Historia Roffensis in BL, Cotton, Faustina B, V, fol. 34r. Similarly, in 1322 a disputed appointment to a bishopric in England prompted the dispatch of a major diplomatic mission to the papal curia, when John Stratford received the papal provision to the see of Winchester against Edward II’s will: R.M. Haines, Archbishop John Stratford. Political Revolutionary and Champion of the Liberties of the English Church, ca. 1275/80–1348 (Toronto, 1986), pp. 21–47; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 449–52. 38  C 70/4, m. 6r: ‘Item littere restitute fuerunt integre per manum magisti Henrici de Cantuaria et cancellarii eo quod non fuerunt porrecte illis quibus dirigebantur’; Haines, The Church and Politics, p. 24 n. 85. The letters of credence, following the recension enrolled in the Roman rolls, are found at TNA, SC 1/32/78–82. On Henry of Canterbury as clerk of the keeper of processes and one of the compilers of the so-called Gascon Calendar of 1322 see Cuttino, English Diplomatic Adminstration, pp. 79–82; G.P. Cuttino, ‘Henry of Canterbury’, EHR 57 (1942), pp. 298–311; below n. 41. 39  TNA C 70/4, m. 6r = Rymer, II/1, pp. 418–19. TNA, C 70/4, m. 6r = Rymer, II/1, p. 420: ‘Vestre beatitudini humiliter supplicando quatinus ipsis, tribus vel duobus eorum, veluti nunciis nostris specialibus, et secreti nostri precipue consciis, . . . fidem dignemini plenam et credulam adhibire’. For the canonistic definition of nuncius specialis see Untergehrer, Die päpstlichen nuntii, pp. 124–5. 40  CPL, II, p. 445. See also Rymer, II/1, p. 421, 423. 41  B. Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti, un procuratore Trecentesco, fra la curia avignonese, Firenze e l’Inghilterra’, MEFR 115/1 (2003), pp. 897–929; Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti’, pp. 132–48. As Zutshi argues, the position of Andrea Sapiti as resident agent of the English crown at the papal curia for over two decades was quite unique: Zutshi, ‘Proctors’, pp. 24–9. On Henry of Canterbury see above n. 38 and Chapter 7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

111

Accordingly, Zutshi and Plöger have examined the English teams of representatives dispatched to the Apostolic See and France after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War, especially focusing on both the peace conferences held at Avignon between 1343 and 1348 as a follow-up to the truces of Malestroit (19 January 1343) and Calais (28 September 1347) respectively, and the lengthy negotiations which led to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais in 1360.42 In Plöger’s opinion by the midfourteenth century earls, barons, and high-ranking clergymen were deployed as diplomatic representatives in order to convey the political weight of the English crown. The presence of high-ranking aristocrats of royal blood or royal birth as members of important diplomatic missions was in fact deemed necessary to confirm international agreements. Two examples of this practice are provided at the time of the truce of Malestroit and of the Treaty of Guines (1354), when the presence of royal relatives was explicitly requested to conclude the negotiations.43 Nevertheless, alongside members of the nobility, during the first delicate phase of the Hundred Years’ War Edward III mostly dispatched to France and Avignon trusted agents and advisers, who were often trained lawyers, undertook actual diplomatic negotiations and dealt with the diplomatic paperwork.44 These individuals employed as the crown’s representatives often served either as key administrators in England or held positions at the papal curia and could act there with unique insight on the crown’s behalf. As Baldwin and Cuttino have argued, their role as diplomatic agents in sensitive diplomatic missions not only depended on their legal training and expertise, but occasionally on their membership of the king’s council, which de facto made them acquainted with confidential matters.45 For instance, John of Offord, who succeeded Sapiti as the king’s proctor at the papal curia between 1339 and 1341, became chancellor of England in 1345 and was employed as a diplomat to France and at the papal curia between 1337 and 1346.46 Similarly, John Thoresby, who was keeper of the rolls of chancery and diplomatic envoy to the papal curia, was responsible with the Genoese Nicolino Fieschi and John Offord for Anglo-French 42  Zutshi, ‘Proctors’, pp. 26–9; Plöger, England, pp. 30–8. 43 M.A. Hennigan, Peace efforts of the popes during the first part of the Hundred Years’ War: case study of Innocent VI (PhD, The Pennsylvania State University, 1977), pp. 35–6; Plöger, England, pp. 80–1. 44  This was the case of the First Avignon Conference, announced after the Easter parliament of 1343, when Edward III dispatched five earls (Derby, Arundel, Warwick, Suffolk, and Huntingdon); five barons (Hugh Despenser, Ralph Neville, Bartholomew Burghersh the elder, Reginald Cobham, and Thomas Bradeston); and four archdeacons (William Bateman, John Offord, Henry Chaddesden, Robert Hereward). However, the actual negotiations between 22 October and 19 November 1344 were only carried out by John Offord and Hugh Neville alongside William Bateman, John Reppes, Thomas Fastolf, Nicolino Fieschi, and Andrew Offord, who met the French delegation at the presence of six cardinals (Gaucelm de Jean, Annibaldo of Ceccano, Jean Comminges, Pedro Gomez de Barroso, Pierre de Prés, and Bertrand de Déaux): Jean Froissart, Oeuvres de Froissart: Chroniques, ed. K. de Lettenhove, XVIII (Bruxelles, 1870–1878), no. lviii, p. 240; R. Lützelschwab, Flectat cardinales ad velle suum? Clemens VI. und sein Kardinalskolleg. Ein Beitrag zur kurialen Politik in der Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 2008), pp. 165–6; Plöger, England, pp. 30–3. On the contribution of highranking dignitaries to peace negotiations see Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 159–68. 45 J.F. Baldwin, The King’s Council in England During the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1913), pp. 79–83; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 107. See also Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 374–8, 389–418. 46  BRUO, II, pp. 1391–2; R.M. Haines, ‘Offord, John’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com. chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/20571?docPos=2 (accessed on 8 December 2015).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

112

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

negotiations that followed the truce of Esplechin in the second half of 1340.47 Likewise, the lawyer Thomas Fastolf, who was auditor sacri palacii at Avignon between 1329 and 1355, represented the English crown together with William Bateman of Norwich, John Offord, Hugh Neville, and Nicolino Fieschi between 1344 and 1345 in the negotiations that followed the truce of Malestroit as well as in 1348 alongside John Carlton and John Reppes.48 Accordingly, the same lawyer and auditor sacri palacii at Avignon, William Bateman of Norwich, acted as royal representative at the papal curia in the disputed provision to the archbishopric of York in 1340–1 and in Anglo-French negotiations between 1345 and 1355.49 The specific training of some of these individuals in civil law persuaded Allmand and Plöger that by the mid-fourteenth century the presence of civil lawyers as members of diplomatic missions had become crucial in Anglo-French n ­ egotiations, since many of the issues at stake concerned what falls under the modern umbrella of international law.50 However, it should be stressed that papal arbitration in Anglo-French diplomatic negotiations and the complex nature of the Anglo-French dispute over Aquitaine, which concerned inheritance and marriage matters as well as feudal and territorial claims, also required a very specific training in canon law, often well-evidenced in the career of the individuals listed above. Indeed, it was quite common for graduates of Medieval universities to study and graduate in both laws. The importance of both civil and canon law in Anglo-papal negotiations and the broad range of legal expertise required of English diplomatic envoys are clearly evidenced in the team chosen to negotiate the truce of Esplechin in 1340: the above-mentioned William Bateman of Norwich; John Offord, archdeacon of Ely; John Thoresby, canon of Southwell; and Nicolino Fieschi. The English envoys had been asked to present five requests, antagonistically turned down by Philip VI. The first three argued for Anglo-French marriage alliances through the union of the Prince of Wales with one of Philip’s daughters; Edward’s sister with one of Philip’s sons; and Edward’s brother, the Duke of Cornwall, with another of the French princesses. Moreover, Edward asked the French for m ­ onetary compensation and offered his participation in the crusade and truces with the Scots in return for the restitution of his territories in Guyenne.51 The paperwork for this diplomatic 47 Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 118–20; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 92; R.M.  Haines, ‘Offord, John’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/ article/27333?docPos=1 (accessed on 13 October 2015); P. Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre and the office of notary in chancery, 1355–1375’, Journal of the Society of Archivists 4 (1971), pp. 170–3. 48  J.H.  Baker, ‘Fastolf, Thomas’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/ article/49670?docPos=3 (accessed on 8 December 2015). 49 R.M.  Haines, ‘Bateman, William’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/1672?docPos=15 (accessed on 8 December 2015). 50  C.  Allmand, ‘The Civil Lawyer’, in Profession, Vocation, and Culture in Later Medieval England (Liverpool, 1982), p. 158; Plöger, England, pp. 81–2; Appendix IV, p. 247. Plöger’s calculation in Appendix IV are, in my view, misleading. The Appendix in fact only lists individual clerks commissioned to travel to the papal curia, who had degrees in civil law, rather than looking at collaboration of individuals with different expertise, or, in other words, teams of representatives, as suggested in this chapter. On the legal and university training of curial proctors see also Berthe, Les procureurs, pp. 329–62. 51  EMDP, I/2, no. 239, pp. 434–452. See also E. Déprez, Les préliminaires de la Guerre de Cent Ans. La papauté, la France et l’Angleterre (1328–1342) (Paris, 1902), pp. 350–1. It should be stressed that at least one of the English envoys, John de Offord, was professor of civil law: Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 107. See also Chapter 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

113

mission, which was attached to the envoys’ letters of credence under their seals, is once more noteworthy. It consisted of a detailed legal consilium, which argued Edward III’s rightful hereditary claims to the French throne and alleged Philip VI’s felony towards his vassal supported by precise and well-researched references to Roman and canon law, which the well-chosen royal envoys with legal and notarial training were able to discuss and negotiate competently at the papal curia. Indeed, as Chaplais pointed out, from the mid-fourteenth century alongside lawyers, the English crown increasingly employed notaries public both in its domestic administrative departments and as diplomatic envoys at the papal curia. In this respect, the activity of two individuals is especially well documented: the above-mentioned John Thoresby, and John de Branketre, who held the office of notary in the English chancery between 1355 and 1375.52 The latter was dispatched to Avignon as diplomatic envoy in 1355 and at Calais on 24 October 1360 he drew up the public instrument recording the oaths of Edward III and King John II of France to observe the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais.53 Whereas high-ranking members of diplomatic missions possessed negotiating capacities and their presence could raise the political and symbolic importance of the embassy, royal agents and clerks, who had specific expertise in administrative and diplomatic practice, ultimately did the leg-work either as part of teams of representatives or as single envoys, dispatched to conduct more routine ­negotiations and prepare the ground for more important embassies. A good case study to outline the activity of these royal agents is provided by the career of John Piers, who was a royal agent in France and at the papal curia between 1333 and 1343, at a crucial time when the Anglo-French and Anglo-Scottish wars drove to an increasing standardization of diplomatic and administrative practices across different European polities. John Piers, a graduate in civil law at Oxford and a trained administrator and diplomat, was probably first involved in Anglo-French ­negotiations in 1333–4, when he was appointed as a royal envoy to the Paris parliament, receiving copies of documents from the custos processuum of the English crown, Elias Joneston.54 John Piers acted as royal representative at the papal curia in three diplomatic missions in 1334–5, 1337–8, and 1341. In his first mission to Avignon, John Piers dealt with the plans for the organization of the crusade to the Holy Land and the negotiations with France, trying to prove the French king and chancellor’s negligence in complying with the agreement of 1294–7 on the restitution of Gascon territories to the English crown and to obtain the resumption of the process of Montreuil.55 Indeed, in the letter of credence for John Piers, dated 10 April 1335, Edward III specified that the envoy had faculties to report on such

52  See above n. 47. 53  Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre’, pp. 169–81. See Chapter 9. 54 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp 28, 32, 41; Rymer, II/2, p. 881 (dated 26 March 1334). 55 E.  Déprez, Les ambassades anglaises pendant la Guerre de Cent Ans: Catalogue Chronologique (1327–1450) (Paris, 1900), p. 43, who points out that John Piers’s mission was carried out between 20 July 1335 and 28 January 1336; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 69–70. John Piers’s mission was funded through a loan from the Bardi banking company: Rymer, II/2, p. 915 (dated 28 July 1335). For a detailed account of John Piers’s mission to Avignon in 1335 see Chapter 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

114

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

matters viva voce.56 John Piers’s instructions dating from June–July 1335 provide further evidence that the agent was instructed on his mission at the papal curia thanks to two enrolments, probably containing copies of the commissions of the process of Montreuil.57 Moreover in April 1336, after the collapse of AngloScottish peace negotiations in March, which ultimately led Benedict XII to cancel the crusade, John Piers found himself in the difficult position of excusing Edward III before the pope for the delay in the arrival of his nuncii solemnes, who were waiting for the summoning of the York parliament in May.58 Accordingly, instructions for John Pier’s second mission to the continent in 1337–8 mentioned that the envoy had received from Elias Joneston documents and transcripts relating to the English processes in France.59 Indeed, John’s mission to the papal curia fell at a crucial turning point in Anglo-papal relations and the envoy was probably responsible for building accusations against Philip VI, at a time when Pope Benedict XII had to defend himself from the Imperial party’s allegations of having offered financial support to the French crown, while openly condemning the Anglo-German alliance and Edward’s acceptance of the title of Imperial vicar.60 Finally, on 18 January 1341 John Piers together with Nicolino Fieschi was entrusted with defending before the papal curia Edward III’s decision to expel from the diocese of York William de la Zouche, who was one of two candidates to the archbishopric of York opposed by the king’s candidate William Kilsby.61 In return for his long service, John Piers was ultimately provided with benefices in England. Such informal means of remuneration ultimately allowed the English crown to offload part of the cost of its diplomatic activity on the Church.62 Accordingly, from the mid-thirteenth century English diplomatic envoys were also paid daily wages and refunded for their expenses through the wardrobe and, from 56  TNA, C 70/14, m. 4. The letter uses the well-known formulaic expression fidedigna relacio, usually employed in such circumstances. 57  TNA, C 47/28/4/3. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 46, 71, and 82, pointed out that Elias Joneston, who was custos processuum between 1329 and 1336 and was responsible for ordering the transcription of documents and the reorganization of the archive, supported the reopening of the process of Montreuil in 1334, delivering some documents from his archive to John Piers and other English envoys in June 1335. 58  TNA, C 70/14, m. 5. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 414–15; E. Perroy, The Hundred Years, (London, 1959) p. 91. 59  TNA, C 47/30/6/1. See also Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 105. The safe conduct for John Piers to travel beyond the sea is dated 24 April 1337 (CPR, 1334–1338, p. 417; Rymer, II/2, p. 967. 60  CPR, 1338–1340, p. 195. John Piers’s mission to the papal curia was dispatched from the Low Countries and was probably aimed at obtaining the reopening of the process of Montreuil against Philip VI, while John Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury, Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, William of Montacute, earl of Salisbury, John Offord, and Galfrid le Scroop had been appointed as procuratores and nuncii to negotiate with Philip VI on request of cardinal legates Bertrand of Montfavès and Pedro Gomez de Barroso (Carte, p. 92; Rymer, II/2, p. 1065). See also H. Jenkins, Papal efforts for peace under Benedict XII (1334–1342) (Philadelphia, PA, 1933), pp. 42–4. 61  CPR, 1340–1343, pp. 109–10. On the election to the archbishopric of York disputed between William de la Zouche and William Kilsby see Chapter 8. While coming back from Avignon in 1343–4, John Piers was arrested between Hassel and Herck in the county of Limburg, imprisoned in Moselyn Castle under the custody of the archbishop of Cologne and released after payment of a heavy ransom (CCR, 1333–1337, pp. 430, 567, 573). He died before reaching England (CPR, 1343–1345, p. 411). 62  See Chapter 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

115

1327, the exchequer.63 Furthermore, over and above their wages, royal envoys usually borrowed cash during their missions from Italian banking companies. As Plöger observed, in the run-up to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais the costs of diplomacy exponentially grew alongside the number of people employed as members of the English missions dispatched to the papal curia. For instance, the missions of Henry of Grossmont and Richard Fitzalan, involved in the negotiations at Guines between 1354 and 1355, were respectively composed of 317 and 175 men, while during the first half of the fourteenth century on average English diplomatic missions seem to have included about twenty people.64 The envoys’ daily payment depended on their status and varied from the 100s. given to archbishops to 6s. 8d. allowed for lesser clerks and notaries, to which travel expenses and extra allowances for transportation across the channel were added. Larson calculated that between 1327 and 1336 the English crown spent a total of £13,300 to fund forty missions overseas.65 Alongside paying for its envoys, the crown also had to cover other costs such as the fees paid to the various curial departments for the issuing of documents, the cost of legal proceedings, and the wages of proctors and their clerks, which were fixed in 1331 in the chancery ordinances of John XXII.66 Finally, alongside wages and travel expenses, the English crown had to include the costs of diplomatic gifts and tips under the headings of its diplomatic expenditure.67 PA PA L R E P R E S E N TAT I V E S I N E N G L A N D To a large extent the need of secular polities to establish permanent diplomatic representation at the papal curia was a consequence of the increasing centralization of papal power. Arguably, this process culminated in the thirteenth century, when the number of requests and arbitrations concerning provisions to benefices and dispensations presented before the curial departments grew exponentially along with the implementation of more sophisticated administrative practices. Equally, in order to assert its authority and mediate in conflicts, the Apostolic See tried to limit the number of appeals directly arbitrated at the papal curia and increasingly delegated judicial and political powers either to local ecclesiastical officials or representatives dispatched to the localities. From the twelfth century these representatives 63  A. Larson, ‘The payment of fourteenth-century English envoys’, EHR 54 (1939), pp. 403–14; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 168–71; Lucas, ‘The Machinery’, pp. 330–1; Hill, King’s messengers, pp. 110–11; A.  Reitemeier, Außenpolitik im Spätmittelalter. Die diplomatischen Beziehungen zwischen dem Reich und England, 1377–1422 (Paderborn, 1999), pp. 75–80; Plöger, England, pp. 165–6; K.  Plöger, ‘Englische Gesandte und Festkultur am Papsthof in Avignon’, in Höfische Feste im Spätmittelalter, ed. G. Fouquet, G. Zellinger (Kiel, 2003), pp. 105–11. 64 Plöger, England, Appendix III, p. 246. 65 Larson, ‘The payment, pp. 406–8. See also Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 168–71. 66 Berthe, Les procureurs français, pp. 90–1. See for instance the payment to Gualterus, Andrea Sapiti’s clerk, who acted as a scribe for the English envoy John Stratford in 1322–3: Plöger, England, pp. 214–15, 257–8. See also Bombi, ‘Introduzione’, in Il Registro p 35. See also Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 424–30. 67 Plöger, England, p. 214. On this point see also Chapter 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

116

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

were normally of three kinds: legates, who were vicarial plenipotentiaries; nuncii, namely messengers; and judges delegates, who acted as judicial envoys.68 A clearer distinction between different types of papal diplomatic representatives further emerged from the third decade of the thirteenth century, when canonical and administrative sources began making a distinction between the office of legate and nuncius. On the one hand, canon law commentaries classified the former in three categories: legatus a latere, sent by the papacy in partibus; legatus natus, who holds his legatine powers owing to his office in partibus; and finally the legatus missus (or ‘semi-permanent’ legate), who is appointed to deal with a specific matter owing to his personal qualities.69 On the other hand, as Kyer argued, between 1245 and 1378 papal and administrative sources distinguished the office of legatus from that of nuncius with an increasing degree of consistency. While the former acted as vicarial plenipotentiary and was generally employed in more important diplomatic missions, the latter was usually a messenger dealing with routine business.70 By the fourteenth century the distinction between legate and nuncius had further implications for the means used to pay for papal diplomacy. From this period the apostolic chamber in fact systematically distinguished between cardinal legates, who did not receive their share of ‘common services’ while on a mission, and the cardinal nuncii, who were still funded through the ‘common services’ when absent from the papal curia.71 Furthermore, unlike secular polities, the papacy still heavily relied upon monetary procurations collected in partibus as income taxes on the clergy in order to fund its diplomatic missions. The only exceptions to this rule were collectors, whose diplomatic missions were funded by the Apostolic See, while the amount which was exacted locally to support the envoy depended on the terms of the papal letter authorizing the levy of procurations and varied in 68  R. Schmutz, ‘Medieval Papal Representatives: Legates, Nuncios, and Judges-Delegate’, Studia Gratiana 15 (1972), pp. 441–63. See also W.  Maleczek, ‘Die päpstliche Legaten im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert’, in Gesandschafts- und Botenwesen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa, ed. R.C. Schwinges, K. Wriedt (Stuttgart, 2003), p. 39, 42. 69  R.C. Figueira, ‘The classification of Medieval Papal Legates in the Liber Extra’, AHP 21 (1983), pp. 211–28; R.C. Figueira, ‘Papal Reserved Powers and the Limitations on Legatine Authority’, in Popes, Teachers and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, ed. J.R. Sweeney, S. Chodorow (Ithaca—London, 1989), pp. 191–211. See also X 1.30, De officio legati. Historians have debated at length the exact moment when the papacy began using legates a latere as its representatives in partibus. Claudia Zey has recently maintained that the expression legatus a latere is first found during the pontificate of Callixtus II (1119–24), well before such a formulation appears in canonical collections: C. Zey, ‘Die Augen des Papstes. Zu Eigenschaften und Vollmachten päpstlicher Legaten’, in Römisches Zentrum und kirchliche Peripherie. Das universale Papsttum als Bezugspunkt der Kirchen von den Reformpäpsten bis zu Innozenz III., ed. J. Johrendt, H. Müller (Berlin—New York, 2008), pp. 98–9. See also Rennie, The Foundations, pp. 102–19. The historiographical debate has been recently reviewed by W. Untergehrer, Die päpstlichen nuntii, pp. 47–60. 70  C.I. Kyer, ‘Legatus and Nuntius as Used to Denote Papal Envoys: 1245–1378’, Mediaeval Studies 40 (1978), pp. 473–7. Untergehrer, Die päpstlichen nuntii, p. 57, challenges Kyer’s taxonomy as anachronistic for the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 71  Kyer, ‘Legatus and Nuntius’, pp. 476–7; P. Blet, Histoire de la Représentation Diplomatique du Saint Siège des origines à l’aube du XIXe siècle (Città del Vaticano, 1982), pp. 142–50; Maleczek, ‘Die päpstliche Legaten’, pp. 46–50; R.  Lützelschwab, ‘Papst und Kardinale – zwischen Konsens und Konflikt’, in Geschichte des Kardinalats im Mittelalter, ed. R. Lützelschwab, J. Dendorfer (Stuttgart, 2011), pp. 270–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

117

accordance with the rank of the representative.72 Most importantly, such funds not only had to cover the expenses of the legate or nuncio but also those of his entourage which, by the fifteenth century, could include over sixty people as well as armed guards and horses.73 Indeed, from the late twelfth century the papacy generally employed as diplomatic representatives cardinals, local ecclesiastical officials, mainly from the episcopal rank, and curialists. These envoys were chosen among the pope’s trusted advisers either by virtue of their office and rank or because of their specific expertise in legal matters.74 Furthermore, unlike other secular polities, the papacy could make use of ecclesiastical officials in partibus as its representatives, while, especially from the mid-thirteenth century, papal officials dispatched to the localities to fulfil specific duties, such as tax collectors, were increasingly employed in diplomatic ­negotiations as well. Moreover, from the late thirteenth century some nuncios seem to have received ‘dual appointments’, namely they were appointed at the same time by both the Apostolic See and the authority in the locality where they had been dispatched. This system of dual appointment had the advantage of favouring diplomatic negotiations and reducing possible frictions among the parties, although evidence suggests that it could occasionally create some confusion and conflicts of interest.75 Undoubtedly, Henry of Sully, who led the Anglo-French negotiations to terminate the war of St Sardos from Spring 1323, represents a successful example of ‘dual appointment’. Henry, a former butler of the French crown who fell into disgrace after Charles IV’s accession to the throne (1322), was in fact well known to Edward II, since he fought alongside the English during the Anglo-Scottish war of 1322 and had served as an English diplomatic envoy. It was probably his acquaintance with the English and French courts that between 1323 and 1324 also convinced John XXII to use Henry as an envoy for the Anglo-French negotiations.76 According to Guillemain, the Avignon popes continued the thirteenth-century practice of choosing their diplomatic envoys on the basis of their individual ability as well as their personal allegiance to the pope, their connections, and background.77 72 W.E.  Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England, 1327–1534, II (Cambridge, MA, 1962), p. 621; Maleczek, ‘Die päpstliche Legaten’, pp. 51–4. See also Chapter 4. 73  Maleczek, ‘Die päpstliche Legaten’, pp.55–6. Papal envoys dispatched to England on diplomatic missions seem to have received gratuities and gifts from the English wardrobe: see Chapter 4. 74  In this respect, from the mid-thirteenth century the structure of papal diplomacy echoed to a great extent the later distinction between nuncii solempnes and nuncii simplices outlined in the fourteenth-century diplomatic practice of secular polities such as England: Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, p. 155. 75  J. Sayers, ‘Centre and localities: aspects of papal administration in England in the later thirteenth century’, in Authority and Power. Studies on Medieval Law and Government Presented to W. Ullmann, ed. P. Linehan, B. Tierney (Cambridge, 1980), p. 126. See also M. Kintzinger, ‘Voyages et messageries. Diplomatie in Frankreich zwischen Familiarität und Funktion’, in Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zum geistlichen und weltlichen Gesandtschaftswesen vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Zey, C. Märtl (Zürich, 2008), p. 219; Untergehrer, Die päpstlichen nuntii, pp. 264–73. 76  See Chapter  7. On Henry of Sully’s career see N.  Fryde, The tyranny and fall of Edward II, 1321–1326 (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 134, 139–40, 158; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 430–5, 472–4. Other examples of dual appointment in this period are Rigaud of Assier (Accounts rendered by papal collectors in England, 1317–1378, ed. W.E.  Lunt (Philadelphia, PA 1968), p. xxii) and Raymond Pellegrini (Lunt, Accounts, pp. xxxi–xxxii; Baldwin, The King’s Council, p. 87). 77 Guillemain, La cour, pp. 229–30. See also Willershausen, pp. 362–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

118

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

These organizational patterns are also found in the papal diplomatic missions dispatched to England in the first half of the fourteenth century when the Apostolic See chose its diplomatic representatives with regard to the political importance of their mission, their rank, and expertise.78 It should be further noted that, whereas cardinals were employed as diplomatic envoys in England during the Avignon period, their faculties were always limited to those of nuncius. Indeed, no cardinal involved in Anglo-French negotiations between 1305 and 1378 was ever assigned the office of legate, and this was not always the case for cardinals involved in papal diplomacy elsewhere during the same period.79 Consequently, it has been a topic of much debate among historians whether the bias towards cardinal nuncii depended on the terminology employed by the apostolic chancery or rather on an intentional choice of the Apostolic See, which preferred to appoint nuncii rather than legates. Some cardinal nuncii involved in Anglo-French negotiations during the first half of the fourteenth century were in fact given comprehensive faculties, usually assigned in the same decades to legates a latere. Accordingly, evidence suggests that some cardinal-nuncii, such as Annibaldo da Ceccano and Étienne Aubert, were de facto considered nuncii de latere or cum potestate, namely they acted as pope’s vicars.80 The advantage for local ecclesiastical and secular authorities in receiving cardinal-nuncios rather than cardinal-legates was at least twofold. On the one hand, the Apostolic See covered part of the nuncios’ costs through the apostolic chamber’s finances, although the cardinal-nuncios still exacted procurations from local clergy. On the other hand, the nuncios’ restricted faculties better suited the local authorities who, especially in England, often saw cardinal legates’ interventions in partibus as potentially disruptive and intruding on local ecclesiastical jurisdiction.81 Furthermore, as Willershausen has recently argued, after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War the Avignon popes may have preferred to dispatch cardinal nuncii rather than legates to England and France owing to the private nature of papal arbitration in this conflict. While the legate a latere in fact held his office as representative of the Church, the nuncius held his faculties by virtue of the mandate of appointment granted by the pope and was therefore better 78 Untergehrer, Die päpstlichen nuntii, pp. 129–36, has pointed out how there are several discrepancies between theory and practice in the employment of the titles nuntius and legatus in the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century papal correspondence and how the faculties of each envoy have to be addressed in accordance with the mandate of appointment. 79 Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 155–70; Willershausen, pp. 351–2. The only exception to this pattern is cardinal Guy de Boulogne, who was never addressed with a specific title or office in the papal correspondence. See below n. 118. Most interestingly, the early fourteenth-century ceremonial of Iacopo Stefaneschi maintains that the pope had to consult the consistory before dispatching papal legates and nuncii, which ultimately decided on such issues: Le cérémonial papal de la fin du Moyen Age à la Renaissance, ed. M. Dykmans, II (Rome, 1977–1985), p. 496. 80 Lützelschwab, Flectat, p. 218; B. Barbiche, ‘Les «diplomates» pontificaux du Moyen Âge tardif à la première modernité : office et charge pastorale’, in Offices et papauté (XIVe–XVIe siècle). Charges, hommes, destins, ed. O. Poncet, A. Jamme (Rome, 2005), pp. 357–70: https://books.openedition.org/ efr/1200?lang=en Willershausen, pp. 355–7; Untergehrer, Die päpstlichen nuntii, pp. 56–8. 81 Lützelschwab, Flectat, 131–9; B.  Beattie, ‘The cardinals and diplomacy in the fourteenth century’, in Die Kardinäle des Mittelalters und der Frühen-Renaissance, ed. J. Dendorfer, R. Lützelschwab (Firenze, 2013), pp. 167–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

119

suited to represent the pope as a private person (privata persona) and arbiter between England and France.82 Indeed, even before the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337, the Apostolic See dispatched to England cardinal nuncii rather than legates. This was arguably the case for the mission of Arnaud Nouvel, cardinal of Santa Prisca, whom Clement V dispatched in May 1312 as nuncius, together with Arnaud d’Aux, bishop of Poitiers, in order to restore peace in England and deal with the aftermath of the Ordinances of 1311.83 Likewise, on 17 March 1317 John XXII sent as cardinal nuncii to England Luca Fieschi, cardinal of Santa Maria in Via Lata, and Gaucelm de Jean, cardinal of Santi Marcellino and Pietro.84 The cardinals’ mission was sent mainly in response to the embassy of Aymer de Valence to Avignon, which had to negotiate a peace settlement between England and Scotland.85 As Zanke has recently argued, the cardinals were probably carefully chosen for this mission owing to their strong connections to the English crown and given ample faculties to deal with political and ecclesiastical matters in England.86 Among those faculties were powers of authorizing permutations of benefices and providing to vacant benefices while on their mission. In this respect, the mission of the cardinal nuncios was of crucial importance for the management of relations between Church and crown in England. On 17 March 1317 through his envoys John XXII admonished Edward II about violations of ecclesiastical liberties in England and the crown’s illicit involvement in collation to benefices, while on 21 or 22 October 1317 the pope warned his nuncii in England of his plans to issue on 19 November the constitution Execrabilis, which revoked all dispensations of his predecessors for plurality and reserved the benefices of pluralists for papal provision.87 Once in England, between June 1317 and September 1318, Luca Fieschi 82  The symbolic difference between the status of the nuncius and the legate is also highlighted in the early fourteenth-century papal ceremonial of Iacopo Sefaneschi: Le cérémonial, p. 500. See also Barbiche, ‘Les «diplomates» pontificaux’, §6–7, 15: http://books.openedition.org/efr/1200 (accessed on 9 March 2017); Willershausen, pp. 359–60. 83  Reg. Clem. V, no. 8875–8876; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 194–5. Menache confusingly refers to Arnaud d’Aux as cardinal of Porto, while this was not yet the case at the time of this mission: S. Menache, Clement V (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 78–9, 263–4. Accordingly, Beattie (‘The cardinals’, p. 174) wrongly claims that Arnaud Novel was appointed as legatus a latere. 84  Coulon, no. 417, pp. 108–9; CPL, II, p. 445. On the nuncios’ faculties see CPL, II, pp. 127–32; Lunt, Financial Relations, I, pp. 167–8. Beattie (‘The cardinals’, pp. 174–5) confusingly claims that the cardinals were appointed as legati a latere. 85  See above n. 29. 86 Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 222–3, 227. Seventeenth-century transcripts of the cardinals’ activities in England survive in BAV, Barb. Lat. 2366. Their faculties are listed in BAV, Barb. Lat. 2366, no. 11, fol. 41v–45v; no. 15–16, fol. 53v–54v. On 29 December 1316 John XXII further broadened the nuncios’ faculties after the attack on the Anglo-Scottish border: BAV, Barb. Lat. 2366, no. 19–20, fol. 59v–79v. On the connection of Luca Fieschi and Gaucelm with England see Wright, The Church, pp. 290–1, 293–6. 87 Wright, The Church, Appendix 7, pp. 48–9; 74–6; 333–41. On Execrabilis and its impact on the relations between Church and English crown see F. Maitland, ‘Execrabilis in the Common Pleas’, in Roman Canon Law in England (London, 1898), pp. 148–57; G. Mollat, Lettres communes de Jean XXII (1316–1334). La collation des bénéfices ecclésiastiques à l’époque des papes d’Avignon (1305–1334) (Paris, 1921), pp. 95–111; A. Deeley, ‘Papal Provision and Royal Rights of Patronage in the Early Fourteenth Century’, EHR 43 (1928), pp. 497–527; G. Barraclough, Papal provisions: Aspects of Church History, Constitutional, Legal and Administrative in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1935); J.W. Gray, ‘The Ius

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

120

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

and Gaucelm were further involved in the settlement between Edward II and Thomas of Lancaster, which came to fruition in June 1318.88 Despite the political importance of this mission, John XXII probably appointed the cardinals as nuncii rather than legates in order to cut the spiralling costs of the embassy. Nonetheless, the local clergy were still asked to pay substantial procurations for the papal envoys in accordance with their rank and, as Lunt put it, ultimately the mission of Luca and Gaucelm cost the English clergy so much that neither John XXII nor his successor Benedict XII sent another cardinal nuncius to England until the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337.89 Indeed, between 1317 and 1327 the Apostolic See dispatched to England only nuncios of lower status as its representatives. The latter were either papal officials, such as the tax collectors Rigaud of Assier, Hugh of Angouleme and Itherius of Concoreto, whose diplomatic activities were performed alongside their main office, or ecclesiastical officials of lower rank, such as archbishops, bishops, papal chaplains and even lay officials, who were specially sent in partibus to conduct political negotiations.90 Such choices arguably reduced the costs of papal diplomacy burdening the local clergy and to some extent tried to respond to local complaints. Indeed, as Lunt pointed out, in 1333 Benedict XII unusually paid with papal funds for the expenses of Gerald Othonis and Arnold de Sancto Michaele, two nuncios sent to England to negotiate the Anglo-Scottish peace, rather than relying on the procurations of local clergy.91 Yet, this ‘austerity regime’ undertaken by the Apostolic See to limit the costs of diplomacy between 1317 and 1337 did not reduce overall the effectiveness of papal foreign interventions at times of conflict and political turmoil. This was especially the case for the period 1323–7, when the papacy arbitrated with a good degree of success in the Anglo-French conflict of St Sardos and was informed of the political turmoil in England thanks to its envoys Praesentandi in England from the Constitutions of Clarendon to Bracton’, EHR 265 (1952), pp. 481–509; W.A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 47–74. 88 Phillips, Aymer de Valence, pp. 163–4; Phillips, Edward II, p. 315. In October 1316, while travelling to Durham together with Bishop Lewis of Beaumont for his consecration, the cardinals were robbed by Gilbert de Middleton in collusion with Henry of Lancaster and the Scots. On this episode see also Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, pp. 204–6; Phillips, Edward II, p. 299. According to Prestwich the cardinals’ mission was destined to fail, as their allegiance to Edward II was ‘abundantly clear’: M. Prestwich, ‘Gilbert de Middleton and the attack on the cardinals, 1317’, in Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages, ed. T. Reuter (London, 1992), pp. 179–94, here at p. 183. 89  As the papal mandate points out, the expenses of their mission was funded through the procurations paid by the local clergy, calculated in accordance with the nuncios’ cardinal rank, in addition to the supply of horses and movable goods: Coulon, no. 417, pp. 108–9; Lunt, Financial Relations, I, pp. 567–8; II, pp. 621–4. 90 Lunt, Financial Relations, I, pp. 567–9; II, pp. 621–4; Barbiche, ‘Les «diplomates» pontificaux’, § 17: http://books.openedition.org/efr/1200 (accessed on 9 March 2017). Blet (Histoire, pp. 141–58, 177–202) maintained that, especially in England where from the late thirteenth century a general collector was appointed for the entire kingdom, the use of collectors as nuncii from the fourteenth century foresaw the use of the permanent nuncios from the fifteenth century. On Rigaud of Assier see Lunt, Financial Relations, I, p. 623; Lunt, Accounts, pp. xxi–xxiii. On Hugh of Angouleme see Lunt, Financial Relations, I, pp. 623–4; Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 164–5. On Itherius of Concoreto see Financial Relations, II, p. 697; Lunt, Accounts, pp. xxiii–xxviii; Wright, The Church, p. 314. 91 Lunt, Financial Relations, II, p. 621.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

121

Guillaume de Laudun, archbishop of Vienne, Hugh, bishop of Orange, and the collector, Hugh of Angouleme.92 The diplomatic activity of these three nuncios stands out for at least two reasons. On the one hand, although none of the papal nuncii were cardinals, the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange de facto received comprehensive powers of negotiations not only in England, but also in France.93 Their dispatch in the late summer of 1324 in fact represented a turning point in papal attempts at mediating in the Anglo-French conflict, which was degenerating into an international affair. It further represents a good example of what is known as ‘shuttle diplomacy’, since the papal envoys had been sent on a joint mission to negotiate peace treaties in two countries at war with each other.94 On the other hand, an examination of the mission carried out by these three envoys shows that they indeed acted as a ‘team of representatives’. In fact, they undertook complementary tasks and profited from their lower status, which was not only financially advantageous for the local clergy, but also allowed for major secrecy and flexibility during diplomatic negotiations.95 Indeed, hitherto overlooked evidence shows that, while between 7 and 30 May 1325 the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange were attending the ­negotiations between Charles IV and Queen Isabella in France, Hugh of Angouleme was in London to liaise with the English court and Hugh Despenser, and he was gathering information on behalf of John XXII on the state of Anglo-French and Anglo-German relations.96 In his letter, sent to the pope on 14 May 1325, Hugh of Angouleme dismissed the rumours, spread by Hugh Despenser, that John, king of Bohemia, Lewis of Bavaria, the count of Hainaut and other German nobles, were preparing an attack against Avignon in retaliation for John XXII’s excommunication of Lewis of Bavaria in July 1324.97 Furthermore, Hugh of Angouleme, who was in continuous contact with the other two papal nuncii at the French court, suggested in his letter to the pope that the English envoys negotiating the Anglo-French peace in France at that time were committing themselves to peace terms that were outside their faculties and which Edward II was likely to reject.98 These pieces of information on the Anglo-French negotiations in France reached John XXII at a crucial point. On 6 May 1325, after the French envoys had offered 92  See Chapter 7. See also Lunt, Financial Relations, I, pp. 568–9. 93  Coulon, no. 2192–2202; CPL, II, p. 455. See also Chapter 7. 94  Beattie, ‘The cardinals’, p. 176. 95  As pointed out above, Hugh of Angouleme was a collector and the Apostolic See covered for his costs, while the bishop of Orange and the archbishop of Vienne received procurations in accordance to their rank and were overall less expensive than cardinal-nuncios: see above n. 73 and 91. 96 ASV, Instr. Misc., 944; MGH, Legum, IV: Constitutiones VI/I, ed. I. Schwalm (Hannover, 1914–1927), no. 62, pp. 42–3; C. Burns, ‘Sources of British and Irish History in the Instrumenta Miscellanea of the Vatican Archives’, AHP 9 (1971), no. 112, p. 45. Hugh of Angouleme’s letter was dispatched as a letter close, as the remaining traces of the wax seal on its verso shows. On the context of these negotiations see Phillips, Edward II, p. 474; see Chapter 7. 97 MGH, Legum, IV: Constitutiones VI/I, no. 62, p. 42. See also Chapter 4. 98 MGH, Legum, IV: Constitutiones VI/I, no. 62, p. 43: ‘Dissencio dominorum regum Francie et Anglie cum succrescat, cotidie paratur ad guerram, nisi de alto per sanctitatis vestre remedium occurratur. Embaxatores enim regis Anglie missi regi Francie se ad aliqua obligarunt, ut intellexi pro certo, ad que non habebant mandatum nec illa rex Anglie, sicut credo, intendit aliquatenus approbare’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

122

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Edward II very harsh terms for peace and news from Gascony had hinted at a possible French invasion of England, the English parliament in fact dispatched the bishops of Winchester and Norwich and the Earl of Richmond to join Isabella in France in order to seek clarifications. Accordingly, on 14 May Edward II complained to John XXII that the bishop of Orange and the archbishop of Vienne had led him to believe that the choice of Queen Isabella as negotiator could have prompted Charles IV to accept the English demands, especially as far as the issue of the overdue homage was concerned, but this was not the case.99 Indeed, in his letter, Hugh of Angouleme informed the pope of the dispatch of an English messenger to the papal curia with the said letter of Edward II (dated 14 May 1325) and others of Queen Isabella and Hugh Despenser concerning the Anglo-French ­negotiations. He further maintained that Hugh Despenser showed him evidence which indicated a possible Franco-Scottish alliance against England in the eventuality of a prolonged conflict in Gascony.100 Overall, Hugh of Angouleme’s ­diplomatic activity therefore illustrates the importance of employing ‘teams of representatives’ for important diplomatic missions, requiring good timing and efficient information gathering. Indeed, the contemporary presence of papal envoys in England and France, who could promptly report to the papal curia on the ongoing negotiations in partibus, ultimately allowed the pope to coordinate the peace-making efforts in the international milieu. In this respect, the number of envoys dispatched for a specific mission varied according to circumstances and specific needs, as another piece of overlooked evidence concerning the peace ­negotiations between 1324 and 1325 suggests. Together with the three papal nuncios mentioned above, the papacy in fact employed on this occasion at least two sub-delegates, namely a Dominican called Dominic and the Franciscan Francois de Mayronis, who were sent to Gascony on 8 December 1324 in order to assist the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange in the Anglo-French negotiations.101 Significantly, Benedict XII carried on the practice of dispatching to England nuncii of non-cardinal rank until the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337, when the papacy raised its diplomatic game and more proactively seized the initiative vis-à-vis the different parties involved in the Anglo-French conflict through the use of cardinal nuncii.102 In Autumn 1335 two nuncii of lower rank, namely Hugh d’Aimery, bishop of Saint-Paul-de-Trois-Chateaux, and Roland of Asti, canon of Laon, papal chaplain and auditor of causes, were still chosen to arbitrate the truce between Edward III and David Bruce and to avoid the Anglo-Scottish war becoming an international affair, as it seemed likely given the French pro-Scottish support.103 99 Phillips, Edward II, pp. 472–3. On Edward II’s letter to John XXII see TNA, C 70/5, m. 1r; Rymer, II/1, p. 599. See Chapter 7. 100 MGH, Legum, IV: Constitutiones VI/I, no. 62, p. 43. 101 ASV, Instr. Misc., 837; Mollat, no. 20349; Burns, ‘Sources’, no. 106, p. 43. Burns confusingly dates this document on 8 December 1323 rather than 1324, although the two papal nuncios, the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange, were not appointed for their mission until summer 1324. The date of this document therefore ought to be 8 December 1324. 102 H.  Jenkins, Papal efforts for peace under Benedict XII (1334–1342) (Philadelphia, 1933), pp. 31–8, 80–1; Willershausen, pp. 115–24, 399–400. 103 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 113–14, 117–18; Zutshi, no. 173, p. 86; Rymer, pp. 926–7. Safe conducts for the papal nuncii sedis apostolice were requested in September 1335 (TNA, SC 1/38/148). On the funding used to finance this mission see Lunt, Financial Relations, pp. 622–4. See also Chapter 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

123

However, in July 1337 Benedict XII appointed as nuncii sedis apostolice two cardinals, Pedro Gomez de Barroso, cardinal of Santa Prassede, and Bertrand of Montfavès, cardinal of Santa Maria in Aquiro, who were granted comprehensive faculties to negotiate a peace between England and France.104 These nuncios were arguably chosen because of their status and background: Bertrand of Montfavès was from the region of Quercy, like Pope John XXII who had promoted him to the rank of cardinal; and Pedro Gomez de Barroso was an experienced negotiator of Castilian origins, who could play the ‘part of the outsider’ in the negotiations because of his neutrality.105 Although Pedro Gomez de Barroso and Bertrand of Montfavès were in England for only seven months, they collected procurations for three years from the English clergy in order to fund their mission and to support their entourage, namely a nuncio of lesser rank and some messengers. In Lunt’s words, they placed ‘upon the English clergy a vexatious burden’ and fostered complaints against ‘Roman cupidity’.106 Nonetheless, Benedict XII’s successor, Clement VI, does not appear to have taken on board such criticisms. On 30 June 1342 he once more dispatched to England two cardinal nuncii, Pierre de Prés, cardinal bishop of Palestrina and vice-chancellor, and Annibaldo of Ceccano, cardinal bishop of Tusculum, who were given the same power to exact procurations from the local clergy as their predecessors.107 The choice of cardinal nuncii rather than envoys of lower rank may have been fully justified in this case by the calibre of the diplomatic mission, which aimed at organizing an Anglo-French peace conference, known as the First Avignon Conference. While for sixteen months the two papal nuncios unsuccessfully tried to summon high-ranking representatives of both parties at Avignon, their mission coincided with a major crisis in Anglo-papal relations when, on 28 April 1343, the Westminster parliament issued the Ordinance of Provisors, trying to limit the provision of aliens to English benefices.108 Pierre and Annibaldo therefore found themselves dealing with two different issues and in two different capacities: they represented in England both the pope, whose arbitration in the Anglo-French conflict at that time was explicitly of a private nature, and also

104  Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 305, col. 196–198; no. 306, col. 199; nos. 310–1, col. 200; no. 313, col. 201; no. 317, col. 202; no. 336, col. 206–8. The faculties of the legates are listed in Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 307–9, col. 199–200; no. 314, col. 201; no. 316, col. 202; no. 318–34, col. 202–5. For the examination of these papal mandates see Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 441–2, 481–2; B.  Bombi, ‘Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War’, in Pope Benedict XII. The guardian of orthodoxy, ed. I. Bueno (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 205–206. For a detailed analysis of this mission see Chapter  8. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, p. 148; H.  Kamp, Friedensstifter und Vermittler im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2001), pp. 233–5. 105  Beattie, ‘The cardinals’, pp. 175–6. On the background of the two cardinals see Guillemain, La cour, p. 234; Jenkins, Papal efforts, pp. 31–2; Willershausen, p. 362. 106 Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 631–6, esp. 636. 107  Reg. Clem. VI (France), no. 94. See also Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 636–9; Plöger, England, p. 30. On Aubert see Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 142–61, 195–211, 449–51. On Annibaldo da Ceccano see M. Dykmans, ‘Le cardinal Annibal de Ceccano (vers 1282–1350). Étude biographique et testament du 17 juin 1348’, Bullettin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome 43 (1973), pp. 219–27; Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 431–3. 108 Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 32–4; Guillemain, La cour, p. 234; Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 165–71; Plöger, England, pp. 33–6; Willershausen, pp. 129–33. See also above n. 44.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

124

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the Apostolic See, whose prerogatives of providing to vacant benefices were limited owing to the parliamentary Ordinance of 1343.109 The failure of the First Avignon Conference and the resumption of hostilities in Brittany and Guyenne in February 1345 prompted new papal diplomatic initiatives. Initially, on 7 September 1345 Clement VI appointed as nuncius in England Nicholas, archbishop of Ravenna, who was commissioned alongside the collector Raymond Pellegrini to prepare the way for a more solemn mission of two cardinal nuncii. These were Annibaldo of Ceccano mentioned above and Étienne Aubert, cardinal priest of Santi Giovanni e Paolo, who were appointed with very broad faculties as Anglo-French negotiators on 31 October 1345.110 Historians commonly consider Annibaldo and Étienne’s intense diplomatic activity in France as a good example of ‘shuttle diplomacy’, although the nuncii never managed to obtain a safe conduct from Edward III, who did not allow them to cross the channel. Their attempts at stopping the conflict, however, failed, and it was only because of the French defeat at Crécy on 26 August 1346 that the negotiations overseen by the two nuncii resulted in the truce of Calais on 28 September 1347.111 By contrast, the period between 1347 and 1355 is usually seen as being marked by the weak and improvised attempts by the Apostolic See to terminate the AngloFrench conflict, considered as diplomatic interludes amongst major ­negotiations.112 This assessment is mainly based on the lack of major diplomatic papal initiatives undertaken by high-ranking envoys before 1353. However, a closer examination of the status of the papal envoys involved in the Anglo-French negotiations from the 1340s and the terms of their appointment reveals a more nuanced picture and sheds new light on the papal capacity to adapt its peace-making agenda to volatile political circumstances. On some occasions, the choice of papal envoys of lower rank in fact guaranteed the secrecy of the mission and safeguarded local clergy from payment of procurations. Such was the case for Guillaume Ami and William Bateman of Norwich, who were respectively sent to France and England as nuncii simplices in summer 1340 to negotiate the truce of Esplechin.113 On other occasions, 109  On the private nature of Clement VI’s arbitration during the First Avignon Conference see the Journal of conférences d’Avignon (Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, no. lviii, p. 235): ‘in tractatu circa reformationem pacis inter dominum nostrum regem Francie et Anglie ex parte una et adversarium suum de Francia ex altera, coram domino papa tanquam coram privata persona et amicabili mediatore de consensu ipsarum partium electo adhuc pendente’. On the Ordinance of Provisors of 1343 see A. Barrel, ‘The Ordinance of Provisors of 1343’, Historical Research 64 (1991), pp. 264–77; Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 334–5, 639–40; Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 185–95; Plöger, England, pp. 43–8; Willershausen, pp. 127–8, 133–9. In protest against the decision of the English parliament in 1343, on 21 November 1344 Clement VI dispatched to England two nuncii of lower status, Nicholas, archbishop of Ravenna, and Peter, bishop of Astorga (Jean Froissart, Oeuvres, no. lvii, pp. 219–20). See also Chapter 4. 110  Reg. Clem. VI (France), no. 2158, 2160–2169, 2070, 2076–2135. See also Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 639–41; Maleczek, ‘Die päpstliche Legaten’, p. 62. 111 Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 35–40; Beattie, ‘The cardinals’, p. 176; Willershausen, pp.150–67. 112 Sumption, Trial by Fire, p. 2; Willershausen, p. 178. 113 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 337–8; Willershausen, p. 358. On such occasion, Edward III asked to negotiate directly with Pope Benedict XII, stressing the importance of the king’s diplomatic activity in delicate diplomatic missions, as Lucas and Benham have also pointed out: H.S. Lucas, ‘The machinery

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

125

lower status envoys were instead employed as nuncii sedis apostolice, when missions had to be dispatched hurriedly either because of the breakdown of a truce among the parties or the need for exploratory missions aimed at arranging more comprehensive peace conferences at a later stage. Good examples of this practice are the mission of the archbishop of Ravenna in 1345, as well as the three embassies dispatched by Clement VI after the failure of the truce of Calais of 1347 and the resumption of the hostilities in Gascony in 1349. In March 1349 the pope sent Pastor, archbishop of Embrun, and Bertrandus, bishop of Sénez, to England, France and Normandy to arrange a meeting of the French and English kings between Calais and Guines, while in March 1350 the pope dispatched John, archbishop of Brindisi, and William, archbishop of Braga, to conduct peace ­negotiations in France in response to Henry of Lancaster’s military raid in the Languedoc.114 Finally, in September 1350, after the death of Philip VI, king of France, Clement VI appointed Androin de la Roche, abbot of Saint-Seine and Cluny, and the collector in England, Raymond Pellegrini, as nuncii apostolice sedis and dispatched them respectively to France and England.115 The historiography has further overlooked the extent to which lower-ranking diplomatic envoys were deployed as part of a ‘team’ alongside higher-ranking negotiators, to whom the failure or success of diplomatic initiatives are commonly attributed. This important point can undoubtedly be explored through an e­ xamination of the mission of Guy de Boulogne, cardinal bishop of Porto and chief negotiator appointed by Innocent VI to arrange a new Anglo-French peace conference at Guines in 1353–1354.116 Guy’s mission to England coincided with what Pantin called a ‘period of crisis and struggle’ in Anglo-papal relations, which reached a breaking point after parliament approved the Statute of Provisors in February 1351, declaring papal provisions void in England, and Edward III issued the Statute of Praemunire on 20 January 1353, which forbade appeals to the papal court.117 Evidence clearly shows that Guy did not act on his own but alongside two nuncii of lower rank, namely Androin de la Roche and Raymond Pellegrini mentioned above, who represented the Apostolic See between 1352 and 1354 respectively in France and England. Most interestingly, while Androin and Raymond were openly appointed nuncii apostolice sedis, Guy de Boulogne’s office was never specified in papal correspondence, where he is simply referred to by his cardinal’s title apart from in two instances, where he is called either referens or of diplomatic intercourse’, in, ed. J.F. Willard, W.A. Morris, The English Government at Work, 1327–1336 (Cambridge, MA, 1940), pp. 302–5; Benham, Peacemaking, pp. 21–43. See also above n. 9. 114  Reg. Clem. VI (France), no. 4092, 4094–4101, 4426, 4442–4445. On these missions see Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 40–2; J. Sumption, Trial by Fire. The Hundred Years War, II (London, 1999), p. 49, 63; Plöger, England, pp. 37–8; Willershausen, pp. 174–5. 115  Reg. Clem. VI (France), no. 4691–4694, 4696–4705, 4707, 4710. See also Plöger, England, p. 38; Willershausen, pp. 176–8. 116  P. Jugie, ‘L’activité diplomatique du cardinal Gui de Boulogne en France au milieu du XIVe siècle’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 145 (1987), pp. 123–4; J. Favier, Les papes d’Avignon (Paris, 2006), pp. 406–7; Plöger, England, pp. 39–40; Willershausen, p. 204. 117 Pantin, The English Church, pp. 81–7; Plöger, England, pp. 50–1; W.M. Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven, CT—London, 2011), pp. 367–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

126

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

mediator of the Apostolic See.118 The papal instructions given to Raymond Pellegrini on 13 July 1353 further outlined his specific role in Anglo-French ­negotiations as well as the extent of his faculties as nuncius and member of the ‘team of papal representatives’, led by cardinal Guy de Boulogne.119 Although Innocent VI commissioned Guy de Boulogne as chief of this embassy, praising the cardinal for his wise counsel and noble origin and advising Raymond to follow his advice, Pellegrini was obviously sent to negotiate vis-à-vis the English and given precise instructions on the nature of his activity.120 Indeed, Raymond’s mission followed from Guy’s unsuccessful negotiations with the French king, John II, and Henry of Lancaster, organized in Paris between November 1352 and January 1353. The result of Guy’s enterprise had been ultimately unsatisfactory, since the English did not participate at the meeting arranged by the cardinal at Guines in May 1353, where the French envoys granted unilaterally an extension of the Anglo-French peace. Interestingly, Innocent VI carefully advised Raymond that he should not mention the absence of the English envoys at the Guines conference in 118  On Raymond Pellegrini see Reg. Inn. VI, no. 433, 436–440; Lunt, Accounts, pp. xxxi–xxxii; Baldwin, The King’s Council, p. 87. Androin de la Roche already served as receiver of the procurations in England owed to Pierre de Prés and Annibaldo of Ceccano between 1343 and 1344 (Lunt, Financial Relations, pp. 637–9) and was dispatched by Innocent VI to the Emperor Charles IV, whom the pope saw as a possible negotiator between England and France in 1356: Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 146–7. Androin also served as Guy de Boulogne’s chancellor at the time of his mission to Hungary and Italy (1349): P. Jugie, ‘Cardinaux et chancelleries pendant la papauté d’Avignon. Une voie vers les honneurs?’, in Offices et papauté, no. 10, p. 683. On Guy de Boulogne see Reg. Inn. VI, no. 84: ‘venerabilis frater noster Guido, episcopus Portuensis, sicut ipso nobis referente cognovimus, nuper cum in eisdem Francie partibus moraretur’; and Reg. Inn. VI, no. 1019. The draft of Innocent VI’s letter collected in Reg. Vat. 244 B, fol. 1r, no. 2, mentions Guy’s mediation, whereas this clause is missing in the version registered in the register of secret letters (Reg. Vat. 236, fol. 112v): ‘Cum carissimo in Christo filius noster Edwardus, rex Anglie illustris, sicut eo insinuante percepimus pro confirmatione votiva tractatus pacis et concordie habiti ad mediacionem venerabili fratri nostri Guidonis episcopi Portuensis super dissentionibus guerris et discordiis.’ Most interestingly in the draft (Reg. Vat. 244 B, fol. 1r) the clause is underlined. Furthermore, Guy is called mediatour in a letter sent by Edward III to his diplomatic envoys on 6 April 1353 (Rymer, III/1, pp. 276–7). In other letters Guy’s office is not specified: Reg. Inn. VI (curiales), no. 83, 140, 225, 256, 272, 275, 284, 336, 466, 508, 518, 550, 636, 638, 710, 741, 767, 943, 945. See also Sumption, Trial by Fire, pp. 111–34; Jugie, ‘Activité diplomatique’, pp. 105–9; Favier, Les papes, pp. 403–7; Maleczek, ‘Die päpstliche Legaten’, p. 62; Willershausen, pp. 184–7; W.  Maleczek, ‘Autographen von Kardinälen des 13. und  14. Jahrhunderts’, in ‘Manu propria’. Vom eigenhändigen Schreiben der Mächtigen (13.–15. Jahrhundert), ed. C. Feller, C. Lackner (Vienna, 2016), pp. 95–100. 119 A draft copy of the instructions survives in the ASV, Instr. Misc., 1942; Burns, ‘Sources’, no. 154, p. 56 (dated 12? July 1353). The instructions were further registered in the register of secret letters for the first year of pontificate of Innocent VI: Reg. Vat. 235, fol. 131r–132v; Reg. Inn. VI, no. 433; CPL, III, pp. 611–12. On these instructions see G. Mollat, ‘Innocent VI et les tentatives de paix entre la France et l’Angleterre (1353–1355)’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 10 (1909), pp. 730–6. Accordingly, as Hennigan pointed out, Innocent VI dispatched John, archbishop of Capua, and Peter, bishop of Tarazona, to negotiate with the Black Prince in order to stop his military campaign in southern France in November 1355: Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 119–20. 120 ASV, Instr. Misc., 1942 (CPL, III, p. 611, § 1): ‘In primis, cum erit in Francia ante omnia, adibit dominum Boloniensem cardinalem et iuxta consilium suum in negocio memorato procedere’; ASV, Instr. Misc., 1942 (CPL, III, p. 611, § 3): ‘idem dominus Boloniensis cardinalis, vir tanti consilii, tanti generis tanteque virtutis’. On Guy’s background (he was the French king’s uncle), his political links to the French crown and to the king of Navarra see N.P.  Zacour, Talleyrand: the Cardinal of Périgord (1301–1364) (Philadelphia, 1960), p. 45; Jugie, ‘Activité diplomatique’, pp. 102–4, 109–17.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

127

May 1353.121 Finally, Raymond was asked to explore Edward III’s inclination towards further Anglo-French negotiations under the supervision of Guy de Boulogne and, depending on the cardinal’s advice, to secure a further extension of the Anglo-French truce, whose expiry date was a matter of much debate among the parties.122 Yet, Guy’s role as chief mediator between England and France seems to have been the sticking point for Edward III, whose concerns were clearly made manifest to the pope by the English envoys John Woderove and William Whittlesey, respectively sent to Avignon in June and July 1353.123 In particular, William Whittlesey, who reached Avignon after Raymond’s departure, revealed Edward III’s doubts on the suitability of Guy de Boulogne as chief negotiator, since he was suspected of French sympathies because of his personal and family connections. English complaints prompted Innocent VI to send fresh instructions to Raymond Pellegrini.124 Ultimately, as this example shows, the advantage of employing a team of representatives was therefore twofold. On the one hand, Guy de Boulogne’s experience and background gave him the required status to represent the pope in major diplomatic negotiations and allowed him to navigate a complex political environment, making the cardinal an obvious choice as chief negotiator between England and France. On the other hand, trusted and skilled lower-status envoys and nuncii, such as Raymond Pellegrini, could efficiently prompt dialogue among the parties, since their impartiality was more difficult to challenge and they could gather intelligence with a greater degree of discretion and secrecy. Similarly, nuncii apostolice sedis from both the cardinalate and lower curial ranks were chosen carefully to conduct the lengthy Anglo-French negotiations between the battle of Poitiers (19 September 1356), when the English defeated the French and managed to capture the French king, John II, and the Treaty of BrétignyCalais (24 October 1360), which concluded the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War and marked Edward III’s renunciation of the French crown in return for ample territorial concessions in northern France. Significantly, Talleyrand de Périgord, cardinal bishop of Albano, and Niccolò Capocci, cardinal priest of San Vitale, were involved in the negotiations that sanctioned three truces between 1357 and 1359: the Treaty of Bordeaux (23 March 1357); the First Treaty of London (8 May 1358) and the Second Treaty of London (24 March 1359), when 121 ASV, Instr. Misc., 1942; CPL, III, p. 611–12, § 4–6. On the accounts of the Anglo-French negotiations between 1352 and 1353 see Reg. Inn. VI, no. 61, 83, 84; Rymer, III/1, pp. 254–5; Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 93–6; Sumption, Trial by Fire, pp. 115–17; Jugie, ‘Activité diplomatique’, pp. 117–19; Plöger, England, pp. 38–9. 122 ASV, Instr. Misc., 1942: ‘Si autem dicte treuge usque ad dictum festum Resurrectionis Domini sunt recepte, de prorogatione hujusmodi non loquatur, nisi dicto domino cardinali Boloniensi forsitan videatur.’ According to the instructions, there was some confusion on the expiry date of the AngloFrench truce: ASV, Instr. Misc., 1942; CPL, III, pp. 611–12, § 7; Rymer, III/1, pp. 261–2. 123 Plöger, England, p. 39; Appendix I, no. xlv, xlvi, p. 239. On the break-up of Anglo-papal relations between 1349 and 1353 see Chapter 4. 124  Reg. Inn. VI (curiales), no. 466: ‘Cum ergo, frater, ex conversatione didiceris quam sint suspicabiles Anglici et quam difficile sub pallio quodam honoris ad conclusionem negocii trahi possint, pro reverentia Dei et ipsius publice utilitatis intuitu ac nostre interventionis obtentu, apud eundem regem Francie instes, sicut profunda circunspectio tua expedire cognoverit, . . .’ See Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 53–5, 97–8, 126; and above n. 121.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

128

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the two cardinals were joined by Pierre de la Foret, former chancellor of John II and cardinal of the XII Apostles, in order to discuss the liberation of John II and the settlement for a definitive peace among the parties.125 Furthermore, the two cardinals were asked to conciliate the English crown’s extreme opposition to alien provisions to ecclesiastical benefices in England, which had brought Anglo-papal relations to a breaking point after the issue of the Statutes of Provisors in 1351 and Praemunire in 1353.126 Yet, when it came to the final peace agreement drafted in a provisional form at Brétigny on 8 May and ratified at Calais on 24 October 1360, Innocent VI dispatched experienced lower rank nuncii, namely Androin de la Roche, Hugh de Genève, and Simon de Langres, who represented the pope as guarantor of the treaty.127 As Willershausen argues, Androin de la Roche particularly contributed to the redrafting of the Brétigny-treaty in the Calais-ratification, coordinating papal diplomatic efforts in Calais and liaising with Hugh Pellegrini, brother of Raymond Pellegrini, papal collector in England (1349 and 1363) and royal envoy to the papal court (1358–60).128 C O N C LU S I O N S All in all, the use and choice of diplomatic representatives in England and the papal curia during the first half of the fourteenth century seems to have been strongly determined by the increasingly technical nature of the business transacted in the management of foreign affairs as well as by the on-going Anglo-French conflict. On the one hand, diplomatic envoys and representatives had to keep up with increasingly sophisticated diplomatic and administrative practices and new systems of record-keeping implemented in different polities. On the other hand, the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337 intensified the need and frequency of Anglo-French diplomatic negotiations, in which the pope intervened at different stages in his personal capacity, as an arbiter, and as guarantor of peace among the parties.129 125  The cardinals were dispatched in June 1356 before the battle of Poitiers: Reg. Inn. VI (curiales), no. 2202–2204, 2191–2196, 2267, 2481; Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 152–61, 176–84. On Talleyrand de Périgord and Niccolò Capocci see Hennigan, Papal efforts, pp. 131–5; Lützelschwab, Flectat, pp. 446–9, 476–8. See also Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 651–7; Zacour, Talleyrand, pp. 45–64; Sumption, Trial by Fire, pp. 230–3. 126 Zacour, Talleyrand, pp. 46–54, 58–64; Sumption, Trial by Fire, pp. 231–3, 236–8, 289–91; Plöger, England, pp. 40–1; Favier, Les papes, pp. 407–10; Willershausen, pp. 210–35; see above n. 118. Whereas, mostly basing their assessment on the evidence provided in narrative accounts, historians have traditionally discussed the suitability of such choices and celebrated the role of the cardinals as figureheads in the negotiations, Willershausen has recently challenged these interpretations, suggesting that the role of the cardinals was less clear cut given the symbolic and rhetorical nature of the surviving sources. 127 Lunt, Financial Relations, II, pp. 657–61; Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 185–204. On the nature of papal arbitration at the time of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais see: Plöger, England, p. 41; Willershausen, pp. 241–5, 269–71; see Chapter 9. 128  Willershausen, pp. 249–54, 269–71. On Hugh Pellegrini’s activity overseas see Lunt, Accounts, p. xxxiii. See also above n. 53 and Chapter 9. 129  On the different capacities in which the popes intervened in the Anglo-French conflict during the fourteenth century see also Chapter 9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Representatives and Proctors

129

In order to face the increasing demands for specialized diplomatic and administrative personnel, both the Apostolic See and the English crown seem to have adopted comparable solutions, dispatching embassies composed of several envoys ranging from the chief negotiators—who often stood out because of their status, political expertise, and personal connections—to specialists in bureaucratic and judicial procedures, who could deal with increasingly sophisticated administrative and diplomatic practices. Thanks to their varied expertise the members of these ‘teams of representatives’ could simultaneously fulfil complementary tasks during complex and lengthy diplomatic negotiations, often carried out in more than one location. The focus on the contribution of teams of representatives rather than individuals to the Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse further allows us to challenge traditional historiographical interpretations, which have so far mostly dealt with the plenipotentiaries of the diplomatic missions undertaken between 1337 and 1360. Indeed, overlooked evidence sheds new light on lower-ranking envoys who ultimately did the legwork either as part of teams or as single envoys dispatched by the English crown and the papacy. These lower-status diplomatic agents in fact could often conduct diplomatic negotiations and gather intelligence with a greater degree of secrecy, while they were less likely to be challenged because of their renowned allegiance to one of the conflicting parties. A further direct consequence of this system was the multiplication of records and paperwork produced during diplomatic missions in order to inform the different actors involved in ­negotiations among the parties. The obvious disadvantage of this system, which managed foreign affairs through the simultaneous deployment of several envoys, was the rising cost of diplomacy, which required continuous monetary subsidies owing to the size of the actual diplomatic missions and their sheer frequency. All in all, secular polities were paying a higher cost, since they not only had to fund their own representatives and their entourage but were increasingly asked to provide monetary procurations to cover the expenses of papal envoys dispatched in partibus. Although the Apostolic See tried to address this issue, carefully choosing the rank of its envoys and the nature of their appointment—for instance favouring the dispatch of cardinal nuncii rather than that of cardinal legates—the rising demands of procurations remained a problem, especially in England, where increasing discontent with the presence of papal diplomatic envoys is recorded throughout this period. Meanwhile, by the mid-fourteenth century the traditional and less formal means of rewarding papal diplomatic envoys and officials through provisions to ecclesiastical benefices came under scrutiny in England, where the Statutes of Provisors (1351) and Praemunire (1353) to a great extent strained Anglo-papal relations and jeopardized the attempts of the Apostolic See to mediate an Anglo-French peace. Ultimately, whereas diplomatic practices appear to have been organized and to have functioned overall quite efficiently in England and at the papal curia, the uncertainty of the military and political circumstances, which characterized the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War, led to the failure of many of the missions undertaken in the first half of the fourteenth century. Even when in 1360 an

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

130

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Anglo-French peace agreement was finally reached, this was because of the unsustainable costs of military operations and the profound crisis of the French crown rather than owing to successful papal mediations. In this respect, the efficiency of papal and English diplomatic practices and representation did not ultimately matter that much and often had to give way to more mundane political and military considerations.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

PA RT I I CASE STUDIES

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

6 The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession Arguably, the examination of Anglo-papal relations between 1305 and 1309 provides an interesting first case study of how political change both in England and at the papal curia impacted on the development of Anglo-papal diplomatic and administrative practices in the early fourteenth century. Anglo-papal relations in this period were in fact marked by three major political events: the election in June 1305 of the first Avignonese pope, Clement V; the end of Edward I’s reign, which was notoriously characterized by the clash between the king and Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury, and the Scottish wars; and finally the succession of Edward II. Evidence suggests that the period between 1305 and 1309 featured frenetic Anglo-papal diplomatic activity and a rationalization of the administrative diplomatic correspondence exchanged between the papacy and the English crown. Indeed, in the words of a dispatch of the Aragonese ambassadors at the papal curia, addressed to James II in 1309, ‘molts grans et honrats missatges de França et Deanglaterra . . . venen al papa’.1 In order to assess the extent to which political changes impacted on the Anglo-papal administrative and diplomatic practices in the early fourteenth century, this chapter is organized into three sections. First, I give a brief historiographical overview on Anglo-papal relations in the early fourteenth century. Second, I focus on the surviving diplomatic correspondence, looking at some diplomatic documents produced in the context of the diplomatic missions sent from England to the papal curia between 5 June 1305, when Clement V was elected, and 14 November 1305, when he was consecrated at Lyons, as well as examining the first Roman roll, which recorded the petitions sent from England to the Apostolic See in the last year of Edward I’s reign (April 1306–July 1307). Finally, I address the evidence concerning the first two years of Edward II’s reign in order to look for continuity and change in Anglo-papal administrative and diplomatic practices after the succession of the new English king.

1  Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II. (1291–1327), ed. H. Finke (Berlin— Leipzig, II 1908), no. 179, p. 263.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

134

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century T H E H I S TO R I O G R A P H I C A L D E B AT E A N D   P O P E   C L E M E N T V ’s A L L E G I A N C E S

Historians overall maintain that the election of Pope Clement V in Perugia on 5 June 1305 marked a turning point in the history of the Medieval papacy.2 The Gascon Bertrand de Got, the future Pope Clement V, was archbishop of Bordeaux and had been a clerk of Edward I. As a Gascon, he was a subject of the king of France and a vassal of the Duke of Aquitaine, who was also the king of England, and, undoubtedly, this status put him in an unique position to mediate in the conflict between England and France. Notoriously, after his election, Clement V decided to stay in France, becoming the first of the so-called Avignonese popes. From the 1940s onwards, the nature of Anglo-papal relations after Clement V’s election and his legacy has been debated, especially as far as his allegiances and international role as mediator between England and France were concerned. French historian Mollat initiated this debate by emphasizing Clement’s amicable relationship with Philip IV, king of France, who supported the election of the former archbishop of Bordeaux as a means to secure a favourable settlement with England. As Mollat claimed, Clement’s concessions to the French king are demonstrated in various regards. The pope in fact appointed nine French cardinals and reinstated Giacomo and Peter Colonna, who were supporters of the French party and had been deposed by Pope Boniface VIII. During Clement’s pontificate Boniface was posthumously put on trial, while the pope also suppressed the Templars in 1312, capitulating to the demands of the French crown.3 In the 1960s Guillemain advanced a similar assessment of Clement’s rule, highlighting the pope’s weakness and naivety in accepting the king of France’s requests in return for French support for the crusade.4 Conversely, Renouard and more recently Trabut-Cussac, Menache, and Favier have emphasized the strong connections between Clement V and his native Gascony and his determination to settle the disagreement between France and England. However, while Renouard highlighted overall Clement’s fruitless attempts at papal independence from secular powers, Menache emphasized the pope’s benevolent attitude towards England and downplayed the nepotistic character of his policy in Gascony. More recently, Favier challenged Menache’s argument, maintaining the extent of Clement’s nepotism in rewarding his Gascon family and protégés.5 Finally, whilst stressing Clement’s allegiance to Gascony, Denton, Wright, Zutshi, and Prestwich all emphasized his service as a clerk to 2  Historiography on the Avignon papacy published before 1974 is surveyed in D. Waley, ‘Opinions of the Avignon papacy: a historiographical sketch’, in Storiografia e storia. Studi in onore di Eugenio Duprè Theseider (Rome, 1974), pp. 175–88. 3 G. Mollat, Les papes d’Avignon, 1305–1378 (Paris, 1949), pp. 30–2. 4 B. Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon, 1309–1376. Étude d’une société (Paris, 1966), pp. 129–30. 5 Y. Renouard, La papauté à Avignon (Paris, 1954; English translation The Avignon papacy (London, 1970), pp. 20–1; J.P. Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise en Gascogne sous Henry III et Édouard I de 1254 à 1307 (Geneva, 1972), p. 131; S.  Menache, Clement V (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 9–30; J. Favier, Les papes d’Avignon (Poitiers, 2006), pp. 50–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

135

Edward I, king of England, and as archbishop of Bordeaux between 1299 and 1305, which, in Denton’s words, qualified Clement as a ‘conciliatory pope’ towards England.6 In particular, Denton, Trabut-Cussac, and Zutshi have focused on the frenetic activity of English diplomacy in the months between Clement V’s election in June and his consecration in November 1305. Denton was the first to draw attention to the fact that Bertrand de Got, the future pope, had been a clerk in the service of the king of England and maintained that these links between the pope and the English crown influenced Anglo-papal relations between summer and early autumn 1305. Denton especially emphasized that, as soon as he received news of Clement’s election on 17 June 1305, Edward I ordered an initial diplomatic mission to the papal curia led by John of Havering, seneschal of Gascony, to present the new pope with gifts.7 Between July and early August a subsequent dispatch of envoys to France achieved a first important political result for the English crown. Clement V granted Edward I a tenth of the income of the English church to be collected during each of the next seven years.8 Denton’s argument is even more remarkable if we consider that those appointed as papal collectors of the tenth in England between 2 and 5 August 1305 were John Dalderby, bishop of Lincoln; Walter Langton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield; and Ralph de Baldock, bishop of London. While John Dalderby, bishop of Lincoln, had not been previously involved in the service of the English crown, the choice of Walter Langton and Ralph Baldock seem very significant and may well have been influenced by the personal acquaintance and negotiations between Edward I and Clement  V.  Walter Langton had already served the English crown in Gascony and was treasurer of the exchequer, while in 1306 Ralph was appointed commissioner for the enquiry on the canonization of Thomas Cantilupe and became Edward I’s chancellor in April 1307.9 On 24 October 1305 Edward I sent a second embassy to the papal curia to present the pope with gifts on his consecration. The embassy reached Lyons on 12 November, two days before the pope’s consecration, and at least some of its members stayed 6  J.H. Denton, ‘Pope Clement V’s early career as a royal clerk’, EHR 83 (1968), pp. 303–14; J. Denton, Robert Winchelsey and the Crown, 1294–1313. A study in the defence of ecclesiastical liberty (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 219–20; R.  Wright, The Church and the English Crown, 1305–1334 (Toronto, 1980), pp. 168; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Some early letters of Pope Clement V (1305–14) in the Public Record Office’, Archiv für Diplomatik 33 (1987), pp. 323–35; P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘The letters of the Avignon Popes (1305–1378): a Source for the Study of Anglo-Papal Relations and of English Ecclesiastical History’, in England and her neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. M. Jones, M. Vale (London—Ronceverte, 1989), pp. 259–75. M. Prestwich, Edward I (London, 1988), pp. 532–3. 7 On John of Havering and his mission see also Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise, pp. 120–1, 128–9. 8  Denton, ‘Pope Clement V’s early career’, pp. 303–12. See also W.E. Lunt, Financial relations of the papacy with England to 1327, I (Cambridge, MA, 1939), pp. 382–4. 9  N. Bennett, ‘John Dalderby, bishop of Lincoln’, in ODNB: (http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain. kent.ac.uk/view/article/7013?docPos=1); H.A.  Tipping, M.C.  Buck, ‘Ralph de Baldock, bishop of London’, in ODNB: (http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/1154?docPos=1); R.M. Haines, ‘Walter Langton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield’, in ODNB: (http://www.oxforddnb. com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/16046?docPos=1).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

136

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

in Lyons until the following March. As Denton put it, this second embassy accomplished important achievements: in December 1305 the pope revoked the Confirmatio Cartarum of 1297, while in the first few months of 1306 Clement V made further important concessions to his former overlord, including immunity of the royal free chapels from excommunication and interdict, the revocation of Boniface VIII’s bull Clericis laicos and the suspension of Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury.10 Accordingly, Trabut-Cussac has ­convincingly drawn attention to the intense French and English diplomatic activity sent to greet Clement V after his election in June 1305. As already indicated, soon after the papal election on 17 June 1305, Edward I dispatched John of Havering, seneschal of Gascony, to Saintes, where Clement was at the time, charged with presenting gifts to the new pope. Here, John of Havering found a huge crowd that had come to greet the new pope and organized a guard of two knights and twenty-nine squires to escort Clement to Bordeaux, where French envoys were expecting him.11 In TrabutCussac’s opinion, in the summer 1305 the competition between the French and English envoys to gain papal favour was very intense. Significantly, during his journey from Bordeaux to Lyons for papal consecration, Clement V was once more escorted by John of Havering and received English financial support for his travel expenses.12 Trabut-Cussac concluded that, although the election of a Gascon to the Apostolic See seems to have initially facilitated Anglo-papal and Anglo-Gascon relations, the new challenges presented by the need to fund the Scottish war soon forced Edward I to levy new taxes on Gascony, once more exacerbating the situation in the English continental possessions.13 In a similar fashion, Zutshi concurred that Edward I had doubtless followed attentively the developments of the conclave in Perugia and, from July 1305, he intentionally organized a significant diplomatic exchange between England and the papacy.14 Zutshi took further Denton’s argument on the first English diplomatic mission to the papal curia, highlighting that Clement V addressed eleven letters overall to England between 1 and 5 August 1305. All these letters concerned the collection of the tenth, mentioned above, but they were not engrossed and issued by the papal chancery until November 1305, when the pope was consecrated. Zutshi therefore established a clear link between the first embassy sent from England to the papal curia in July 1305 and the second one sent in October 1305, which, amongst other things, aimed at facilitating the dispatch of the letters addressed to the papal collectors in England. The English chancery enrolments further inform us about the envoys sent from England to the papal curia in the summer of 1305, whose activity complemented that of the English representatives already present in Gascony. On 17 June 1305, twelve days after Clement’s election, in addition to dispatching John of Havering to Saintes, Edward I also announced another embassy to the papal curia and on 10  Denton, ‘Pope Clement V’s early career’, pp. 312–13. See also Denton, Robert Winchelsey, pp. 227–32. 11 Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise, pp. 128–9. 12 Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise, pp. 129–31. 13 Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise, p. 131. 14  Zutshi, ‘Some early letters of Pope Clement V’, pp. 329–30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

137

7 July 1305 safe conducts were given to some of the men ‘going beyond the sea’, namely Robert de Pickeryng, Bartholomew of Ferentino, Thomas de Berkele, Thomas Cobham, Roger la Warre, and John de Tany.15 Similarly, royal letters issued between 17 June and 7 July dealt with the preparation of the mission to the curia and the collection of the tenth, discussed by Denton and Zutshi.16 However, the royal envoys did not leave England before 15 September 1305, when they were summoned to attend parliament in Westminster.17 Likewise, as Trabut-Cussac pointed out, two other royal envoys were dispatched to Bordeaux, where Clement remained until early September 1305. These envoys were John de Benstede, who arrived in Bordeaux on 29 August, and Otto Grandisson, who was in Toulouse at the end of July and Bordeaux by 1 August.18 Their achievements were remarkable, as the king was granted the levy of the tenth on the clergy in England, Scotland, and Wales in only two days.19 Finally, on 4 and 5 October 1305 Edward I wrote to the pope, announcing that he would not be able to attend the papal consecration ceremony in November, and he dispatched a number of envoys to negotiate the organization of the new crusade to the Holy Land and the peace negotiations with France.20 This mission included two Dominicans, John de Wrotham and Thomas Jorz, who, reaching the papal curia before 15 October, was appointed, at royal request, cardinal priest of Santa Sabina on 15 December 1305;21 Bartholomew of Ferentino and Robert Pickering, who only arrived at Lyons on 12 November 1305;22 Otto Grandisson and John de Benstede, who were already in Bordeaux by August; Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln, and Hugh Despenser; the Gascons Philip Martel and Amanieu d’Albret;23 and finally, two experienced diplomats, William of Gainsborough, bishop of Worcester, who had already served as royal representative in Gascony, France and the papal curia since 1292, and Walter Langton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who was treasurer of the exchequer and a former royal envoy to Gascony.24 15  CCR, p. 337. 16 CPR, p. 370: Letters for John de Tany, going to the court of Rome with Roger la Warre, Canterbury, nominating Dunfrid de Staunton and Robert son of William de Wrytele his attorneys for one year. 17  CCR, p. 340. 18  On John of Benstede see C.L. Kingsford, ‘John de Bestede and his missions for Edward I’, in Essays in History presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. H.W.  Davis (Oxford, 1927), pp. 332–59. Benstede’s expenses for this journey are found in TNA, E 101/309/10. On Otto Grandisson see ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37827?docPos=1 (accessed on 1 November 2017). 19 Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise, pp. 129–30. According to Zutshi, ‘Some early letters of Pope Clement V’, p. 333, the papal letters concerning the collection of the tenth were not dispatched to England until November 1305. 20  Rymer, I/2, pp. 973–5. See also S.  Phillips, Edward II (New Haven, CT—London, 2010), pp. 108–9. 21 Wright, The Church, pp. 125, 296. 22  See below n. 22. 23  On the use of Gascons in English diplomatic missions to France and the papal curia see Trabut-Cussac, L’administration anglaise, pp. 229–34. On Amanieu VIII d’Albret and his role in the rationalization of papal finances in the Patrimony of St Peter see A. Jamme, ‘Du journal de caisse au monument comptable. Les fonctions changeantes de l’enregistrement dans le Patrimoine de Saint Pierre (fin XIIIe – XIVe siècle’, MEFR 118/2 (2006), pp. 251–3. 24 Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 540–1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

138

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century T H E G ROW T H O F A D M I N I S T R AT I V E A N D D I P L O M AT I C C O R R E S P O N D E N C E BETWEEN 1305 AND 1306

The dispatch of two diplomatic missions and such a considerable number of envoys from England to the papal curia between the summer and autumn 1305 undoubtedly supports the arguments of Denton and Zutshi that the election of the archbishop of Bordeaux to the Apostolic See bolstered Anglo-papal relations. So too does the significant production of diplomatic and administrative documents between 1305 and 1306. Indeed, as argued in Part I of this book, the growth of literacy went hand-in-glove with the rationalization of bureaucratic systems and impacted on the diplomatic communication among polities between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Accordingly, Queller and Chaplais have maintained that in the late Middle Ages forms of diplomatic and administrative correspondence were varied and presented a good degree of flexibility.25 Furthermore, as Queller put it, from the thirteenth century onwards, alongside letters of credence, instructions, procurations, and safe conducts, ‘the diplomatic pouch often contained and sometimes bulged with copies of documents providing evidence in support of the envoy’s mission’.26 A very good example of the need to provide written evidence to support the diplomatic discourse in the early fourteenth century is given in a letter close, which the royal clerk and envoy Bartholomew of Ferentino sent to Edward I on 22 March 1304, reporting on his mission to Rome.27 Bartholomew of Ferentino, who would later be one of Edward I’s envoys to Clement V’s consecration in November 1305, had in fact been dispatched to Pope Benedict XI together with Otto Grandisson in order to obtain papal confirmation of Boniface VIII’s commitment concerning the grant of the tenth to the English king. However, according to Bartholomew’s report, Boniface’s decision had not been recorded in writing and therefore Benedict XI refused to confirm it merely on the word of Otto Grandisson and Bartholomew, arguing that this grant had to be proved through the exhibition of either an ­original papal letter or, at least, a copy authenticated by a notary (mis en escrit de main commune).28 This episode seems to explain very well what happened during the first diplomatic mission sent by Edward I to Clement V in early August 1305, when, as Denton and Zutshi argued, the English envoys Otto Grandisson and John de Benstede finally secured in writing the papal grant for the collection of the tenth in England through a remarkable number of papal letters dating between 1 and 5 August 1305.29 Similarly, the months between Clement’s election and his consecration saw the production of a significant number of what Queller called ‘evidentiary documents’, 25 D.E. Queller, The office of ambassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton, N.J., 1967), pp. 110–48; P. Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London—New York, 2003), pp. 75–151. 26 Queller, The office of ambassador, p. 127. 27  EMDP, I/1, no. 151, pp. 278–9. 28  EMDP, I/1, no. 151, p. 279: ‘Mes nepurquant bien est fet coe qe vus avet de cele bosoigne comence et bon est quil seit chevy et qe la dite nunciacioun de monsire Othes et de moy seit mis en escrit de main commune.’ 29  Zutshi, ‘Some early letters of Pope Clement V’, pp. 327–8; Zutshi, no. 1–11, pp. 3–8. See Chapter 6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

139

namely documents supporting diplomatic requests. As Cheney first emphasized, between 22 October and 6 November 1305 nine notaries copied thirty-one papal letters in eleven notarial instruments in the wardrobe at Westminster.30 Remarkably, the production of these notarial copies did not go unnoticed in other ­contemporary sources and it is indeed recorded in the entry for 1305 of the Annals of London, in the exchequer accounts, and finally and most importantly in the Gascon rolls.31 In particular, the entry in the Gascon rolls dating from October 1305 links the production of the notarial instruments in the king’s wardrobe to parliament’s decision in Autumn 1305 to send a mission to southern France for the papal consecration. As pointed out earlier, this mission included among other envoys, Otto Grandisson. Interestingly, the Gascon roll entry indicates John of Ditton, clerk of Otto Grandisson, as responsible for transmitting an indenture of the notarial instruments to the royal envoys at the papal curia, among whom there was his master Otto, while Robert de Cotyngham, keeper of the wardrobe, and Adam de Osgodby, keeper of the rolls of chancery, were ordered to preserve the original papal letters in the Tower.32 In Cheney’s words, ‘the reason for the preparation of these copies in 1305 . . . is not obvious, though some of the documents transcribed suggest a connection with the king’s campaign against Archbishop Robert Winchelsey in the curia’.33 Accordingly, writing on Robert Winchelsey, Denton took Cheney’s argument further, linking the production of this documentation to the mission of Walter Langton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and William of Gainsborough, bishop of Worcester, whom Edward I dispatched to the papal curia in late October 1305 to obtain the removal from office of Archbishop Winchelsey and to establish on a new footing the king’s relations with the papacy and the English Church.34 However, what both Cheney and Denton failed to acknowledge is the presence of contemporary annotations, consisting of short calendars written in the margin of the mentioned copies of eleven papal letters and focusing on the main points that are contained in the document.35 The annotated letters deal with five main topics: the collation of papal provisions in England;36 the exercise of ecclesiastical and royal jurisdiction, 30 Queller, The office of ambassador, p. 127; C.R. Cheney, Notaries public in England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Oxford, 1972), pp. 57–8. 31 Cheney, Notaries public, p. 57 n. 2: the payment of one notary responsible for copying some of these letters is recorded on 23 November and 17 December 1305. See also Annals of London, in Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, I, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 76/1 (London, 1882), p. 143. 32  The Gascon Calendar of 1322, ed. G.P. Cuttino (London, 1949), no. 2029, p. 160. 33 Cheney, Notaries public, pp. 57–8. 34  Denton, ‘Pope Clement V’s early career’, pp. 312–14; Denton, Robert Winchelsey, p. 224. 35  The dating of the annotations is further supported by the palaeographical examination of the notes, which are written in fourteenth-century English cursive hand. These marginal annotations are present on six of the eleven notarial instruments, overall containing copies of twelve papal letters and commenting on eleven of these twelve letters. These documents are: TNA, SC 7/36/3; SC 7/18/22; SC 7/10/18; SC 7/33/27; SC 7/36/5; SC 7/36/6. 36  TNA, SC 7/36/6; Sayers, no. 293, p. 133: Innocent IV, 3 August 1245; TNA, SC 7/33/27; Sayers, no. 695, pp. 311–12, Reg. Urban IV, no. 769; CPL, I, p. 403: Urban IV, 17 March 1264; TNA, SC 7/18/22; Sayers, no. 741, pp. 335–6: Gregory X, 1 October 1272; TNA, SC 7/36/5; Sayers, no. 894, p. 403; Reg. Hon. IV, no. 932: Honorius IV, 27 May 1286. See also Cheney, Notaries public, pp. 165–6).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

140

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

especially in the case of criminous clerks and excommunication;37 the collection of the twentieth for the crusade;38 the cult of Edward the Confessor in England;39 and finally two specific matters, Honorius IV’s dispensation allowing Edward I’s children to marry within the fourth degree of consanguinity,40 and Clement IV’s censure against Simon Montfort’s rebellion of 1265.41 Even more interesting is that the contents of most of these letters appear to match those of other diplomatic documents exchanged between the royal envoys and the papacy in October–November 1305. This is especially true of those letters that deal with the collection of the crusading twentieth, the collation of benefices in England and the management of ecclesiastical and royal jurisdiction.42 Likewise, the content of the letters touching on more unusual themes, such as the cult of Edward the Confessor, can be related to the evidence emerging from c­ ontemporary diplomatic correspondence. It is indeed striking that the canonization of another popular English saint, Thomas Cantilupe, was being heavily promoted at the papal curia by the royal representatives between 2 and 4 November 130543, while Clement IV’s censure against Simon Montfort seems to echo the grant made by Clement V to Edward I on 5 August 1305 concerning the absolution from excommunication and interdict issued in cases of rebellion against the crown.44 Finally, it is remarkable that the marriage of Edward I’s children within the prohibited degrees, originally dispensed by Honorius IV, was also addressed in a letter granted by Clement V to Edward on 25 August 1305, in which the pope allowed the English king’s heir to marry the French king’s daughter within the prohibited degrees in order to foster the peace with France.45 37 TNA, SC 7/36/3; Sayers, no. 263–264, pp. 121–2; Reg. Inn. IV, no. 641: Innocent IV, 25 April 1244; TNA, SC 7/36/3; Sayers, no. 313, p. 142: Innocent IV, 22 June 1246. 38  TNA, SC 7/36/6; Sayers, no. 323, p. 146: Innocent IV, 12 June 1247. 39  TNA, SC 7/36/6: Gregory IX, 9 November 1227; Sayers, no. 125–126, p. 61; Innocent IV, 29 May 1244. 40  TNA, SC 7/36/5; Sayers, no. 894, p. 403; Reg. Hon. IV, no. 932: Honorius IV, 27 May 1286. 41  TNA, SC 7/10/18; Sayers, no. 706, pp. 316–17; Reg. Clem. IV, no. 228; CPL, I, p. 431: Clement IV, 13 September 1265. 42  Rymer, I/2, pp. 973–5; see above n. 19. On the crusading tenth see also Zutshi, no. 42–43, pp. 22–3 (dated 16 January 1307). 43  Rymer, I/2, p. 976 and Zutshi, no. 32, pp. 17–18 (dated 23 August 1306). I am most grateful to Professor Robert Bartlett who drew to my attention that Adam son of Adam Swayny of Butterwick, called of Lindsey, the notary involved in the production of the copies of the letters of Gregory IX and Innocent IV concerning the cult of Edward the Confessor in England (TNA, SC 7/36/6), was also responsible for recording Cantilupe’s canonization proceedings. Furthermore, it is remarkable that one of the collectors appointed for the collection of the tenth in England, Ralph Baldock, bishop of London, was also chosen to conduct the enquiry on Cantilupe’s miracles in 1306: see above n. 8 and Denton, Robert Winchelsey, pp. 227–8. The canonization of Thomas Cantilupe became a major affair in Anglo-papal correspondence in December 1307 and April 1308, as a number of petitions addressed from England to the papal curia enrolled in the second Roman roll evidence: TNA, C 70/2, m. 8v, 9, 10. Finally, Phillips, Edward II, p. 143, has recently argued for the instrumental use of references to the cult of Edward the Confessor during Edward II’s coronation, which was possibly used to counter-balance French propaganda of sacred kingship. 44  In Zutshi’s opinion, this letter was sent to England between 1 and 12 November 1305: Zutshi, no. 12, p. 8 (dated 5 August 1305). See also Zutshi, ‘Some early letters of Pope Clement V’, pp. 331–4. 45  According to Zutshi this letter was also dispatched to England in early November 1305: Zutshi, no. 13, pp. 8–9 (dated 25 August 1305); Zutshi, ‘Some early letters of Pope Clement V’, pp. 331–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

141

The motivations of the king’s wardrobe personnel in October–November 1305 to copy and send to the royal envoys at the papal curia notarial copies of papal letters preserved in the crown archives allow further speculations. When looking at the papal letters that were copied and annotated in London in October 1305, it is in fact remarkable that only three of these had been recorded in the papal registers.46 The letters of Clement V’s predecessors copied in the king’s wardrobe were, therefore, not available at the papal curia, and even more so in October 1305, when the chancery had not yet moved the papal archives to France—indeed, the thirteenthcentury papal registers were not moved from Italy to France until 1339.47 Arguably, the royal envoys were well-acquainted with what was, or rather was not, available at the papal curia and they therefore equipped their mission with copies of the documentation that could support their requests. This point is further supported in light of the problems experienced above in 1304 by Bartholomew of Ferentino and Otto Grandisson, whose requests Benedict XI had turned down for lack of supporting written evidence. Indeed, as already noted, Benedict XI had demanded either original papal letters or copies authenticated by notaries as evidentiary documentation. Remarkably, these same envoys formed part of the group sent to Lyons for the papal consecration in November 1305, and it was Grandisson’s clerk, John of Ditton, who was ultimately responsible for sending an indenture of the notarial copies of papal letters produced in London to the royal representatives at the papal curia.48 Furthermore, close examination of the contents of the letters copied and annotated to inform the royal envoys in France sheds new light on the more informal and less documented aims of the English diplomatic mission at the papal curia in November 1305. Despite their brief and rudimentary character, these annotations left in the margin of the copies of eleven papal letters preserved in the royal archives in fact hint at the unofficial agenda of the mission, which did not merely focus on the removal of Winchelsey from office, but had among its aims the canonization of Thomas Cantilupe and the resolution in the king’s favour of disputes concerning the collation of provisions and the exercise of ecclesiastical and royal jurisdiction in England. Undoubtedly, this strengthens Queller’s argument concerning the increasing need to include evidentiary documents as part of diplomatic correspondence from the thirteenth century onwards and indeed it highlights the growing importance On this letter see also D.L. D’Avray, Papacy, Monarchy and Marriage, 860–1600 (Cambridge, 2015), pp. 227–8. On the importance of marriages to conclude diplomatic negotiations see J.M. Moeglin, S. Péquignot, Diplomatie et « relations internationales » au Moyen Age (IXe–XVe siècle) (Paris, 2017), pp. 249–343. 46  These three letters are: TNA, SC 7/36/3; Sayers, no. 263–264, pp. 121–2; Reg. Inn. IV, no. 641: Innocent IV, 25 April 1244; TNA, SC 7/33/27; Sayers, no. 695, pp. 311–12, Reg. Urban IV, no. 769; CPL, I, p. 403: Urban IV, 17 March 1264; TNA, SC 7/10/18; Sayers, no. 706, pp. 316–17; Reg. Clem. IV, no. 228; CPL, I, p. 431: Clement IV, 13 September 1265. 47  H.  Denifle, ‘Die päpstlichen Registerbände des 13. Jhs. und das Inventar derselben vom J. 1339’, Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 2 (1886), pp. 1–106. See also M.J. Pommerol, ‘La bibliothèque de Boniface VIII’, in Libri, lettori e biblioteche dell’Italia medievale (secoli IX–XV). Fonti, testi, utilizzazione del libro, ed. G. Lombardi, D. Nebbiai dalla Guarda (Rome, 2000), pp. 487–505. 48  See above n. 27 and 32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

142

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

of notarial activity with regard to bureaucratic practice across Europe by the early fourteenth century.49 Accordingly, the careful preparation of this diplomatic mission indicates the English chancery’s familiarity with papal administrative practices, since the royal envoys were not only equipped with written evidence, but also documentation in a particular form, namely either originals or notarized copies. Indeed, this documentation is all the more remarkable considering that it was produced in a context of political change, such as the move of the papacy to France and the election of a Gascon pope, who was personally acquainted with the English king, ultimately suggesting a link between political circumstances, diplomacy, and administrative practices. Contrary to the shared approach suggested by many scholars working in the field of Medieval diplomacy, I would therefore argue that administrative and routine correspondence were at the core of successful diplomatic missions, such as that sent by Edward I to the papal curia between June and November 1305 and, therefore, cannot be dismissed as ancillary and marginal. Another noteworthy example of how political change both in England and at the papal curia impacted on the growth of diplomatic and administrative practices in the early fourteenth century is given by the rationalization of record-keeping of diplomatic correspondence in the English chancery from the mid-thirteenth century onwards. As argued in Chapter  2, from 1259 special chancery enrolments recorded the outgoing diplomatic correspondence, while new series of enrolments dealing with foreign and diplomatic affairs, such as the Roman rolls that began in 1306, were kept during the reigns of Edward II and Edward III.50 Whereas ­historians have in the past dismissed the Roman rolls as a source of diplomatic ­correspondence since, in Cuttino’s words, they do not contain the ‘more secret diplomatic correspondence’, they clearly evidence the importance of routine administrative business in fourteenth-century diplomatic discourse, while their starting date shows how extra-ordinary production and registration of documents often coincided with moments of significant political change and intense diplomatic exchange.51 In particular, the Roman rolls appear to have originated alongside the growth of diplomatic relations between Edward I and the papacy which intensified from November 1305, when the king sent a large embassy to the papal curia for Clement V’s consecration and in order to deal with Robert Winchelsey’s removal from his archiepiscopal see in May 1306.52 Arguably, the dating and subject matter of the petitions enrolled in the first Roman roll (C 70/1) can take us a step further in this direction. These petitions are dated between April and September 1306 and mainly concern some of the issues that determined the development of Anglo-papal relations in the early fourteenth 49 Queller, The office of ambassador, p. 127; Cheney, Notaries public, pp. 26–39. 50  B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research 85 (2012), pp. 607–12. See also Chapter 2. 51 G.P. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), p. 166; Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 597–8, 612–14. 52 Denton, Robert Winchelsey, pp. 232–5; Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, p. 610. According to H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes on the use of the Great Seal of England (London, 1926), p. 360, in the summer of 1306 some letters addressed to the pope were duly sealed, but failed to be enrolled.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

143

century: the dispute over temporalities between Edward I and Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury; Scottish affairs, which notoriously dominated the last year of Edward I’s reign; and, finally, collation to benefices and routine business, especially concerning the diocese of Canterbury and the Scottish borders.53 In particular, between April and September 1306 the enrolment of petitions in the first Roman roll concerning Scotland seems to support the idea that the political situation in the north of England affected the administrative and diplomatic practices of crown departments at a time when, in Prestwich words, ‘the war had reached a new level of savagery’.54 The petitions concerning Scotland all indicate Edward I’s attitude toward the Scottish rebellion in the second half of 1306, when the king sought revenge against Robert Bruce and his supporters and papal endorsement for his actions. Significantly, on 20 September 1306 Edward I petitioned both the pope and the Englishman Thomas Jorz, who had been appointed cardinal of Santa Sabina in December 1305, and sent to the papal curia two envoys to deal with the deposition of both William Lamberton, bishop of St Andrews, who had allied with Robert Bruce in June 1304, and of Robert Wishart, bishop of Glasgow, who had absolved Bruce before his formal enthronement at Scone in March 1306.55 Most interestingly, in the same petitions Edward I unsuccessfully asked the pope whether the two unfaithful bishops might be replaced respectively with renowned representatives of the anti-Bruce party in Scotland. These were William Comyn, brother of John Comyn, lord of Badenoch, who had allied with the Balliols from the 1270s and was killed by Robert Bruce in February 1306;56 and Geoffrey of Mowbray, lord of Dalmeny, who had married John Comyn’s daughter and was granted the land of the rebel James de le Garviagh in 1305, becoming one of Edward’s supporters in the campaign against Robert Bruce in March 1306.57 Edward I’s interventionism in the Fife region was in line with his strategy in the 1290s and is further illustrated by a second petition, dating from 28 October 1306 and addressed to Clement V, in which Edward I sought a marriage dispensation on behalf of Duncan IV Macduff, earl of Fife, and Mary de Monthemer, daughter of the earl of Gloucester and Edward’s niece.58 This petition, following a 53  TNA, C70/1. See also Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 609–10. 54 Prestwich, Edward I, p. 509. 55  TNA, C70/1, m. 4. These petitions were sent to be sealed at Northampton and were enrolled before issue: Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes, p. 360. See also Anglo-Scottish relations 1174–1328. Some selected documents, ed. E.L.G.  Stones (London, 1965), n. 35, pp. 135–9; Prestwich, Edward I, pp.  505–6. On Edward I and Edward II’s connections with the English cardinal Thomas Jorz see Wright, The Church, pp. 125–6, 296; 310. On Wishart’s ability to exploit Edward I’s support and his opposition to the king after 1296 see G.W. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1965), pp. 182–7; M. Brown, ‘Aristocratic Politics and the Crisis of Scottish Kingship, 1286-96’, The Scottish Historical Review 90 (2011), pp. 18–23; M.  Brown, The wars of Scotland, 1214–1371 (2004), pp. 197–205. 56  Brown, ‘Aristocratic Politics’, p. 10. On the Comyns see also A. Young, Robert the Bruce’s Rivals: The Comyns 1212–1314 (East Linton, 1997), pp. 124–6, 184–205. 57  Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London, ed. J.  Bain, II (Edinburgh, 1884), no. 1726, p. 1913. See also G.S.  Barrow, Kingship and Unity. Scotland, 1000–1306 (Edinburgh, 2003), p. 184. 58  TNA, C70/1, m. 4. Brown also argues that already in the 1280s the political alliance between Edward I and the Scottish nobility had been marked through the marriage between Duncan Macduff

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

144

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

privy seal writ, openly mentions the king’s need to secure support in Scotland through marriage alliances with the anti-Bruce Scottish nobility.59 On 6 September 1307, soon after succeeding his father, Edward II sent a second petition on the same matter to Clement V, who ultimately granted a dispensation for Macduff on 3 November 1307.60 Finally, on 10 November 1306 Edward I dispatched to the papal curia the archbishop of York and the bishop of Ely to petition the pope for the transfer to a safer site of the abbey of Scone, where Robert Bruce’s coronation had taken place in March 1306 and which, in Edward’s words, was located ‘in the midst of a perverse nation’.61 Indeed, by 17 June 1306 Clement V had already acknowledged the presence of the bishop of Ely and the archbishop of York at the papal curia and appointed them as executors to enquire on the authenticity of some relics preserved at Scone.62 The petitions concerning Scotland were dispatched to the curia through a mission led by Thomas of Southwark and Roger le Sauvage, whose presence at the papal curia is acknowledged by Clement V in three letters addressed to Edward I on 6 May and 7 July 1306 and on 24 February 1307. In those letters the pope reassured the king that he was addressing the Scottish issues, especially the removal of the bishops of Glasgow and St Andrews from office, along with the dispute between Edward I and Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury.63 Furthermore, the petitions concerning the Winchelsey affair dominate the first three membranes of the first Roman roll (C70/1), dating from the period between April and October 1306. Indeed, Denton convincingly argued that in his letter, dating from 6 April 1306 and enrolled at the beginning of the first Roman roll, ‘the king scarcely needed to reinforce . . . his case against Winchelsey, for on 2 February the pope had already taken action’, suspending the archbishop from office and from the administration of the church of Canterbury in spiritualities and ­temporalities.64 Ultimately, in Spring 1306 the pope appointed William Testa and William Géraud of Sore to administer the spiritualities of Canterbury diocese, while the king obtained parliament’s support for the direct taxation of the clergy’s spiritualities, which was needed to fund the Scottish war. Meanwhile, the pope appointed Walter Langton to administer the temporalities of Canterbury diocese provoking the king’s ­reaction.65 In fact, as the second petition enrolled in the first Roman roll shows, on 2 July 1306 Edward I sent to the papal curia master Philip Martel, doctor of canon and Joanna de Clare, daughter of Gilbert, earl of Gloucester. However, the relationship between the Macduff and the English was broken when Macduff rebelled against Edward in 1297: Brown, ‘Aristocratic Politics’, pp. 6, 22–3. 59  TNA, C70/1, m. 4: ‘pro bono pacis et dilectionis inter dictos nostros subditos Anglie et Scocie nutriende’. The warrant (dated Lanercost, 12 October 1306) is calendared in CCW, p. 256. 60  TNA, C70/2, m. 13; Reg. Clem. V, no. 2040; CPL, III, p. 30. 61  TNA, C70/1, m. 3 and 4: ‘in locis suspectis situate’. See also Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 506–9. 62  Zutshi, no. 28, pp. 15–16. 63  Zutshi, no. 27, p. 15; no. 31, p. 17. 64 TNA, C70/1, m. 5; Denton, Robert Winchelsey, p. 234. The royal petitions addressed to the papal curia were also recorded in the register of Walter Reynolds, Winchelsey’s successor at Canterbury: Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, Cantuariensis archiepiscopi, ed. R.  Graham, II (Oxford, 1956), pp. 1348–51. 65 Denton, Robert Winchelsey, pp. 236–23.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

145

and civil law and canon of Chichester, who settled an agreement concerning Winchelsey acceptable to both parties in September.66 Additionally, alongside Winchelsey’s deposition and its aftermath, the first Roman roll touches on disputes concerning collation to benefices in England, especially in the Canterbury diocese, and on the Scottish borders. These comprise the case of the provision to the church of Reculver in Kent for the king’s physician Nicholas of Tyngewick between 1306 and 1308.67 This dispute is fully enrolled in the first Roman roll along with further correspondence dealing with the administration of temporalities and spiritualities in the north of England. For instance, on 25 January 1307 Edward I successfully petitioned the pope on behalf of the Carmelites, to whom Clement V granted the right to build a parish church at Kingston-uponHull on 23 June 1307.68 Similarly, on 11 July 1306 Edward I petitioned the pope about Durham Priory, which was affected by the Scottish wars and an on-going dispute with Antony Bek, bishop of Durham. Once more, in an attempt to restore royal prerogatives over the administration of temporalities and spiritualities of the church of Durham, the king asked the pope to reconsider the suspension for debts of Richard de Hoton, prior of Durham, and opposed the enforcement of the papal mandate, dated 5 March 1306, in which the pope had appointed Antony Bek as administrator of Durham Priory. Indeed, as Fraser put it, from March 1306 Edward I considered royal administration over the church of Durham as a priority, especially since Robert Bruce dangerously held within the liberty of Durham the franchises of the manors of Hart and Hartlepool.69 Although contemporary sources, such as the papal registers, show that overall only some of the king’s petitions sent to the papal curia and dealing with collation to benefices were enrolled by the English chancery, the examples mentioned above undoubtedly reveal a clear bias towards the enrolment in the Roman rolls of those petitions that concerned the royal prerogatives over the administration of ­temporalities and spiritualities in Canterbury diocese and on the Scottish borders, which became political hotspots in the last year of Edward I’s reign.70 Indeed, as Menache has recently put it, Edward’s continuous diplomatic correspondence with Clement V highlights ‘clear symptoms of the precarious situation in England and of the king’s designs to have the pope play a crucial role in the defence of royal

66 TNA, C70/1, m. 5, petitions dated 2 July 1306 and 7 September 1306; Denton, Robert Winchelsey, pp. 240–1. On Philip Martel see above n. 22 and FEA, 1300–1541, VII, p. 55. On the activity of William Testa and William Géraud of Sore in England in August 1306 see also Zutshi, no. 33, p. 18. 67  Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 612–14. See also R.  Graham, ‘Sidelights on the rectors and parishioners of Reculver from the register of archbishop Winchelsey’, Archaelogia Cantiana 57 (1944), pp. 8–11; Denton, Robert Winchelsey, pp. 239–41. TNA, C70/1, m. 3–5 records five petitions dating between 7 September and October 1306 and concerning the appointment at Reculver. 68  TNA, C 70/1, m. 3; Reg. Clem. V, no. 2103. 69 TNA, C 70/1, m. 5. See also Records of Antony Bek, Bishop and Patriarch, 1283–1311, ed. C.M. Fraser (Durham 1953), 109–18, pp. 113–23; C.M. Fraser, A History of Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham, 1283–1311 (Oxford, 1957), pp. 197–204; Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 543–4. 70  See also P. Heath, Church and Realm, 1272–1461. Conflict and Collaboration in An Age of Crises (London, 1988), p. 61.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

146

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

prerogatives’.71 Equally, these examples also challenge Cuttino’s argument about the irrelevance of routine business within the diplomatic milieu, while they once more emphasize the flexibility of Medieval bureaucracy in creating and adapting its record-keeping to political circumstances. A N G L O - PA PA L D I P L O M AT I C C O R R E S P O N D E N C E A F T E R T H E S U C C E S S I O N O F E DWA R D I I As Wright put it, scholars are divided over the developments of Anglo-papal relations after the succession of Edward II to the English throne. While in the early twentieth century the debate had traditionally asserted the weakness and conciliatory attitude of Edward II toward the papacy, from the 1950s historians such as Pantin and McKisack revised this assessment stressing how increasing clerical taxation during Edward II’s reign reflected the crown’s strong position vis-à-vis the Church.72 Overall, in Wright’s words, ‘the crown in the early fourteenth century very definitely pursued a policy in papal relations that can be seen in a certain continuity under the three Edwards from Clement V through John XXII, and that in finance and in many other areas . . . achieved no small measure of success in safeguarding the royal prerogative’.73 In a similar fashion, Zutshi emphasized that, although there were cases of friction between Clement V and Edward II, the English king received important financial favours from the pope, while Heath remarked that the Church lost more ground in England under Edward II than under his father, especially with regard to taxation, jurisdiction, provisions, patronage, and vacancies.74 Finally, Menache has recently argued that ‘the pope’s unconditional support of Edward I and Edward II was in open opposition to prevailing views among the nobility and the prelates, thus leaving Clement with a fragile alliance with the crown, the utility of which may be questioned. It seems, however, that, in the English context, political and economic considerations were of marginal importance for Clement V and papal policy was basically dictated by the pope’s high regard for the kings of England.’75 Arguably, the first two years of Edward II’s reign were dominated by three main political issues: the reform of royal finances, drained by the on-going war in  Scotland; the need to find an agreement with France, underwritten by the ­marriage between Edward and Isabella in January 1308; and the Gaveston affair.76 71 Menache, Clement V, p. 248. 72 Wright, The Church, pp. 169–71. See also W.A. Pantin, The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955), pp. 76–81; M. McKisack, The Fourteenth Century, 1307–1399 (Oxford, 1959), pp. 283–9. See also T.F. Tout, The Place of the Reign of Edward II in English History (Manchester, 1936), pp. 206–7. A similar argument is also put forward in Y. Renouard, ‘Les relations d’Édouard II et Clément V d’après les Roles Gascons’, in Études d’histoire médiévale, II (Paris, 1968), pp. 935–57. 73 Wright, The Church, pp. 171–2. 74  Zutshi, ‘The letters of the Avignon Popes’, pp. 263–5; Heath, Church and Realm, pp. 65, 91–2. Similarly, Phillips, Edward II, pp. 448–51, argued that ‘for most his reign Edward II had been on good terms with both the English Church and the papacy’. 75 Menache, Clement V, p. 247. 76 Phillips, Edward II, pp. 125–60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

147

Ultimately, Edward II made use of papal external support in all these situations in order to counter-balance his opponents both at home and abroad. Indeed, diplomatic correspondence between England and the papal curia intensified under Edward II, as the second Roman roll evidences. The comparison of the number of petitions enrolled in the Roman rolls during the last fifteenth months of Edward I’s reign and the first fifteenth months of Edward II’s reign in fact reveal a dramatic rise in the amount of correspondence which was dispatched to the papal curia and enrolled by the English chancery (thirty-seven petitions are enrolled in C 70/1 as opposed to seventy-four in C 70/2).77 Unsurprisingly, most of the petitions enrolled in the second Roman roll during the first year of Edward II’s reign mainly touch on collation to benefices in England; the situation in the Holy Land and the plan for a new crusade; Anglo-French relations; and Gaveston’s excommunication and exile. Accordingly, when compared with the petitions enrolled in the first Roman roll, it is remarkable that the number of petitions addressed to the papacy and concerning the Scottish war decreased between July 1307 and October 1308, showing Edward’s focus on his English and continental affairs at the time.78 Indeed, in Phillips’ words, ‘Edward II was not a reluctant warrior but he had good and urgent political, financial and personal ­reasons for abandoning the campaign in Scotland’.79 Yet, it is remarkable that the only reference to Scottish affairs mentioned in Edward II’s diplomatic ­correspondence addressed to the curia between 1307 and 1308 concerned the negotiations for the release of the bishops of Glasgow and St Andrews, as requested by the papal envoys Sicardus of Lavaur, canon of Narbonne, and John de Ferraria, who were dispatched to England in April 1308.80 Furthermore, negotiations with Philip IV, king of France, appear to have been at the top of Edward II’s agenda at the beginning of his reign. The first two 77  TNA, C 70/1, m. 1–5 (dating between 6 April 1306 and 5 July 1307); C 70/2, m. 1r–6r; 7v–8v; 11v (dating between 18 August 1307 and 3 October 1308). My counting of the petitions enrolled in the Roman rolls does not include the littere a pari. However, here one caveat has to be pointed out, before proceeding further with the examination of the petitions enrolled in the second Roman roll. TNA, C 70/2 profoundly differs from the other enrolments in the same series, since it includes diplomatic correspondence that does not strictly deal only with Anglo-papal relations, but also with correspondence addressed to the king of Portugal, Holland, the king of Armenia, and even to the Mongols: Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 607–8. As Menache pointed out, the diplomatic contacts with Armenia and the Mongols can be also explained in light of the plans for a new crusade, which were warmly supported by Clement V from 1305: Menache, Clement V, pp. 101–5. On the contacts between the English crown, Armenia, and the Mongols see S.  Phillips, The Medieval Expansion of Europe (Oxford, 19982), pp. 128–9; Phillips, Edward II, p. 213. For the petitions enrolled in C 70/2 and addressed to king of Armenia, the Mongols and the mission to convert the Muslims in the Holy Land see: TNA, C 70/2, m. 8v, 10, 11. See also N. Housley, The Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 1305–1378 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 12–14. Furthermore, it should be stressed that some membranes of C 70/2 were removed in the early twentieth century and included in the Treaty rolls (C 76): Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, p. 607 n. 50. Finally, fewer letters of credence for diplomatic envoys are overall enrolled in C 70/2 (see below Appendix 1, Table 2). 78  See below Appendix 1, Table 2. See also Menache, Clement V, pp. 70–81. 79 Phillips, Edward II, p. 129. 80  Zutshi, no. 51–52, pp. 26–7 (dated 9 April 1308); TNA, C 70/2, m. 7 (Edward’s response dated 23 July 1308). The two bishops were finally released in October 1308: Zutshi, no. 56–57, pp. 28–9; Phillips, Edward II, p. 153.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

148

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

membranes of the second Roman roll contain twenty-one petitions concerning Anglo-French relations, dating between 21 August and 6 November 1307. On 21 August John of Havering, seneschal of Gascony, was dispatched to the papal curia and to the king of France with a peace proposal that asked for the restitution of the castle of Mauléon, which Edward I had already put forward between 1305 and 1306 as a precondition for the marriage of the future Edward II to Isabella.81 Further negotiations followed in Autumn 1307: in early October two papal nuncios, John de Ferraria and Gaillard de Gazaco, were dispatched to Edward II with the authority of negotiating viva voce the peace between England and France, while French and papal envoys arrived in England for the funeral of Edward I on 18 October.82 Finally, on the same day as Edward’s funeral, the king sent three papal letters to Fortaner de Batz and Garcia Arnaldi de Garleux, appointing them as executors to carry out the restitution of the castle of Mauléon, while on 6 November he dispatched a bigger embassy to Philip IV and Clement V in order to discuss the details concerning Isabella’s dowry and conclude the negotiations. Interestingly, a note in the margin of these petitions enrolled in C 70/2 states that the envoys carried to the French king and the pope copies of the Treaty of Montreuil of 1299, where the marriage between Isabella and Edward had first been negotiated, and other letters, which were later returned to the royal archives.83 The second major political issue witnessed in the second Roman roll is the Gaveston affair. As Phillips has recently argued, while Edward II was in France for his marriage, Gaveston’s regency and his extravagant administration put the king under pressure on his return to England, allowing Gaveston’s opponents and the king of France to obtain the former’s exile on 18 May 1308. Along with his ­departure from England, which the king finally demanded on 2 June, Gaveston was also deprived of his revenues and title as earl of Cornwall, while the archbishop of Canterbury threatened excommunication against him, should he return.84 That Edward was unwillingly forced to give in to the barons and king of France’s ­opposition to Gaveston is further evidenced by a membrane sewn on the second Roman roll (C 70/2), the importance of which has so far been underplayed.85 This membrane indeed records four petitions sent to Clement V, Philip IV, and the cardinals through Otto Grandisson and Amanieu d’Albret on 16 June 1308, by which Edward II tried to gain papal support for Gaveston’s appointment as lieutenant of Ireland and his absolution from excommunication. Yet, a note added by a chancery clerk which follows these petitions points out that all the letters concerning Gaveston were read before Edward II on 16 June 1308 and sealed before 81  TNA, C 70/2, m. 13. See Phillips, Edward II, p. 109, 116–18. 82  TNA, C 70/2, m. 12; E.A.R. Brown, ‘The Political Repercussions of Family Ties in the Early Fourteenth Century: The Marriage of Edward II of England and Isabelle of France’, Speculum 63 (1988), pp. 573–95; E.A.R. Brown, ‘The Marriage of Edward II of England and Isabelle of France: A Postscript’, Speculum 64 (1989), pp. 373–9; Phillips, Edward II, p. 132. 83  TNA, C 70/2, m. 12; Phillips, Edward II, p. 133. On the Treaty of Montreuil see also Phillips, Edward II, pp. 80–1. 84 Phillips, Edward II, pp. 146–50. See also J.R.  Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster, 1307–1322 (Oxford, 1970), pp. 78–84. 85 P. Chaplais, Piers Gaveston. Edward II’s adoptive brother (Oxford, 1994), p. 48.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

149

the king in the exclusive presence of a few trusted members of his household, namely John of Brittany, earl of Richmond, Henry de Percy, Hugh Despenser the Elder, William Melton, and Adam de Osgodby, keeper of the rolls of chancery.86 Ultimately, as Chaplais put it, this membrane of the Roman rolls shows how between May and July 1308, Edward II tried ‘to control some of the work done in chancery under the great seal’ in order to favour Gaveston and others at his request.87 On 11 August 1308 the pope replied to Edward’s concerns about the Gaveston affair in a curial letter, where he announced the embassy to England of the papal envoy Arnaud d’Aux, bishop of Poitiers.88 Whereas the enrolment of the petitions concerning the Gaveston affair u ­ ltimately shows how administrative practices often went hand-in-glove with political circumstances, the majority of the petitions recorded in the second Roman roll deal with routine business and concern the collation to benefices and their taxation in England.89 The issue of taxation of ecclesiastical benefices in England had already arisen towards the end of Edward I’s reign, when in February 1306 William Testa and William Géraud of Sore were dispatched to England to administer the vacancy in Canterbury diocese and were commissioned to collect the fruits of the first year of all ecclesiastical benefices falling vacant within the next three years, provoking protests during the parliament of Carlisle in Spring 1307. The complaints against the papal collectors prompted Edward I and Edward II to enforce the prohibition of the collection of annates, limiting the papal power of tax collection in England in a considerable way.90 In October 1307 the issue concerning the collection of annates was newly addressed during the diplomatic mission, mentioned above, of John of Ferraria and Gaillard de Gazaco, whom Clement V dispatched to Edward I with the authority of negotiating viva voce the peace between England and France.91 Although in December 1307 Edward II allowed the collectors to proceed, exempting monasteries and priories from the collection, in April 1308 Clement V once more complained that Edward’s promises made to John of Ferraria had not been kept and papal collectors were still unable to carry out their duties. In July 1308 the pope finally received a new apologetic letter from the king.92 Indeed, from Autumn 1307 the dispute concerning ecclesiastical taxation became part of a wider range of Anglo-papal diplomatic negotiations that also included provisions to benefices in England, especially as far as episcopal appointments were concerned. From the beginning of his reign Edward II had in fact been successful in getting his candidates elected to the episcopate. In Wright’s words, the ‘group that undoubtedly contributed to the crown’s policy at this time was the bishops; whereas in the France of Philip the Fair royal servants were apparently 86  TNA, C 70/2, m. 7a. These letters accompanied by the same memorandum are also enrolled in the Patent rolls: CPR, 1307–1313, p. 83. 87 Chaplais, Piers Gaveston, pp. 45–9, 68; CCR, 1307–1313, 225–226. Interestingly, as Chaplais pointed out, in these petitions Piers Gaveston is still called earl of Cornwall, although by this date only the letters issued by the privy seal addressed Gaveston with this title. 88  Zutshi, no. 54, pp. 27–8. 89  See below Appendix 1, Table 2. 90  TNA, C 70/2, m. 12 = Rymer, II/1, p. 10; Lunt, Financial relations, pp. 488–90. See above n. 67. 91  TNA, C 70/2, m. 12 = Rymer, II/1, p. 10; Lunt, Financial relations, p. 490. 92  TNA, C 70/2, m. 8 = Rymer, II/1, p. 25, 42, 53; Lunt, Financial relations, p. 490.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

150

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the source of much anti-clericalism, in the England of Edward II there was a sharp increase in the proportion of crown servants who were promoted to the episcopate’.93 Undoubtedly, this was true of the appointment of the bishop of Worcester, after the death of William of Gainsborough in September 1307. Edward II immediately claimed his collation rights and, taking advantage of the presence of Peter of Spain, cardinal of Santa Sabina, who was in England for the funeral of Edward I, on 21  November 1307 he petitioned the cardinals and Clement V, asking for the provision of his treasurer Walter Reynolds to the see of Worcester.94 Reynolds’s provision was, however, opposed by the cathedral chapter and it was only granted on 12 February 1308, probably thanks to the negotiation of the English diplomatic envoys, dispatched to the papal curia to finalize the arrangements for the wedding of Edward and Isabella in November 1307.95 Although Clement V ordered the consecration of Reynolds in June 1308, the expedition of the letter containing Reynolds’s appointment was delayed at the papal curia, as three royal petitions addressed to the cardinals in August 1308 evidence, and Reynolds was only consecrated on 13 October 1308.96 In a similar fashion, Edward II swiftly supported the election to the vacant bishopric of Exeter of his formal clerk in Gascony, Walter Stapeldon, on whose behalf the king petitioned the pope and the cardinal of Santa Sabina in December 1307 in order to stop the appeal of his opponent Richard de Plymstock before the papal curia.97 Furthermore, evidence suggests that, together with episcopal appointments, from the beginning of his reign Edward II actively supported the provision of a number of his clerks, challenging papal prerogatives to ecclesiastical provisions, mainly exercised in England in the early fourteenth century through the papal reservation of benefices and through the delegation of provisory powers to papal diplomatic representatives during their missions across the Channel.98 Accordingly, in the summer of 1309 during the Stamford parliament, Edward II gained b­ aronial support to protect the royal prerogatives against the practice of papal provisions in England.99 Clear evidence of the king’s involvement in provisions to benefices is given in the case of disputed collations. Among these examples are the dispute over the deanship of Lincoln, which was contested between Clement V’s nephew, Raymond de Got, cardinal of Santa Maria Nova, and Joscelyn of Kirmington; and 93 Wright, The Church, p. 173. See also Denton, Robert Winchelsey, p. 259; Phillips, Edward II, p. 159. 94  TNA, C 70/2, m. 10–11 (four petitions dating 21 November 1307). See also Phillips, Edward II, p. 132 n. 48. A list of the presents of Edward I and Edward II to Peter of Spain during his diplomatic missions to England is published in EMDP, I/2, no. 407, pp. 819–20. For Peter of Spain’s role in the arrangements for Isabella and Edward II’s marriage see also P. Linehan, ‘The English mission of cardinal Petrus Hispanus, the Chronicle of Walter Guisborough, and news from Castile at Carlisle (1307)’, EHR 117 (2002), pp. 605–21. 95  TNA, C 70/2, m. 8; Reg. Clem V, no. 2464; CPL, II, p. 34. See above n. 83–85. 96  TNA, C 70/2, m. 7; Reg. Clem V, no. 2890; CPL, II, p. 41; FEA, 1300–1541, IV, p. 59. 97  TNA, C 70/2, m. 8v; Rymer, II/1, p. 19; FEA, 1300–1541, IX, p. 1. 98 Wright, The Church, pp. 47–52. 99 Phillips, Edward II, p. 160. On the contrary, Wright, The Church, p. 97, pointed out that the protests of the Stamford parliament ‘were not the main topics’ of this assembly and stressed that ‘papal intervention in ecclesiastical appointments was largely at the requests of other parties’, while ‘in such situations the crown was understandably eager to gain the most as one of those parties’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

151

the dispute over the treasureship of York, contended by Francesco Gaetani and Walter of Bedewynd.100 Finally, from 1307 Edward II decisively exercised his patronage over monastic foundations, for instance, petitioning the pope for the Dominican priory of King’s Langley in November 1307,101 intervening in the disputed election of the abbot of Westminster in 1308,102 and supporting the Abbey of Bardney in its dispute against the bishop of Lincoln.103 C O N C LU S I O N S Overall, the study of diplomatic missions and correspondence between England and the papacy supports the argument that the election of Clement V to the Apostolic See opened a new phase in Anglo-papal relations, especially between 1305 and 1309. In particular, this first case study emphasizes the interaction of different agencies both in England and at the papal curia that ultimately prompted the growth and development of administrative and diplomatic practices. From October 1305 political change both in England and at the papal curia stimulated the creation of new depositories for record-keeping in the royal administrative departments, such as the copies of papal letters preserved in the king’s wardrobe in October 1305 and the Roman rolls. Undoubtedly, by the early fourteenth century these administrative advancements were required because of the growth of bureaucratic organizations in England and at the papal curia, which increasingly relied on the use of literacy and written evidence, notably notarial documents, whose employment was increasingly expected in the diplomatic communication among polities.104 Furthermore, the evidence allows us to shed new light on the decisive ­importance of routine administrative and jurisdictional business within the diplomatic milieu. In this respect, the example of Edward I’s mission to the papal curia after Clement V’s election clearly demonstrates how the king’s agenda not only included major political issues such as the crusade and the peace with France, but also private and financial business, provisions to benefices and the administration of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England. In particular, the petitions recorded in the second Roman roll (C 70/2) deal with both major political issues, such as the deposition of Winchelsey, the political situation in Scotland, the Gaveston affair and the AngloFrench peace, as well as routine ecclesiastical and administrative business. Although the study of ordinary administration provides evidence that has less obvious significance at first glance, it is extremely meaningful if the reasons behind certain 100 TNA, C 70/2, m. 11v; Wright, The Church, pp. 292–3. TNA, C 70/2, m. 9, Wright, The Church, p. 320. 101  TNA, C 70/2, m. 12; Wright, The Church, p. 232. This petition was approved by Pope John XXII on 8 June 1320: Reg. John XXII, no. 11585; CPL, II, p. 207. 102  TNA, C 70/2, m. 6rv, 7rv; 8v. 103  TNA, C 70/2, m. 8v; Bombi, ‘Andrea Sapiti. His Origins and His Register as a Curial Proctor’, EHR 500 (2008), pp. 139–40. For the dispute between Bardney and the bishop of Lincoln see A.  McHardy, ‘The Great Bardney Abbey Scandal, 1303-1318’, in Fourteenth-Century England, ed. W.M. Ormrod, VIII (Woodbridge, 2012), pp. 31–45. 104  See Chapters 1 and 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

152

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

requests are properly examined. As pointed out above, this is the case for requests in support of Duncan Macduff ’s marriage dispensation, Durham Priory, and the other petitions concerning provisions to benefices, which u ­ ltimately demonstrate the king’s vindication of his right of collation to benefices and control over the episcopate in England. Furthermore, as argued in Chapter 4, the examination of petitions concerning provisions to benefices and ecclesiastical administration, documented in the Roman rolls, helps us to focus on the use of provisions to benefices as rewards which helped the English crown to build unofficial lobbies at the papal curia.105 Ultimately, as already suggested in Chapter 5, the initiative and inventiveness of administrative officials and diplomats, who were acquainted with different administrative practices, contributed to the establishment and implementation of ­innovative administrative procedures and favoured the communication among polities. This is certainly the case for the mission, mentioned above, of Bartholomew of Ferentino and Otto Grandisson, who were dispatched to the papal curia in 1304 and in November 1305. Both these envoys in fact had a good inside knowledge of the administrative practice of the papal curia and made sure that their paper trail was properly informed through relevant documentation, authenticated by ­notaries, as papal administrative procedures required. Accordingly, the personal acquaintance between Clement V and his former overlords, Edward I and Edward II, possibly played an important part, carrying a degree of familiarity within the late Medieval diplomatic milieu, which is often difficult to appreciate because of the lack of sources, such as early modern ambassadors’ correspondence.  A P P E N D I X 1 :   A C O M PA R I S O N B E T W E E N T N A , C 7 0 /1 A N D T N A , C 7 0 / 2 Table 1.  Statistical analysis of C 70/1 and C 70/2  

C70/1

C70/2

Benefices France (incl. Gascony) Credentials/Procurations/Recommendations Scotland Winchelsey Crusading Marriage dispensations Canonization Gaveston Others

24.3% 8.1% 32.4% 10.5% 13.5% ---5.2% 2.7% ---2.7%

25.7% 14.8% 17.5% 1.3% 10.8% 5.4% 4% 6.7% 4% 9.8%

105  See Chapter 4.

Table 2.  G

fic es

ne

Be

as ls /P co ro ny cu ) ra tio ns /.. . Sc ot la nd W in ch el M se ar y C ria r u ge sa di di ng sp en sa tio Ca ns no ni za tio n G av es to n O th er s

cl .

(in



tia

en

ce

Fr an re d

C

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

The Election of Clement V and Edward II’s Succession

100%

50%

0%

C70/1 C70/2

153

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

7 The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327) While the previous chapter focused on how comparable administrative and diplomatic practices developed in England and at the papal curia in the early fourteenth century as the result of new political circumstances and thanks to the specialized contribution of agents and representatives, further touching on the importance of personal acquaintances in later Medieval Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse, this chapter investigates the bureaucratization of administrative and diplomatic practices at times of international political conflict and domestic turmoil. The specific aim of this chapter is to demonstrate how domestic and international conflicts influenced record-keeping and diplomatic practice in England and the papal curia, ultimately questioning whether bureaucratic developments were entirely driven by what Weber called an ‘autonomous’ logic.1 Arguably the period between 1323 and 1327 provides a good case study to illustrate these issues, since it was marked by the outbreak of the so-called war of St Sardos between England and France for the control of Guyenne as well as the deposition of Edward II in January 1327. The alleged reason for the outbreak of the Anglo-French conflict was the destruction of the bastide of St Sardos, near Agen, a fortified settlement belonging to the French Benedictine abbey of Sarlat burnt down by a group of Gascons in retaliation against the French on 15 and 16 October 1323. In response, the French seized the English castle of Montpezat and on 1 April 1324 the French king’s uncle Charles of Valois launched a military campaign in Guyenne, carried out during that summer, when the French gained control over most of the Duchy of Aquitaine with the exception of the towns of Bordeaux, Bayonne, Saint-Sever, and a few minor castles. From the autumn of 1324 John XXII oversaw the peace negotiations, ultimately securing the end of the conflict in May 1325 on condition that Edward II transferred the Duchy to his son Edward, swore allegiance to the French crown and paid a conveyance fee of 60,000 livres. However, the domestic conflict between Edward II and Queen Isabella, which broke out in September 1325, when the queen refused to return from France to England, intersected with the Anglo-French settlement in Aquitaine following confiscation by Edward II of the possessions of Isabella and his son.2 Consequently, 1  See Chapter 1. 2  The phases of the war of St Sardos are detailed in M. Vale, The Angevin Legacy and the Hundred Years War, 1250–1340 (Oxford, 1990), pp. 227–44; S. Phillips, Edward II (New Haven, CT—London, 2010), pp. 461–77.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

155

Charles IV, king of France, reoccupied Guyenne and it was not until after Edward II’s deposition that, on 31 March 1327, Charles IV and Edward III reached a settlement, which included the French restitution of the English coastal possessions of the Duchy between Charente and the Pyrenees in return for the conveyance fee of 60,000 livres agreed in 1325 and a war indemnity of 50,000 marks.3 The influence of the war of St Sardos (1323–5) on the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337 and the subsequent political turmoil in England, which ­ultimately led to the deposition of Edward II, have been especially debated by the historiography since 1954, when Chaplais published the edition of English diplomatic correspondence, mainly dispatched between Gascony and England during these years.4 However, until the publication of Chaplais’ work, historians had only dedicated scattered mentions to the Anglo-French conflict in the 1320s. Before 1954 the debate on the causes of the Hundred Years’ War had in fact considered the war of St Sardos as part of a long-term strategy pursued by the French crown after the Treaty of Paris of 1259 to enforce the allegiance of its recalcitrant English vassal.5 Conversely, later publications by Vale and Sumption gave specific attention to the importance of the war of St Sardos in setting a new tone in Anglo-French relations and closely focused on its legacy on English domestic affairs.6 In particular, Vale maintained that the war of St Sardos was the first open conflict between England and France since 1294–8 and its outcome influenced Edward III’s policy and defence of his continental possessions more than previously thought, as evidenced by a number of pleas and appeals for restitution and compensation in the Duchy of Aquitaine put forward before the parliament of Paris by Gascon subjects of the English crown after 1328.7 Accordingly, Sumption stated that the ‘humiliating conclusion of the war . . . destroyed Edward II’s government in England’.8 In a similar fashion, recent biographies of Edward II by Phillips and Haines stressed the close connection between the outcome of the war of St Sardos and the deposition of Edward II, focusing on Isabella’s pivotal role in the diplomatic negotiations with 3 E. Perroy, The Hundred Years War (London, 1959), pp. 60–8. 4  The War of Saint-Sardos (1323–1325). Gascon correspondence and diplomatic documents, ed. P. Chaplais, Camden Third Series 87 (London, 1954). The importance of Despenser the Younger in the management of Gascon affairs and diplomacy at the time of the war of St Sardos had already been stated in J.C. Davies, The baronial opposition to Edward II. Its character and policy (Cambridge, 1918), pp. 336–40. 5 E.  Déprez, Les préliminaires de la Guerre de Cent Ans. La papauté, la France et l’Angleterre (1328–1342) (Paris, 1902), pp. 18–26; T.F. Tout, France and England: their relations in the Middle Ages and now (Manchester, 1922), pp. 94–6; G.P. Cuttino, ‘Historical Revision: the Causes of the Hundred Years War’, Speculum 31 (1956), pp. 463–77; G.P.  Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, ­1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), pp. 14–15; Perroy, The Hundred Years War, p. 66; G.  Templeman, ‘Edward III and the beginnings of the Hundred Years War’, TRHS 5 (1952), pp. 69–88; P. Wolff, ‘Un problème d’origines: la Guerre de Cent Ans’, in Éventail de l’histoire vivante. Hommage à L. Fèbvre, II (Paris, 1953), pp. 141–8. 6  M.  Vale, ‘England, France and the Origins of the Hundred Years War’, in England and her neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. M. Jones, M. Vale (London, 1989), pp. 199–216; Vale, The Angevin Legacy, pp. 226–44; J. Sumption, Trial by Battle. The Hundred Years War, I (London, 1999), pp. 91–9. See also J. Le Patourel, ‘The Origins of the Hundred Years War’, in The Hundred Years War, ed. K. Fowler (London, 1971), pp. 34–5, 46; J. Maddicott, ‘The Origins of the Hundred Years War’, History Today 36 (1986), pp. 34–5. 7 Vale, The Angevin Legacy, p. 243–4. 8 Sumption, Trial, p. 99.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

156

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

France, which, according to Phillips, has to be considered as ‘a prime example of the law of unintended consequences’, given its disastrous repercussions on English domestic affairs.9 However, whereas the legacy of the war of St Sardos for English international and domestic affairs is much debated, historians have mentioned only briefly the papal involvement in the Anglo-French conflict and in English domestic turmoil during the 1320s, avoiding any extensive and careful assessment of Pope John XXII’s diplomatic efforts. This tendency is notoriously epitomized by Déprez’s argument that John XXII was merely ‘a spectator of the conflict between England and France’.10 Exceptions to this tendency are the studies published by Renouard in 1934 on papal involvement in the Anglo-French conflict between 1259 and 1337, and, more recently, by Röhrkasten and Zanke.11 Renouard particularly noted the contradictory nature of John XXII’s engagement with Gascon affairs. In his opinion, on the one hand, the pope strenuously defended the freedom of the Gascon church from English and French claims and found an innovative diplomatic solution to resolve the war of St Sardos, in Edward II’s donation of the Duchy to his son, by which he thereby became a vassal of the French king and would have paid him homage, safeguarding the king of England’s dignity. On the other hand, John XXII favoured his protégés in Aquitaine and sought out the support of the French crown against the English and their officials in Gascony.12 Equally, Röhrkasten maintained that John XXII’s interventions in the Anglo-French and Anglo-Scottish conflicts, in disputed provisions to ecclesiastical benefices and bishoprics in England as well as in the struggle between Isabella and Edward II, were ultimately motivated by a concern to pacify any possible clash that could jeopardize papal commitment to political affairs in the Italian Peninsula and the organization of the crusade. In this respect, although he maintained that papal involvement in English affairs was reactive in nature, Röhrkasten emphasized that John XXII’s engagement with English political and ecclesiastical matters was managed through a well-informed network of diplomatic envoys and agents.13 Finally, Zanke focused on John XXII’s diplomatic efforts at the time of the war of St Sardos, noting the pope’s personal and pragmatic activity to resolve the 9 Phillips, Edward II, pp. 455–519, p. 484; R.M. Haines, King Edward II. His Life, His Reign, and Its Aftermath, 1284–1330 (Montreal, 2003), pp. 314–29. See also S. Phillips, Aymer of Valence, Earl of Pembroke, 1307–1324 (Oxford, 1972), pp. 229–52. 10 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 400–5. See below n. 13. 11  J. Röhrkasten, ‘Johannes XXII. und England’, in Papst Johannes XXII.. Konzepte und Verfahren seines Pontifikats, ed. H.J.  Schmidt, M.  Rohde (Berlin—Boston, 2014), pp. 395–424; S.  Zanke, Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa. Das politische Papsttum im Spiegel der kurialen Register (1316–1334) (Leiden—Boston 2013). In her article on this topic Menache does not specifically refer either to John XXII’s arbitration in the war of St Sardos or to Edward II’s deposition, arguing that John XXII’s oscillatory policy towards England and France allowed the English and French crowns to benefit from external papal endorsement in order to face domestic problems, but ultimately undermined the position of the papacy and its universal judicial claims over secular powers: S. Menache, ‘The Failure of John XXII’s Policy Toward France and England: Reasons and Outcomes, 1316–1334’, Church History 55 (1986), pp. 423–37. 12  Y. Renouard, ‘Les papes et le conflit franco-anglais en Aquitaine de 1259 à 1337’, MEFR 51 (1934); reprinted in Études d’histoire médiévale, II (Paris, 1968), pp. 911–34. 13  Röhrkasten, ‘Johannes XXII.’, pp. 395–424.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

157

Anglo-French conflict through the mediation of Isabella as well as through trusted and well-connected diplomatic agents, who dealt with the controversial issue of the homage owed by the English king to the French crown.14 Building on recent research on this topic, the remaining part of this chapter, therefore, addresses the extent to which the war of St Sardos and the deposition of Edward II influenced Anglo-papal diplomatic and administrative practices, focusing on the surviving English and papal diplomatic correspondence. First, I look at how John XXII arbitrated in the Anglo-French conflict and dealt with the English domestic crisis, drawing on the evidence of the registers of secret letters, which were created by the papal chamber as a new series of registers in order to record political correspondence. I then move on to examine English diplomatic correspondence and record-keeping in the same period, in particular the Roman rolls and the Treaty rolls, emphasizing the practices adopted by the English crown’s administrative departments at times of internal and domestic crisis. PA PA L A D M I N I S T R AT I V E P R A C T I C E S A N D C O N F L I C T: J O H N X X I I ’s R E G I S T E R S OF SECRET LETTERS As argued above, historians have mainly focused on papal involvement in the war of St Sardos during its last phase, which John XXII oversaw from the late summer of 1324 through his envoys, Guillaume de Laudun, archbishop of Vienne, and Hugh, bishop of Orange, as well as through the mission to France of Queen Isabella of England, in the Spring of 1325.15 However, as Vale put it, this argument has to be revised in light of John XXII’s engagement with Gascon local ­political affairs and conflicts before the war of St Sardos. In Vale’s opinion the papacy, especially during the pontificate of the Gascon pope Clement V, engaged in Gascon matters, consolidating alliances with important families of the local nobility such as the Foix, the L’Isle-Jourdain, the Armagnac, and the Albret.16 John XXII’s policy in Gascony was similarly executed through direct interventions that sanctioned truces in local conflicts and private wars as well as through the dispatch of papal legates and arbitrations.17 Indeed, some of the papal interventions in the early 1320s were prompted by on-going Anglo-French hostility on the eve of the war of St Sardos, exacerbated by Charles IV’s succession to the French throne and his attempts to impose punitive sanctions in private wars among the Gascon nobility, which ultimately undermined Edward II’s authority in the Duchy.18 This was the case for the complicated dispute concerning the turbulent Agenais family of the L’Isle-Jourdain, who were related through marriage alliances to the pope’s 14 Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 332–42. 15  See above n. 9. See also, Sumption, Trial by Battle, p. 97; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 468–71. 16 Vale, The Angevin Legacy, pp. 80–98. On Clement V’s Gascon background and his involvement in Anglo-papal relations see Chapter 6. 17 Vale, The Angevin Legacy, pp. 121–3, 128–9, 131–2. 18 Vale, The Angevin Legacy, p. 139.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

158

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

family (the Duèse, originally from Cahors) and therefore unsurprisingly received John XXII’s endorsement with regard to the French and English crowns, whom the pope repeatedly addressed on these issues between 1318 and 1325. As Vale argues, the affairs of the L’Isle-Jourdain particularly engulfed Anglo-French relations during the first phase of the war of St Sardos, when the pope intervened in the family inheritance dispute vis-à-vis Edward II and Charles IV.19 Likewise, on the eve of St Sardos, between April and July 1323, John XXII actively waged the war against the English territories of Marsan moved by Gaston II, count of Foix, who enjoyed a close relationship with the French crown and had personal links with the pope. While John XXII’s involvement in the peace negotiations to end the Marsan war shows the local ramifications of papal diplomacy, this episode, which ultimately forced Edward II to divert to Gascony money destined to fund the Scottish wars and gave him a reason to postpone further his homage to Charles IV, evidences how Anglo-French relations on the eve of the war of St Sardos were jeopardized by local disputes and conflicts in Guyenne.20 Concurring with Vale’s approach, Zanke recently emphasized John XXII’s involvement in Gascon affairs before 1323, especially when it came to local conflicts among the nobility and the towns. While maintaining John XXII’s personal and pragmatic commitment to the Gascon cause, Zanke mainly focused on papal diplomatic efforts to end the Anglo-French conflict from Spring 1324.21 Nevertheless, Zanke’s general argument focused on the relationship between the administrative practice of record-keeping at the papal curia and the effectiveness of papal government in partibus in the years 1320–7. In his opinion, the formalization of recordkeeping at the papal curia is demonstrated by the organization of the registers of secret letters, most notably adopted in Reg. Vat. 112 and Reg. Vat. 114, where entries concerning political issues were recorded in these special registers in accordance with geographical rather than chronological criteria.22 Zanke maintained that this formalized administrative practice ultimately demonstrates John XXII’s incapacity to face difficult political conflicts in the localities, such as those in the Italian Peninsula, the clash with the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria, the war of St Sardos, and the deposition of Edward II. In Zanke’s opinion, the registers of secret letters, therefore, represent papal perception of the international political milieu, showing that the papacy was passive overall, reactive, lethargic, and incapable of any decisive intervention.23 19 Vale, The Angevin Legacy, pp. 132–9. On the L’Isle-Jourdain’s relationship with John XXII see also Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 200–2. 20 Vale, The Angevin Legacy, pp. 90–1, 230–2. 21 Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 332–9. As Zanke noted, these efforts are mostly recorded in John XXII’s register of secret letters for the ninth year of pontificate (Reg. Vat. 113), which concerns the Anglo-French conflict between September 1324 and September 1325. 22  As Zutshi has recently argued, curial letters were copied in three series of registers and they were occasionally recorded twice. They can be found in the paper Avignon registers and their parchment copies (registers of common letters); in the so-called registers of secret letters; and in the chamber registers: P.N.R.  Zutshi, ‘Changes in the Registration of Papal Letters under the Avignon Popes (1305–1378)’, in Kuriale Briefkultur im späteren Mittelalter. Gestaltung – Überlieferung – Rezeption, ed. T. Broser, A. Fischer, M. Thumser (Köln—Weimar—Vienna, 2015), p. 251, 257. 23 Zanke, Johannes XXII., ch. 3 and 4, pp. 75–328, 370–3; S. Zanke, ‘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. E. Brilli, L. Fenelli, G. Wolf (Firenze, 2015), pp. 457–74.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

159

While one can generally agree with Zanke’s argument on the growth and formalization of papal administrative practices of record-keeping in the third decade of the fourteenth century, especially at times of political conflict in the Medieval West, it should be noted that Zanke’s analysis almost completely overlooks the extent to which thirteenth-century papal administrative practices handed down a legacy for fourteenth-century administrative reforms carried out in the papal chancery and chamber.24 Furthermore, to some extent Zanke’s statistical examination of papal records takes the registers of secret letters out of their specific context and does not do any justice to the political and diplomatic negotiations, which characterized the papal discourse with other polities, and whose outcomes are ultimately recorded in the registers. Nevertheless, Zanke considers the informal diplomatic negotiations undertaken in England, France and the papal curia through networks of diplomatic agents, royal clerks, members of the papal household and cardinals, as peripheral to the discourse accounted for in the registers of secret letters, where the correspondence with these intermediaries was hardly ever recorded.25 In this respect, Zanke overlooks the complexity of papal diplomatic discourse in these years, not only recorded in the papal registers but also in local records. This was especially the case for the English crown’s diplomatic records, which were systematically organized by the end of the thirteenth century and copied in enrolments, such as the Roman rolls, the so-called rotuli de Alemannia, now included in the Treaty rolls series, and the Gascon rolls.26 As argued in Chapter  2, during the thirteenth century the papal curia was already experimenting with innovative solutions to address record-keeping problems through the occasional use of special registers.27 Whereas John XXII’s registers of secret letters were the first continuous series of such records, their use had been occasionally attempted in the thirteenth century, when curial departments needed to organize separately records of political importance.28 Accordingly, the registration of secret letters remarkably paralleled other comparable contemporary administrative practices, such as those of the Sicilian Angevin chancery, where John XXII was chancellor during Charles II’s reign between 1308 and 1310. Here, from the reign of Charles I of Anjou (1266–85) registers of secret letters were kept and organized in accordance with either geographic or thematic criteria.29 Furthermore, 24  See Chapter 2 and below n. 34. 25 Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 371–2. 26  In his book, Zanke quickly focuses on the Roman rolls, used to provide evidence of the English informal contacts and networks at the papal curia rather than to compare English and papal administrative and diplomatic practices: Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 264–71. See also Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 22–48. 27  Zutshi, ‘Changes’, p. 252 and 256, recently suggested that registers of secret letters may have been already kept during Clement V’s pontificate (1305–1314). 28 ASV, Reg. Vat. 109: F. Bock, ‘Über Registrierung von Sekretbriefen’, QFIAB 28 (1937–1938), pp. 147–234; F. Bock, ‘Päpstliche Sekretregister und Kammerregister. Überblick und Ergänzung früherer Studien zum Registerwesen des Spätmittelalters’, Archivalische Zeitschrift 59 (1963), pp. 40–2; M. Giusti, Inventario dei Registri Vaticani (Città del Vaticano, 1981), p. 31. See Chapter 2. 29  R. von Heckel, ‘Das päpstliche und sicilische Registerwesen’, Archiv für Urkundenforschung 1 (1908), pp. 477–87; E. Pásztor, ‘Per la storia dei registri pontifici nel Duecento’, AHP 6 (1968), p. 111; O. Hageneder, ‘Die päpstlichen Register des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts’, Annali della scuola speciale per Archivisti e Bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 12 (1973), p. 53; A. Kiesewetter, ‘La cancelleria angioina’, in L’État Angevin: pouvoir, culture et société entre XIIIe et XIVe siècle (Rome, 1998), n. 23,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

160

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

in the 1330s comparable techniques of record-keeping according to geographic and topical criteria were adopted by the French chancery.30 Therefore, while John XXII’s bureaucratic reforms of the papal curia deserve recognition, the registers of secret letters by no means represent a unique administrative tool within the fourteenthcentury European milieu.31 Instead what seems more remarkable in the registers of secret letters introduced during John XXII’s pontificate is their registration technique, especially the fact that entries are grouped according to geographic criteria.32 In Zanke’s opinion this organization of the entries in the registers of secret letters evidences the curial and papal perception of the localities, and it can be demonstrated through a statistical analysis of the entries in John XXII’s registers of secret letters.33 However, I would strongly challenge this argument and methodology, and I would rather maintain that the practice of record-keeping adopted in the registers of secret letters during John XXII’s pontificate was mostly motivated by practical considerations and indeed shows the papal curia’s need to organize its records in order to make them readily available for use in diplomatic discourse with foreign polities and petitioners, as had already happened when the papal chancery and chamber organized their political correspondence in special registers during the thirteenth century. In other words, the registers of secret letters record ‘dossiers’ of diplomatic ­correspondence concerning different regions and themes, used by the pope and his advisers to manage and record the diplomatic discourse with foreign polities as well as to deal with political crises and conflicts. This argument is demonstrable, especially if one abandons the statistical analysis, preferred by Zanke, and looks at the criteria chosen to group the entries in the registers of secret letters.34 Indeed, statistical analysis particularly displays its limitations when dealing with the Anglo-French conflict in Guyenne owing to the intricate nature of Anglo-French relations and pp. 366–7, 369; n. 106, p. 384; S. Palmieri, La cancelleria del Regno di Sicilia in età angioina (Napoli, 2006), pp. 57–8, 82–8. See also J.E. Weakland, ‘John XXII before his pontificate, 1244–1316: Jacques Duèse and his family’, AHP 10 (1972), pp. 164–8; Zanke, Johannes XXII., n. 77, pp. 17, 49; Zanke, ‘Imagined Spaces?’, pp. 467–8; Zutshi, ‘Changes’, pp. 254–6. See also Chapter 2. 30  B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as a source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research 85 (2012), pp. 604–5. On the French administrative practice see also O.  Guyotjeannin, ‘Les méthodes de travail des archivistes du roi de France (XIIIe-début XVIe siècle), Archiv für Diplomatik 42 (1996), pp. 304–14. 31  F. Bock, ‘Die Geheimschrift in der Kanzlei Johanns XXII.. Eine diplomatische Studie’, Römische Quartalschrift 42 (1934), pp. 279–300. 32 Zanke, Johannes XXII., p. 83. As Giusti pointed out, from the fifteenth year of pontificate of John XXII (5 September 1331–4 September 1332; Reg. Vat. 100) the registration of entries in the registers of common letters was also rationalized in accordance with topical criteria: Giusti, Inventario, pp. 28–31. 33 Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 203–4, 370–3; Zanke, ‘Imagined Spaces?’, pp. 467–71. 34  Basing his conclusion on the statistical examination of the entries in Reg. Vat. 112, covering the years 1323–1324 and the outbreak of the war of St Sardos, and in Reg. Vat. 114, dealing with Edward II’s deposition, Zanke concluded that the papacy had a passive approach towards English affairs. In his opinion, the only English matters known and dealt with at the papal curia were in fact those that the English crown had drawn to the papal curia’s attention, while the papal curia showed a more localized knowledge and engagement with French matters in the same years (Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 107–11, 120–8). Zanke, ‘Imagined Spaces?’, n. 59, pp. 469, 470, defended his statistical approach to the examination of the papal registers. See also Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 83–5, 119–20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

161

the obvious difficulty of clearly distinguishing entries concerning English and French matters, except on the basis of their addressee.35 This is especially the case for both Reg. Vat 113 and Reg. Vat. 114, where the overlapping of English and French affairs is shown by the fact that the entries regarding English matters are found under rubrics, which misleadingly identified these entries as concerning French matters.36 A chronological examination of the events between 1323 and 1324 on the basis of the documentation recorded in John XXII’s register of secret letters for this year (Reg. Vat. 112) demonstrates that papal engagement with the Anglo-French conflict after the attack against St Sardos on 15 and 16 October 1323 was consistent with John XXII’s stance on Gascon affairs since the beginning of his pontificate. John XXII’s apparent late involvement in the Anglo-French conflict can in fact be better contextualized, if we take into account his interventions vis-à-vis the English and French crowns between October 1323 and March 1324 in support of his protégés Gaston II, count of Foix, and Joudain de L’Isle, mostly recorded in Reg. Vat. 112.37 This is even more important in light of the fact that, when between 6 and 8 December 1323 Ralph Basset and Adam Lymbergh, constable of Bordeaux, informed Edward II and his council of the incident at St Sardos, they openly made remarks about the continued French discontent at the delay in Edward II’s performance of homage to Charles IV and for his management of the L’Isle-Jourdain and Foix’s affairs.38 Consequently, as early as December 1323 English officials tried to seek papal arbitration in the Duchy, as stated in a letter of 6 December 1323 sent by Ralph Basset, seneschal of Gascony, to Hugh Despenser, which mentions the dispatch of an envoy to England with requests and complaints to forward to the pope and the French king.39 However, John XXII was still quite guarded in his reaction to the news concerning the Anglo-French clash in the Duchy in early January 1324, when he welcomed the mission of Henry of Sully, former butler of the French king and Edward II’s envoy, who was sent to Avignon to report on the situation in Scotland and Gascony as well as on possible crusading plans.40 Similarly, when between January and February 1324 the Anglo-French conflict intensified, after Charles IV banished from the Duchy Ralph Basset and Raymond of Montpezat, who were deemed responsible for the attack against St Sardos, John XXII did not intervene directly in the issue of the English homage due to the French king. It was only on 12 March 1324 that John XXII, facing a clear escalation 35 Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 107–8, explains how he dealt with the intricate overlap of French and English business. 36 ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 1ra: ‘Note regni Francie anni noni’ (see below n. 58); ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 96r: ‘Note patentes Francie anni undecimi.’ 37  Documents pontificaux sur la Gascogne, ed. L. Guérard (Paris, 1903), no. 253–61, pp. 99–105; no. 265–88, pp. 107–19; no. 292, pp. 121–2; no. 298–9, p. 126; Coulon, no. 1867–1870, 1892, 1903–1907, 1927–1928, 1932–1936, 1943, 1969, 1991. On the clashes between the Foix and L’Isle-Jourdain families and the English crown see above n. 19–20. 38  The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 3–6, pp. 2–6. 39  The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 4, p. 3; no. 167, pp. 179–80. 40  Coulon, no. 1907; CPL, II, p. 457; Zutshi, no. 138, p. 69; Rymer, II/1, p. 541. See below n. 56. On Henry of Sully see N. Fryde, The tyranny and fall of Edward II, 1321–1326 (Cambridge, 1979), p. 134; 140; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 430–1; 434–5; above Chapter 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

162

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

of the Anglo-French conflict, wrote to Edward II asking him to pay homage to Charles IV.41 This papal intervention was followed, two weeks later, by the arrival at the papal curia of the English envoy Henry of Sully, who probably presented English protests at the threatened French seizure of Montpezat.42 At the same time, the English crown dispatched to Gascony and the French court Alexander, archbishop of Dublin, Edmund, earl of Kent, and William Weston in order to investigate this matter.43 It was, therefore, Henry of Sully’s mission to the curia at the end of March 1324 that prompted John XXII’s first direct intervention in the Anglo-French conflict. Up to that point the pope seems to have approached the attack against the bastide of St Sardos in October 1323 as yet another local conflict among opposing factions in Gascony and tried to manage it alongside his on-going arbitrations in the Foix and L’Isle-Jourdain’s affairs. Only when he realized that the destruction of St Sardos was about to degenerate into a new Anglo-French war, did John XXII decide to follow a more proactive approach towards this issue. Indeed, the timing of papal intervention was quite remarkable and possibly shows how well informed the papal curia was on Anglo-French matters. Between 6 and 10 April, in the weeks leading up to the French declaration of war against the English (on 25 April), the pope had in fact written to Charles IV, Charles of Valois, Edward II and Isabella, trying to delay the beginning of the hostilities and nurturing peace negotiations through the mission of his nuncius, Hugh of Angouleme.44 At the same time, John XXII worked on a definitive resolution of the affairs of the Foix and L’IsleJourdain.45 Accordingly, soon after the French declaration of war, John XXII intensified his peace-making efforts, commissioning Henry of Sully as principal negotiator between England and France.46 These attempts were however unsuccessful. While preparing for war, Edward II rejected papal requests for peace made through the Archbishop of Dublin and the Earl of Kent, while the bishop of Artois delivered Charles IV’s responses.47 Edward II specifically challenged Charles IV on two points: the French right to authorize the fortification of St Sardos, which the English had challenged before the French courts since the time of the Treaty of Amiens in 1279; and French abuses against the seneschal of Gascony and his officials in the Duchy, especially after October 1323.48 Between 30 June and 2 July 1324 John XXII, therefore, undertook his final attempts to avoid the outbreak of the war. Once more profiting from the diplomatic expertise of Henry of Sully, the pope 41  Coulon, no. 1998; CPL, II, 458; Zutshi, no. 139, p. 69. 42  On the seizure of Montpezat see also TNA, C 61/36, no. 61–4: http://www.gasconrolls.org/en/ edition/calendars/C61_36/document.html#it036_18_27f_061 (accessed on 14 February 2017). 43  The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 15–18, pp. 17–19; no. 20, pp. 20–1; no. 22–26, pp. 22–38; no. 28, pp. 39–41; no. 167, pp. 181–8; EMDP, I/1, no. 68, pp. 103–16; Coulon, no. 1999; Rymer, II/1, p. 548. John XXII further recommended the English envoys to Charles IV on 21 March 1324 (CPL, II, p. 450). 44  Coulon, no. 2008–2011; CPL, II, p. 458. On the French declaration of war see The War of Saint-Sardos, pp. xii–xiii; no. 22, pp. 22–4; no. 25, pp. 25–6. 45  Documents pontificaux, no. 305–8, pp. 131–4; Coulon, no. 2016–2022; 2032. 46  Coulon, no. 2033–2043; 2046–2047; 2049; CPL, II, p. 458. 47  TNA, C 70/5, m. 8v; Rymer, II/1, p. 551; Coulon, no. 2059. See also Rymer, II/1, p. 552, 555. 48  The War of Saint-Sardos, pp. x–xi.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

163

newly invited both Charles IV and Edward II to negotiate a peace, discussing the legal issues concerning the fortification of St Sardos rather than resorting to war.49 Although unsuccessful, John XXII’s intervention in the Duchy between 30 June and 2 July arguably represented a defining moment for papal involvement in the Anglo-French conflict, at least in the eyes of the papal curia. This is indicated not only by the intense diplomatic exchange between England, France, and the Apostolic See during the summer of 1324, but above all through the analysis of Reg. Vat. 112, which records papal diplomatic correspondence dispatched in those months.50 The papal letters concerning the Anglo-French conflict dating between 30 June and 2 July are in fact placed at the head of the section concerning England in Reg. Vat. 112. In other words, they open the ‘diplomatic dossiers’ of the papal chamber on the war of St Sardos, although, as mentioned above, chronologically the first papal intervention in the Anglo-French conflict dates from 12 March 1324.51 The organization of the entries concerning England in Reg. Vat. 112 notably supports this point. At first sight these entries simply appear to follow those concerning France and, with few exceptions, to be grouped together on the basis of geographical criteria, normally adopted in the registers of secret letters during John XXII’s pontificate.52 However, a closer examination of the technique employed to record the English correspondence in Reg. Vat. 112 shows that within the section of the register concerning England the entries are not copied in strict chronological order, but are organized thematically in four groups:53 1. The first group of entries beginning the registration of the English business in Reg. Vat. 112 concerns the Anglo-French conflict between 30 June and 29 August 1324.54

49  Coulon, no. 2123; 2126–2133; CPL, II, p. 454. Meanwhile, John XXII also tried to arbitrate the quarrel between the L’Isle-Jourdain and Edward II: Coulon, no. 2096–2098. 50  For codicological and palaeographical descriptions of Reg. Vat. 112 see Bock, ‘Über Registrierung’, pp. 179–81, 222–3; Giusti, Inventario, p. 33; Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 79–83. On earlier registers of secret letters during John XXII’s pontificate see Bock, ‘Über Registrierung’, pp. 155–79. 51  While the first part of Reg. Vat. 112 only records correspondence on the Italian Peninsula, the second section of the register deals with other regions, most notably France, England, and the Iberian Peninsula: ASV, Reg. Vat. 112: Part 1: fol. 1r–137r; Part 2: fol. 138r–235v. The first part ends with an explicit, written by a contemporary hand at fol. 137ra: ‘Opere completo gratias agimus Ihesu Christo amen.’ See also Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp.79–81. Although bound together with part one, the second part of Reg. Vat. 112 stands as an independent volume, which begins with its own contemporary index, calendaring the entries and providing references to foliation and capitula of registration for each papal letter: Index to Part 2 is found at fol. 138r–145r. See above n. 36. 52 ASV, Reg. Vat. 112, at fol. 177rb–198vb. 53  The organization of entries concerning England in four thematical groups has been overlooked by Zanke, who argued that entries are mostly arranged chronologically in each geographical section of Reg. Vat. 112 (Zanke, Johannes XXII., p. 83). Zanke also noted that at least six entries of Reg. Vat. 112 date from the sixth and the ninth year of pontificate of John XXII, but he did not provide an explanation for this occurrence (Zanke, Johannes XXII., p. 82). Accordingly, historians using either Coulon’s edition of the entries concerning France or Guérard’s edition of the Gascon entries (Documents pontificaux) have arguably been led astray on this point, since the editors decided to list the entries chronologically. On the contrary, Bliss’s calendar of the entries of Reg. Vat. 112 concerning England followed the order in the register. 54 ASV, Reg. Vat. 112, fol. 177rb–179vb.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

164

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

2. The second group of entries deals with local Gascon affairs and disputes, especially concerning the Foix and L’Isle-Jourdain families. The entries in this group date between 13 September 1323 and 1 August 1324 and therefore partly predate the ones recorded in the first group.55 3. The third group of entries again partly covers an earlier period (13 September 1323–1 September 1324) and deals with two main issues: disputed ecclesiastical appointments in England, especially to bishoprics, such as the provision of John Stratford to Winchester, notoriously challenged by Edward II; and the diplomatic missions of Henry of Sully and Hugh of Angouleme to pacify the Anglo-French conflict in the first half of 1324.56 4. Finally, the fourth group of entries, all dating from 2 to 3 July and on 30 August 1324, concerns diplomatic missions dispatched to arbitrate in the Anglo-French conflict.57 Most interestingly, unlike the entries recorded in the second and third groups, the entries in this group begin on the same date and cover the same ground as those listed in the first group. These four groups of entries concerning England in Reg. Vat. 112 arguably represent the ‘diplomatic dossiers’ kept by the papal chamber, whose technique of record-keeping is easily understood in light of the on-going diplomatic n ­ egotiations between 1323 and 1324.58 As argued above, the first group of entries concerning England in Reg. Vat. 112 in fact draws our attention to the Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse between 30 June and 2 July 1324, when John XXII tried to arbitrate the Anglo-French diplomatic exchange managed by the English envoys Henry of Sully and John of Sturmy in France and Hugh of Angouleme, the papal envoy in England.59 Unsurprisingly, the papal letters concerning these diplomatic missions were all registered among those in the first group of entries in Reg. Vat. 112, which ends with the letters concerning John XXII’s dispatch of his nuncios Guillaume de Laudun, archbishop of Vienne, and Hugh, bishop of Orange, announced to Charles IV, Edward II and their advisers between 24 and 30 August 1324, after the start of the military campaign in Guyenne on 13 August.60 The same technique of record-keeping arguably applies to the following two groups of entries in Reg. Vat. 112. The papal letters recorded in these two groups in fact mainly concern three topics: the papal involvement in the affairs of the Foix and L’Isle-Jourdan between 13 September 1323 and 1 August 1324; the clash 55 ASV, Reg. Vat. 112, fol. 179vb–184ra. 56 ASV, Reg. Vat. 112, fol. 184ra–194vb. 57 ASV, Reg. Vat. 112, fol. 195vb–198vb. At fol. 194vb-195rb there are four entries which do not fit in the criteria mentioned above: two of those concern private petitions of Hugh Despenser; another concerns the purchase of a theological manuscript, which John XXII asked his nuncius in England, Hugh of Angouleme, to obtain; and a last entry deals with the dispensation from a crusading vow. See CPL, II, p. 461. 58  Entries were registered in the registers of secret letters using drafts preserved in the papal chamber: see below n. 102. 59  Rymer, II/1, pp. 558–60; TNA, C 70/5, m. 4 = Rymer, II/1, p. 560; Coulon, no. 2135; 2165; CPL, II, p. 455. 60  Coulon, no. 2192–2202; CPL, II, p. 455. On the beginning of the hostilities in Guyenne see also Coulon, no. 2188; CPL, II, p. 455; Rymer, II/1, pp. 561–4; The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 34–6, pp. 48–53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

165

between Edward II and important members of the English episcopate, most n ­ otably John Stratford, Henry Burghesh, bishop of Lincoln, and John de Drokensford, bishop of Bath and Wells; and the missions of Henry of Sully and Hugh of Angouleme in the summer of 1324, which had been already mentioned, at least in part, in the first group of entries of Reg. Vat. 112 concerning England.61 The focus on these three topics is hardly surprising. While papal mediation in Gascon local conflicts before October 1323 had a legacy for John XXII’s peace-making efforts in the war of St Sardos, the clash between Edward II and the b­ ishops of Lincoln, Bath and Wells and Winchester, risked jeopardizing Anglo-papal diplomacy between 1323 and 1324.62 On the one hand, the clash between John Stratford and the king touched upon the control of episcopal appointments in England, since Stratford had been translated to Winchester through papal provision in defiance of the royal request that the bishopric be conferred on the king’s close adviser Robert Baldock. On the other hand, the conflicts between Edward II and the bishops of Bath and Wells and Lincoln were politically motivated by allegations of their involvement in the barons’ revolt of 1321–2.63 Interestingly, from early January 1324 the clash between Edward II and his bishops became the focus of Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse during the missions of Henry of Sully and Hugh of Angouleme, which mostly had on their agenda the arbitration of the Anglo-French conflict, as pointed out above. Accordingly, Stratford’s reconciliation with Edward II was finalized in early July 1324 as part of same diplomatic missions of Henry of Sully and Hugh of Angouleme, which dealt with the Anglo-French war and whose records open the section concerning England in Reg. Vat. 112.64 In other words, between 1323 and 1324 Gascon local wars, ecclesiastical conflicts in England and the war of St Sardos were mostly addressed as inter-connected issues on the Anglo-papal diplomatic agenda through the activity of the same diplomatic envoys, who probably discussed different current affairs as ‘bargaining chips’. Meanwhile, the last group of entries regarding England in Reg. Vat. 112, focusing on the Anglo-French conflict on 2 to 3 July and on 30 August 1324, draws our attention back to the opening topic of the register, namely John XXII’s attempts to stop the outbreak of Anglo-French hostilities in the summer of 1324. It, therefore, 61  There are overall only seven entries in this section of Reg. Vat. 112 concerning England which do not deal with the three topics outlined above. Those are: three entries informing the English crown about the processes against the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria (CPL, II, p. 459); three entries concerning the attack of some Spanish pirates against English fleets (CPL, II, p. 460); and one entry concerning the liberation of John of Britanny, taken prisoner during the Scottish campaign (CPL, II, p. 460). 62  See above n. 37. 63  Another piece of business recorded in this section of Reg. Vat. 112 is the provision of the archdeaconry of Richmond to Raymond de Roux, cardinal of Santa Maria in Cosmedin. On the problem of ecclesiastical provisions in England during the pontificate of John XXII see also R. Wright, The Church and the English Crown, 1305–1334 (Toronto, 1980), pp. 55, 130–1, 155–63; Röhrkasten, ‘Johannes XXII.’, pp. 402–8; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 448–52. 64  See above n. 40 and 56. Initially, in the summer of 1323 Edward II had dispatched to the curia Adam Murimuth and William Airmyn in order to deal with the Stratford case. On the clash between John Stratford and Edward II see TNA, C 70/5, m. 7–8; 9v–10v; R.M.  Haines, Archbishop John Stratford. Political Revolutionary and Champion of the Liberties of the English Church, ca. 1275/80–1348 (Toronto, 1986), pp. 139–49.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

166

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

covers the same issue already presented in the first group of entries and touches upon the same diplomatic missions mentioned in the second and third groups of entries. However, it specifically deals with the dispatch and activity of key diplomatic envoys: the English envoys to France, namely the archbishop of Dublin and the Earl of Kent; and the papal envoys, Hugh of Angouleme, the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange, whose mission was commended to Edward II, Isabella and their close advisers in the last entries of this section of Reg. Vat. 112 dating from 30 August 1324.65 Significantly, mention of the mission of the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange at the end of the section concerning England in Reg. Vat. 112 are resumed in the entries which open the section on England of Reg. Vat. 113, recording documents from the ninth year of John XXII’s pontificate (5 September 1324–4 September 1325).66 Once more, the entries in this register are arranged according to geographic criteria, although the section of this register concerning England is  included under the heading signalling the registration of French business.67 Neither is this section organized according to strict chronological criteria, but once more groups its entries thematically, recording the ‘diplomatic dossiers’ kept in the papal chamber for this year. In particular, three themes are identifiable: first, the mission of the papal nuncios, the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange, dispatched to negotiate the Anglo-French peace, ultimately publicized at Bordeaux on 26 August 1325;68 second, the negotiations in France of the English envoys John, earl of Richmond, the bishop of Norwich, and Henry of Beaumont between 20 and 22 December 1324;69 and third, Queen Isabella’s peace-making efforts, which ultimately secured the nominal end of the conflict on 30 May 1325.70 Once more, as in the case of Reg. Vat. 112, the sequence of Anglo-papal diplomatic activities between 1324 and 1325 can be mapped against the grouping of the entries in the papal registers outlined above. The first group of entries in fact mostly deals with the aftermath of the truce of La Réole, signed by Charles of Valois and the Earl of Kent on 22 September 1324.71 The latter was followed by intense diplomatic exchange between England, France and the papal curia, initially masterminded 65  Coulon, no. 2194–2202; CPL, II, pp. 461–3. John XXII’s letter Nosti, dated on 30 August 1324 and announcing to Edward II the papal envoys’ mission to England, was also recorded in one of the Treaty rolls: Coulon, no. 2198; Treaty Rolls, I, no. 638, pp. 246–8. Most interestingly, at ASV, Reg. Vat. 112, fol. 197va, the scribe cross-referenced this letter with another entry dated 2 July 1324, which opens the fourth group of entries concerning England in Reg. Vat. 112 (Coulon, no. 2130; Reg. Vat. 112, fol. 195vb–195rb): ‘Percepto dudum quod pacis emulus et cetera usque in finem, que nota est supra in principio hujus quaterni.’ 66 ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 1r–24v. A codicological and palaeographical examination of this register is given in: Bock, ‘Über Registrierung’, pp. 181–2; Giusti, Inventario, p. 33. 67  On the rubric including English entries among French ones see above n. 36. 68 ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 1r–17r. These entries date between 30 September 1324 and 26 August 1325. 69 ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 17v–19r. Some of these entries predate the ones in the first group. 70 ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 19r–24v. These entries date between February and 26 August 1325. They are therefore intertwined and run parallel to some of those in the first group. The theme concerning Anglo-French peace negotiations crosses over with the clash between Edward II and some his bishops, most notably Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, whose reconciliation with the king is mentioned in the last two letters of this group, dated on 5 June 1325. See also Phillips, Edward II, p. 474. 71  Paris, ANF, J//634 no. 2, 3, 3bis; The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 47, pp. 61–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

167

by Henry of Sully, the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange.72 The diplomatic negotiations were well under way by October 1324, as shown by some correspondence sent from England to the papal curia on 18 October and concerning possible articles of peace with France.73 However, during the London parliament of 20 October Edward II decided that he was going to join the military campaign in Guyenne in March 1325. The king’s plans were ­temporarily halted thanks to the arrival of the papal envoys to England, who persuaded the king to dispatch to France a new diplomatic mission, led by the earl of Richmond, the bishop of Norwich, the bishop of Winchester, and Henry of Beaumont.74 The importance of this mission in the eyes of the papal curia is demonstrated by the logic of registration followed in Reg. Vat. 113. Beside it being mentioned in a number of entries in the first group of documents concerning England in Reg. Vat. 113, this diplomatic mission is in fact encapsulated in the second group of entries of Reg. Vat. 113, specifically focusing on the Earl of Richmond, the bishop of Norwich, the bishop of Winchester and Henry of Beaumont’s diplomatic negotiations between 20 and 22 December 1324.75 The latter therefore represents a ‘diplomatic dossier’ on this mission, which, in Phillips’s opinion, first introduced to the French the idea that Prince Edward should be granted Gascony and perform, in return, due homage to Charles IV.76 Nevertheless, between January and February 1325 the negotiations stalled once more. Evidence in the English diplomatic records yet again indicate that during those months John XXII tried to avoid the Anglo-French conflict becoming an international affair, prompted by Edward II’s plans to establish an anti-French marriage alliance with the kings of Castile and Aragon.77 The pope 72  Coulon, no. 2219–2222; 2231–2232; CPL, II, pp. 463–7. After his reconciliation with the bishop, Edward II asked John Stratford to review the Anglo-French agreements made during Edward I’s reign in order to inform the diplomatic mission of the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange to England: The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 51, pp. 68–9; Haines, Archbishop John Stratford, p. 151. 73  TNA, C 70/5, m. 3r; Rymer, II/1, pp. 575–7. See also below n. 144. 74  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 639–47, pp. 248–53; no. 663–9, pp. 264–5. On Edward II’s proposed campaign in Guyenne see The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 71, p. 89; no. 80, pp. 95–8. See also Phillips, Edward II, pp. 468–9. 75  See above n. 69. 76  These entries were recorded among those in the second group concerning English business in Reg. Vat. 113: Coulon, no. 2331–2334; 2341–2343; CPL, II, pp. 467–8. John XXII firstly commended the mission of the Bishop of Norwich, the Earl of Richmond and Henry of Beaumont on 10 and 11 December 1324 and these letters were registered among those of the first group in Reg. Vat. 113; Coulon, no. 22–93–2301; 2303; CPL, II, pp. 463–4. The correspondence informing the French court of this diplomatic mission between 20 and 31 December 1324 most interestingly was recorded following these entries of the first group of Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 5rv: Coulon, no. 2328–2330; 2335; 2345; see also above n. 69. The mission of the same envoys was further commended by John XXII between 20 and 22 December 1324, when the English envoys reached France (The War of SaintSardos, no. 123–4, pp. 128–32). On Phillips’s argument see: The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 167, pp. 192–4; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 468–9. Zanke recently maintained that John XXII’s involvement in the Anglo-French peace negotiations was of a private nature: Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 339–40. 77  Rymer, II/1, pp. 586–91. See also Phillips, Edward II, pp. 469–71. See also TNA, C 61/36, no. 210–12, 219, 224, 230, 243–5: http://www.gasconrolls.org/en/edition/calendars/C61_36/document. html#it036_18_16f_205 (accessed on 17 February 2017). The plans for an Anglo-Aragonese alliance were already mentioned in the Aragonese diplomatic correspondence in October 1324 and are detailed in the contemporary reports of the Aragonese ambassadors to England and at the papal curia: Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen zur Kirchen- und

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

168

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

liaised with the English and the French courts through his envoys the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange as well as the English envoy dispatched to the continent, John Stratford, supporting Charles IV’s suggestion that his sister Isabella, Queen of England, should be sent to France to negotiate the Anglo-French peace.78 On 5 March 1325 John XXII finally endorsed this proposal, famously describing Isabella as an ‘angel of peace’ (angelus pacis).79 On 21 March 1325 Isabella, the English diplomatic envoys and Charles IV first met at Poissy in the presence of the papal envoys, the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange. In April 1325 the papal envoys were asked to deliver Charles IV’s very firm requests to Edward II, while working alongside John XXII to keep Anglo-French peace negotiations open. Finally, although Edward II was still trying to negotiate an anti-French alliance with the king of Aragon, during two meetings on 18 and 30 May Isabella, the English envoys and Charles IV, in the presence of the papal envoys, agreed on a peace ­settlement, which included the ending of hostilities in Gascony and resolved the disputed issue of English homage to the French crown, which was arranged in August at Beauvais.80 While the information concerning Isabella’s French mission is mainly recorded in the English diplomatic records, in the third group of entries of Reg. Vat. 113 John XXII’s exhortations to the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange appear alongside papal interventions in the clash between Edward II and his ­bishops. This clash involved Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, and Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, suspected of conspiring against the king, as well as disputed provisions to the bishoprics of Norwich and Carlisle and the archdeaconry of Richmond.81 Once more, the presence of these entries among John XXII’s Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II. (1291–1327), ed. H. Finke (Berlin – Leipzig, 1908), II, no. 331, pp. 499–501; III, no. 210, pp. 459–61. 78  The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 167, pp. 195–9. See also Coulon, no. 2409; CPL, II, 468. On the hold up in the Anglo-French negotiations see Coulon, 2364; CPL, II, p. 464. Isabella had been to some extent involved in the Anglo-French negotiations since April 1324, as the English diplomatic records suggest: The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 29, pp. 42–3. 79  Coulon, no. 2407–2409; CPL, II, p. 468. Isabella’s mission was further announced by Edward II in two letters sent to the pope and the cardinals of San Ciriaco in Terminis and Santi Marcellino and Pietro on 8 March: TNA, C 70/5, m. 5v; Rymer, II/1, p. 595. 80 Phillips, Edward II, pp. 474–5; The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 167, pp. 199–207; no. 178, pp. 214–17; no. 193, pp. 228–9; Appendix III, pp. 267–8; Rymer, II/1, pp. 601–2; Treaty Rolls, I, no. 648–653, pp. 253–6; no. 660–662, pp. 259–64; TNA, C 70/5, m. 1r; Rymer, II/1, p. 599. While the peace negotiations were going on in France, on 14 May 1325 another papal envoy Hugh of Angouleme wrote to John XXII from London reporting on a possible attack by the Imperial forces against Avignon and on the Anglo-French negotiations: ASV, Instr. Misc. 944; C. Burns, ‘Sources of British and Irish History in the Instrumenta Miscellanea of the Vatican Archives’, AHP 9 (1971), no. 112, p. 45. On the role of Hugh of Angouleme in these negotiations see also above Chapter 5. On 4 April 1325 the Aragonese envoys at the papal curia informed James II of an imminent resumption of the AngloFrench hostilities and a possible Anglo-Aragonese alliance: Acta Aragonensia, II, no. 273, p. 413; no. 507, p. 814. 81  In May 1325 Edward II also dispatched the Archbishop of Dublin to the curia to deal with the Adam Orleton affair: TNA, C 70/5, m. 1r; Rymer, II/1, pp. 600–1. On episcopal and ecclesiastical appointments in England and on the clash between Edward II and the episcopate see K. Edwards, ‘The Political Importance of the English Bishops during the Reign of Edward II’, EHR 59 (1944), pp. 311–47; R.M. Haines, The Church and Politics in Fourteenth-Century England. The Career of Adam Orleton, c. 1275–1345 (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 134–61. See also below n. 143.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

169

political correspondence shows how the defence of ecclesiastical freedoms and provisions to benefices in England formed an integral part of Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse and were often managed alongside delicate political negotiations.82 Furthermore, it should be noted that the papal letters concerning Isabella’s negotiations in France were simultaneously recorded in the first and third groups of entries concerning English affairs in Reg. Vat. 113. Interestingly, the entries concerning diplomatic interactions with the French court were mainly included in the first group, while those recording the diplomatic exchange with the English crown were registered in the third group.83 This technique of registration probably evidences how John XXII’s chamber organized its diplomatic correspondence for this period in two different ‘diplomatic dossiers’, which were complementary to each other but were arranged separately according to the papal curia’s interactions with the French and the English diplomatic envoys.84 Arguably the systematic examination of the practice of registration in the registers of secret letters covering the period of the war of St Sardos, namely Reg. Vat. 112 and 113, allows us better to understand how diplomatic and administrative practices were managed and implemented at the papal curia between 1323 and 1325. Furthermore, the analysis of the registers of secret letters for the tenth and eleventh years of John XXII’s pontificate supports these conclusions. Once again, in the second part of Reg. Vat. 113, covering the tenth year of John XXII’s pontificate (5 September 1325–4 September 1326), the entries are arranged on the basis of geographic criteria and subdivided thematically in three groups, or ‘diplomatic dossiers’.85 Here, the first group of entries deals with the on-going mediation of the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange between April and June 1326, which should have secured the fulfillment of the Anglo-French peace and Prince Edward’s homage owed to Charles IV.86 This section also comprises letters concerning the mission of Hugh of Angouleme, who was dispatched to England to enforce John XXII’s constitution Execrabilis against pluralism and to collect the 82  Coulon, no. 2465, 2468–2571, 2544; CPL, II, pp. 468–72. There are only three entries in the third group of Reg. Vat. 113 which do not directly relate to the main topics addressed in this group. One concerns the lawsuit at the papal curia of John Lutrell and occurs at the end of the group of entries (CPL, II, p. 472), while the other two deal with a feud in Gascony, which do not directly relate to either the peace negotiations with France or ecclesiastical matters (Coulon, no. 2445–2447; CPL, II, p. 469). The presence of these entries can be easily explained as John XXII’s attempt to pacify local conflicts in Guyenne, which might have had repercussions on the Anglo-French conflict. 83  For the entries addressed to the French court see Coulon, no. 2399–2406; 2415–2421; CPL, II, pp. 464–5 (Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 6v-8v). In Reg. Vat. 113 the papal letters informing the French court about Isabella’s mission are recorded among the first group of entries concerning England. The registration of the letters addressed to the French court in a different section of the register seems in line with the logic of record-keeping followed by the papal chamber in gathering its diplomatic dossier and ultimately shows the limitations of statical analysis on this source material. 84  The letters dating after 5 March 1325 registered in the first group are: Coulon, no. 2450, 2453–2456, 2507–2513, 2533–2536, 2552, 2582, 2584–2587. Those in the third group are: Coulon, no. 2427, 2462, 2465–2474, 2514, 2544, 2558, 2564; CPL, II, pp. 468–472. On the interaction with the English envoys see below n. 143. 85  The entries concerning England are found at ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 213r–222r. 86 Prince Edward paid homage to Charles IV on 24 September 1325: Phillips, Edward II, pp. 479–81. On the role of the papal envoys in May 1326 see Phillips, Edward II, pp. 496–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

170

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Holy Land subsidy.87 This first group of entries is followed by a second group, which predates it. The latter concerns the efforts to implement the Anglo-French peace between October and December 1325 and commends the appointment of William Airmyn to the bishopric of Norwich, and the provision of Robert Baldock to a vacant benefice.88 Finally, the third group of entries for this pontifical year concerns the quarrel between Isabella and Edward II after February 1326. The latter further deals with the missions of John Stratford and William Weston to the papal curia, which concerned the payment of the tenth and disputed ecclesiastical issues in England, as well as with the diplomatic activity of the papal envoys in England, namely the archbishop of Vienne, the bishop of Orange and Hugh of Angouleme, also mentioned in the first group of entries.89 In this phase, the pope in fact repeatedly tried to intervene in English affairs through his envoys, asking Hugh Despenser to withdraw from the forefront of political life, given Isabella’s refusal to return to England because of his role as king’s trusted adviser, and seeking to protect the prerogative of some English prelates, such as the bishops of Lincoln, Hereford and Norwich and the archbishop of Dublin, who had been sidelined because of their suspected allegiances to Isabella and her supporters.90 Likewise, the entries concerning English matters for the eleventh year of John XXII’s pontificate (5 September 1326–4 September 1327) are grouped according to similar criteria in the section of Reg. Vat. 114 dedicated to French affairs.91 In this section of the register it is in fact once again possible to group the entries and identify four ‘diplomatic dossiers’. The first dossier deals with the state of the Anglo-French peace in the aftermath of Edward II’s deposition, which saw the dispatch to England and France of the papal envoys the archbishop of Vienne, the bishop of Orange and John of Grandson.92 Most interestingly, this dossier opens with John XXII’s mandate, dated on 27 October 1326 (the day after Despenser’s execution and Edward II’s escape to Wales), which granted joint faculties to his envoys in addition to those that they had already received on 26 September 1326.93 87 ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 213r–214r; CPL, II, pp. 473–4; Coulon, no. 2617, 2618. See W.E. Lunt, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 (Cambridge, MA, 1939), pp. 623–4; Wright, The Church, p. 91. 88 ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 214v–216v; CPL, II, pp. 474–5; Coulon, no. 2651. 89 ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 216v–222r; CPL, II, pp. 475–9; Coulon, no. 2692–2693, 2708, 2713–2723, 2752, 2775–2777. On William Weston’s mission see also Röhrkasten, ‘Johannes XXII.’, pp. 420–1. One entry in this group also deals with the collection of subsidies in Ireland to fund the campaigns against the heretics in Lombardy: CPL, II, p. 478. 90  In the summer 1326 John XXII also addressed his nuncios and the French king, exhorting them to restore peace in Gascony: Coulon, no. 2876, 2974–2975; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 495–8. On the estranged bishops see Haines, Archbishop John Stratford, p. 161; Haines, The Church, pp. 153–8; Phillips, Edward II, p. 480. On Isabella’s attack against Despenser’s role as trusted royal adviser and the consolidation of her alliance with Roger Mortimer see I. Mortimer, The Greatest Traitor. The life of Sir Roger Mortimer, Ruler of England, 1327–1330 (London, 2003), pp. 132–49; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 488–91. 91 ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 96r: ‘Note patentes Francie anni undecimi’. See above n. 36. For a codicological and palaeographical description of Reg. Vat. 114 see Bock, ‘Über Registrierung’, pp. 187–9; Giusti, Inventario, p. 33. 92 ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 96v–112v; CPL, II, pp. 481–3; Coulon, no. 2989–2994, 3046. 93 ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 96r–97r, 98v-99r; CPL, II, p. 481. In his letter John XXII expresses his concern for the situation in England but he still refers to the clash between Edward II and Isabella

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

171

This first dossier runs until late August 1327 and includes John XXII’s belated exhortations, demanding that his nuncios should remain in England (21 February 1327), and that the king of France should not only restore peace between Isabella and Edward but also safeguard the peace in Gascony (9 May 1327).94 The second dossier in Reg. Vat. 114 records the prompt replacement of the archbishop of Vienne, who fell ill and had to abandon his diplomatic activity on 13 October 1326, with the very experienced papal envoy Hugh of Angouleme, whose expertise was crucial at a time of political turmoil in England.95 Consequently, the third group of entries, dating from 25 and 29 September 1326, concerns papal recommendations to the bishops of Ely, Exeter, London, Hereford, Lincoln, and Norwich to assist the papal envoys during their mission in England, which followed the invasion of Isabella and Mortimer on 24 September.96 And finally, the fourth dossier covers the period between May and August 1327 and addresses papal concerns over the Anglo-French peace in Gascony, discussed at the papal curia during the mission of Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford, dispatched to Avignon to explain recent events in England.97 The four dossiers in Reg. Vat. 114 are smaller than those recorded in the earlier registers of secret letters, possibly indicating, as Zanke also argued, that from Autumn 1326 John XXII undertook a more passive approach to the political turmoil in England. Yet, as D’Avray recently put it, it is not clear how John XXII could have effectively intervened and eventually arbitrated in the English domestic turmoil, especially given that the nature of papal interventions in international affairs at this time was substantially of a private nature.98 On the contrary, between 1326 and 1327 John XXII appears to have been well informed about events in England and attempted to make his voice heard either directly or through his envoys at crucial moments, such as the aftermath of Isabella and Mortimer’s invasion and Despenser’s execution in September–October 1326.99 without any mention of Edward’s deposition: ‘ad carissimorum in Christo filiorum nostrorum Caroli Francie et Navarre et E(dwardi) Anglie regum et Isabellis regine dicti regis Anglie consortis illustrium presenciam pro concordia inter ipsos dissidentes invicem pacis actoris, suffragante gratia procuranda, de fratrum nostrorum consilio per alias nostras certi tenoris litteras providemus’. On events in England in October–November 1326 see Phillips, Edward II, pp. 512–15. 94 ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 108v; CPL, II, p. 482; See also Coulon, no. 3150; ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 112r; CPL, II, p. 482. See also Coulon, no. 3236–3237. The exhortation to his nuncios to remain in England and work for peace was repeated on 23 April 1327. This letter was recorded among other letters concerning France in the first part of Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 85rv; CPL, II, pp. 480–1. 95 ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 117r; CPL, II, p. 483. See also Coulon, no. 3068–3069. In this section we also find a mandate addressed to Hugh of Angouleme, who arbitrated a lawsuit concerning the church of Rotherfield in Chichester diocese (ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 117rv; CPL, II, p. 483). 96 ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 117v; CPL, II, p. 483. See Phillips, Edward II, pp. 502–4. The papal envoys arrived in England on 10 December 1326: Phillips, Edward II, p. 525. 97 ASV, Reg. Vat. 114, fol. 118r-119r; CPL, II, p. 484. On the mission of Adam Orleton see also Haines, The Church, pp. 178–80, 228–9; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 521–2. Three letters in this section further deal with John XXII’s recommendation to Edward II and Isabella of the visitator of the Hospitallers in England (ASV, Reg. Vat. 113, fol. 118v-119r; CPL, II, p. 484). 98  D. D’Avray, ‘Review of S. Zanke, Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa. Das politische Papsttum im Spiegel der kurialen Register (1316–1334) (Leiden—Boston 2013)’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66 (2015), p. 868. Zanke stresses the private nature of papal intervention with regards to John XXII’s arbitration of the war of St Sardos: Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 339–40; see above n. 71. 99 Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 120–8, 249–64.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

172

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Overall, the evidence concerning England examined above supports the argument that the entries in the parchment registers of secret letters were grouped in accordance with thematic and geographic rather than strict chronological criteria. Such a registration technique was adopted in order to keep records of the ‘diplomatic dossiers’, used by the pope and his advisers to manage international affairs, such as the Anglo-French conflict of St Sardos between 1323 and 1325, and the domestic political turmoil in England between 1325 and 1327, which led to Edward II’s deposition.100 These ‘diplomatic dossiers’ were arguably employed to keep track of the outgoing correspondence, which was discussed by papal envoys during their missions abroad and resulted from the negotiations with representatives of foreign polities visiting the papal curia.101 In this respect, the parchment registers of secret letters ultimately reflect the discourse between the pope, his advisers, and the diplomatic envoys dispatched to and from the localities. Assuming that this interpretation is correct, this practical use of the registers of secret letters therefore sheds new light on the functionality of the parchment registers of secret letters, which ultimately recorded ‘diplomatic dossiers’ kept in the papal chamber, and evidences the mechanics of communication between the Apostolic See and its interlocutors in the first half of the fourteenth century. What has recently been argued about the technique of registration in the registers of secret letters further confirms my speculation. In Zutshi’s opinion during the pontificate of John XXII the drafts of secret letters were actually copied first in paper volumes, used as working copies, and then into parchment fair copy of registers, namely Reg. Vat. 112–114 examined above. Indeed, one of the two surviving examples of such draft registers for John XXII’s pontificate (ASV, Arm. XXXI, 41) reveals that letters were grouped in ‘dossiers’ according to geographic criteria, as happened in the parchment registers of secret letters examined above.102 Furthermore, according to Zutshi the apostolic chamber copied the accumulated drafts of secret letters into the registers of secret letters as a single operation, rather than recording each individual entry at a time.103 Zutshi convincingly suggested that this technique of registration had two obvious advantages: it allowed not only political correspondence to be dispatched quite quickly, without waiting for the 100 The comparative examination of the diplomatic correspondence concerning other regions recorded in the registers of secret letters would be most welcome in order to support or dismiss my argument. 101  Zutshi, ‘Changes’, p. 251. 102  ASV, Arm. XXXI, 41: paper register of draft patent and close letters of John XXII from the sixteenth year of pontificate (1331–1332), mainly concerning the Italian Peninsula; this register further shows that blank folios were left at the end of each dossier and additions were occasionally made by a different hand and in a different pen. The other fragment of paper draft register of secret letters for John XXII’s pontificate is ASV, Reg. Av. 55, fol. 367r-379v: Bock, ‘Über Registrierung’, pp. 149–54; Zutshi, ‘Changes’, p. 253. 103  Zutshi, ‘Changes’, pp. 252–3. On the contrary, the entries of common letters were copied in the registers of common letters either individually or in small groups on the basis of the sealed original: Zutshi, ‘Changes’, pp. 242–6; 257–8. See also Bock, ‘Über Registrierung’, pp. 147–55, 222–32; P. Gasnault, ‘L’élaboration des lettres secrètes des papes d’Avignon: chambre et chancellerie’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Rome, 1990), pp. 217–19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

173

registration of the finished and sealed originals, but also the registration of the so-called littere clause, namely those letters which were closed through the seal and could not be read and copied after sealing.104 Building on these persuasive arguments, the examination of the English entries in the registers of secret letters, as carried out above, shows that drafts of secret letters were possibly already organized in ‘diplomatic dossiers’ for the consumption of the pope, his advisers and the curial personnel managing diplomatic affairs, before being eventually copied in the registers as a single operation at a later stage. The extent to which the registers of secret letters were an innovation of John XXII’s pontificate is also the focus of further speculation. As pointed out above, comparable administrative practices were occasionally employed in specific cases during the thirteenth century and throughout the pontificate of Clement V while, in the 1330s, other chanceries across Europe adopted special techniques to record their diplomatic correspondence. This was particularly the case for the Angevin chancery of Sicily, which John XXII was very well acquainted with as its former chancellor.105 However, in the absence of decisive evidence, whether or not John XXII was personally responsible for the introduction of parchment registers of secret letters in the papal administrative practice remains an open question. What seems more significant is the fact that the comparable employment of registers of secret letters in different fourteenth-century polities ultimately responded to very similar practical circumstances and arose from the day-to-day management of foreign affairs, which necessitated adequate record-keeping of the business transacted. If anything, the implementation of registers of secret letters during John XXII’s pontificate, which saw the papacy acting as an arbiter across Western Europe at times of international and domestic turmoil, therefore, seems to evidence the influence of diplomatic necessities on the development of administrative practices. E N G L I S H D I P L O M AT I C R E C O R D S C O N C E R N I N G T H E WA R O F S T S A R D O S Whereas since the 1320s the papal curia organized the record-keeping of its diplomatic correspondence through the employment of registers of secret letters, as early as 1299 the English crown had already set up an office which specifically dealt with diplomatic documents and foreign affairs. As pointed out in Chapter 2, this office was headed by the so-called keeper of processes (custos processuum) and kept its own archives, which had the function of storing safely diplomatic documents and providing relevant information to diplomatic envoys and representatives. In Cuttino’s opinion the creation of this office was prompted by the growth of diplomatic relations between England and the continent after the Treaty of Paris of 104  Zutshi, ‘Changes’, p. 258. 105  See above n. 29. Gasnault, ‘ L’élaboration’, pp. 221–2, argued that the papal secretarii appeared among the papal entourage only from the pontificate of Benendict XII (1334–1342), while the word secretaria was only used from the pontificate of Innocent VI (1352–62).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

174

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

1259 as well as the need of the English crown to be represented in the courts of other countries, especially, although not exclusively, the papal curia and France.106 As Cuttino states, the largely peaceful state of Anglo-French relations between 1259 and 1337 ultimately boosted the growth of the office of the keeper of processes, which dealt with diplomatic correspondence and diplomatic envoys, while the duties and functions of the keeper of processes were altered after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337.107 On the one hand, the office of the keeper of processes responded to the increasing specialization of comparative judicial and administrative practices across Europe. On the other, its personnel further took over the role of king’s advisers and councillors in the management of foreign affairs and were ultimately responsible for organizing and handling the crown’s diplomatic documentation, which was copied and borrowed for the use of English diplomatic envoys and advocates. Indeed, the size and quantity of documents and registers written and kept by this office was remarkable and grew especially during the tenure of the second custos processuum, Elias Joneston. He presided over and reformed the office between 1306 and 1332 under the direction of Walter Stapeldon, bishop of Exeter and treasurer of the exchequer, who was also r­esponsible for reorganizing the exchequer, the privy seal, and the wardrobe.108 Yet, during Elias Joneston’s tenure English foreign affairs were presented with two major crises, substantially overlooked in Cuttino’s work: the war of St Sardos and the deposition of Edward II. The war of St Sardos precipitated the need to produce an increasingly sophisticated system of record-keeping which could ­effectively inform the crown’s diplomatic envoys negotiating an Anglo-French peace both in France and at the papal curia. Accordingly, the domestic turmoil between Autumn 1326 and January 1327 wiped out the political establishment at the core of Edward II’s government and administration, and replaced it with the trusted allies of Isabella and Mortimer. Even before 26 November 1326, when Edward II handed over the great seal to Isabella and Prince Edward, the king had already surrendered the exchequer (on 6 November) and the chancery rolls (on 22 November), while the victorious rebels did not recover the privy seal and chamber records until March 1327. Apart from very few exceptions, mostly represented by professional administrators such as Henry Cliff, keeper of the rolls of chancery (1325–34), Isabella’s and Prince Edward’s nominees for these offices were all men who had more or less openly opposed Edward II’s rule in the last year of his reign: William Airmyn, bishop of Norwich, who took over as keeper of the great seal; his relative Richard Airmyn, who became keeper of the privy seal; and John Stratford, bishop of Winchester, who was appointed treasurer.109 106 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 19–48. The first custos processuum is referred to as secretarium nostrum in a letter of Edward I to Clement V dating July 1306: Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 42. 107 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 20. 108 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 29–41, 73–83; M. Buck, Politics, Finance and the Church in the Reign of Edward II. Walter Stapeldon treasurer of England (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 163–96. On the clerks of the keeper of processes as advisers on foreign policy see G.P. Cuttino, ‘Henry of Canterbury’, EHR 57 (1942), p. 303. See Chapter 2. 109 Phillips, Edward II, pp. 515–16.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

175

The extent to which international and domestic political turmoil had an effect on the development of administrative and diplomatic practices in England in the period 1323–7 is further shown by the surviving diplomatic correspondence of the crown’s administrative departments. This documentation underwent reorganization in two ways: the creation of calendars and registers, which were easier and more practical to handle for the crown’s clerks and diplomatic envoys; and the employment of a more efficient system of record-keeping managed through the office of the keeper of processes.110 By 1323 the English crown’s archives preserved at least seven calendars or registers, which were compiled from 1279 onwards.111 In particular, two of these calendars, known as the Gascon calendar and the Stapeldon’s calendar, were compiled in the office of the keeper of processes between 1320 and 1323, on the eve of the outbreak of the war of St Sardos, at the request of Walter Stapeldon.112 Indeed, Cuttino argued that these calendars were ‘the product of necessity growing out of the demands of the process of Périgueux’, begun in 1310 to resolve conflicting claims over the English continental possessions, which the lawyers representing the English crown and its subjects could not satisfactorily defend before the French courts because of the shortage of supporting documentation.113 In fact, while the Gascon calendar specifically dealt with English rights in Gascony and Aquitaine, Stapeldon’s calendar recorded items preserved in the exchequer and the wardrobe, which concerned domestic affairs of Ireland, Scotland and Wales as well as foreign diplomatic relations with Aragon, Castile, Burgundy, Ponthieu, Sicily, Holland, Bar, and Brabant. The creation of calendars and registers was, therefore, necessitated by the evident difficulties of English representatives, lacking appropriate evidence for the defence of their clients before the French and papal courts. This was especially the case for the on-going quarrels concerning the implementation of the Treaty of Paris of 1259, which largely dealt with the contested rights over English possessions in Gascony, the Agenais, and Aquitaine.114 The documentary evidence copied in the calendars was, in other words, essential to English lawyers and representatives not only to deal with the on-going processes in France but also to negotiate a peaceful outcome of the war of St Sardos. As pointed out above, the latter in fact broke out initially as a local Gascon conflict concerning the rights over the fortification of the bastide of St Sardos, but soon developed into an international affair because of the outbreak of Anglo-French hostilities in Summer 1324 and on account of Edward II’s 110 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 73. 111  The Gascon Calendar of 1322, ed. G.P.  Cuttino (London, 1949), p. vii; no. 2060–2068, pp. 163–4; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 73–83. The date at which the compilation of registers and calendars began seems quite significant. In 1279 Edward I in fact agreed the Treaty of Amiens with Philip III and acquired the county of Ponthieu by rights of his wife, Eleanor of Castile, significantly consolidating his power in northern France: Vale, The Angevin Legacy, p. 71, 77. 112  The Gascon Calendar, pp. vii–viii. On Stapledon’s activity as administrative reformer see Phillips, Edward II, pp. 444–5. Both these calendars are preserved at TNA and have been published. See Gascon Calendar: TNA, E 36/187 edited in The Gascon Calendar of 1322, ed. G.P. Cuttino (London, 1949); Stapeldon’s Calendar: TNA, E 36/268 edited in The Antient Kalendars and Inventories of His Majesty’s Exchequer, ed. F. Palgrave, I (London, 1836), pp. 1–155. 113  The Gascon Calendar, pp. viii–ix; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 79–83. 114 M. Gavrilovitch, Étude sur le Traité de Paris de 1259 (Paris, 1899), pp. 67–104.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

176

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

attempts to ally with Aragon, Castile, and Portugal against France in the first half of 1325.115 Interestingly, Walter Stapeldon, Elias Joneston and his clerks chose to organize the material in those calendars on the basis of their topical and geographic relevance rather than according to strict chronological criteria, adopting a practice of record-keeping comparable to the one employed in the apostolic chamber’s registers of secret letters in the same years. In this respect, the different sections of the crown’s registers and calendars represent diplomatic dossiers for the use of the king’s judicial and diplomatic representatives.116 In the 1320s, alongside the office of the keeper of processes, other crown administrative departments carried out the record-keeping of diplomatic ­correspondence. Indeed, the majority of documents gathered in the keeper of processes’s calendars and registers were preserved in the exchequer and wardrobe, although in some instances they also included transcripts of chancery diplomatic documents, which were duplicated in order to facilitate record-keeping and to inform the crown’s diplomatic and legal representatives.117 This was the case for a dossier of memoranda and diplomatic documents, which were mostly preserved until 1326 in the king’s wardrobe, headed by Hugh Despenser, Edward II’s closest and most influential adviser between 1318 and 1326.118 Such diplomatic correspondence, published by Chaplais in 1954, not only sheds new light on the on-going negotiations during the war of St Sardos, but also provides evidence for the production and recordkeeping of documentation employed for diplomatic communications between England and the continent.119 What is most interesting when examining this dossier is the extent to which different administrative departments communicated with each other and shared documents in order to inform the crown’s p ­ olitical and diplomatic discourse. This was for instance the case for a memorandum recorded between 17 August 1323 and 3 May 1325, where there is an indication that copies of relevant chancery documents, issued under the great seal, were requested and duplicated to inform the Anglo-French peace negotiations in Gascony.120 Furthermore, in the second decade of the fourteenth century the chancery also continued to enrol copies of diplomatic documents.121 A very good example of this practice is provided by the Treaty roll C 76/10, which was originally named 115  See above n. 77 and 80. As pointed out above, Edward II specifically disputed Charles IV on two points: the French right to authorize the fortification of St Sardos, which the English had challenged before the French courts since the time of the Treaty of Amiens in 1279; and the French abuses against the seneschal of Gascony and his officials in the Duchy, especially after October 1323: see above n. 37–38. 116  On the importance of archiving diplomatic correspondence see J.M. Moeglin, S. Péquignot, Diplomatie et « relations internationales » au Moyen Age (IXe-XVe siècle) (Paris, 2017), pp. 142–6. 117  The Gascon Calendar, p. x. 118 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 30–8. On the role of Hugh Despenser see The War of Saint-Sardos, p. vii; Phillips, Edward II, pp. 441–5. In Davies’s words Hugh Despenser ‘directed Gascon affairs’ between 1324 and 1325: Davies, The baronial opposition, pp. 338–40. 119  See above n. 4. 120  The War of Saint-Sardos, no. 167, p. 180: ‘Et de enquere la verite du dit fait de Seint Sacerdot’ feurent lettres faites soutz le grant seal a les ministres le roi en Gascoigne, des queles la copie est escript a doos de ce roule. Queritur copia litterarum illarum in cancellaria.’ 121  TNA, 76/10, m. 3–6 are endorsed with the note ‘Alemannia de anno XVIII’. See also Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, p. 605.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

177

roll de Alemannia.122 At first glance, two features of this enrolment, which covers the years of the war of St Sardos (1324–5), seem quite remarkable. First, the majority of documents enrolled in C 76/10 were duplicated and survive in more than one original.123 Notes on six of these originals, dating either from 6 May or 5 July 1325, further suggest that these documents were duplicated for distribution to the English envoys involved in Anglo-French negotiations.124 Second, many entries in C 76/10 are cancelled and are either rewritten without any correction on a different membrane of the same enrolment or amended.125 When the documents were rewritten in a different version, the cancelled and amended entries substantially differed from the version in the original documents, where some clauses present in the enrolment are omitted.126 The extent to which these corrections to C 76/10 simply witness to the chancery’s unmethodical administrative practices, as scholars have traditionally argued, can be further assessed when examining the dates and contents of such diplomatic correspondence.127 Indeed, most of the duplicated and cancelled entries enrolled in C 76/10 consist of letters of credence issued to the crown’s envoys between 1324 and 1325 in order to negotiate an Anglo-French peace in Gascony. All these documents concern three missions in particular: the mission of the Earl of Richmond, the bishop of  Norwich, the bishop of Winchester and Henry of Beaumont, dispatched on 15  November 1324, which first introduced to the French the idea that Prince Edward should be granted the Duchy and perform homage to Charles IV;128 the 122  TNA, 76/10; Treaty Rolls, I, no. 638–70, pp. 246–66. A similar point will be made in Chapter 8 through the examination of TNA, C 76/11, which covers the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1338). On the Treaty rolls as a modern series of records see Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, p. 605. 123 These are the entries in TNA, 76/10, m. 3–6; Treaty Rolls, I, no. 639–646, pp. 248–53; no. 648–651, pp. 253–5; no. 654–9, pp. 256–9. The surviving originals are: no. 639, pp. 248–9 = TNA, C 47/27/13/3–4; no. 640, p. 249 = TNA, C 47/27/13/1–2; no. 641, pp. 249–50 = TNA, C 47/27/13/6; no. 642, p. 250 = TNA, C 47/27/13/5; no. 643, p. 251 = TNA, C 47/27/13/7–8; no. 644, pp. 251–2 = TNA, C 47/27/13/9–10; no. 645, p. 252 = TNA, C 47/27/13/11–12; no. 646, pp. 252–3 = TNA, C 47/27/13/13; no. 648, pp. 253–4 = TNA, C 47/27/13/26 and Paris, ANF, J//634, no. 5; no. 649, p. 254 = TNA, C 47/27/13/24–25; no. 650, p. 255 = TNA, C 47/27/13/22–23; no. 651, p. 255 = TNA, C 47/27/13/27; no. 654, pp. 256–7 = TNA, C 47/27/13/33; no. 655, p. 257 = TNA, C 47/27/13/32; no. 656, pp. 257–8 = TNA, C 47/27/13/31; no. 657, p. 258 = TNA, C 47/27/13/30; no. 658, p. 258 = TNA, C 47/27/13/34; no. 659, pp. 258–9 = TNA, C 47/27/13/29. On some originals we find annotations showing that they had been duplicated; the same notes are also found next to some enrolled entries: Treaty Rolls, I, no. 649, p. 254 = TNA, C 47/27/13/24–25; no. 650, p. 255 = TNA, C 47/27/13/22–23; no. 651, p. 255 = TNA, C 47/27/13/27. 124 The documents that were duplicated are: TNA, C 47/27/13/6, C 47/27/13/9–10, C 47/27/13/12, C 47/27/13/22–23, C 47/27/13/24–25, C 47/27/13/26 = Paris, ANF, J//634, no. 5. The documents concerning the mission in July 1325 are TNA, C 47/27/13/29–34. The number of nuncios, for whom the documents were copied, is specified in notes written on the verso of the originals and varies between two and four. 125  The entries which were cancelled and rewritten in another membrane without any correction are: Treaty Rolls, I, no. 639–645, pp. 248–52 = no. 663–669, pp. 264–5. The entry, which was cancelled and enrolled in a different version, is Treaty Rolls, I, no. 646–7, pp. 252–3. The entries, which were cancelled in TNA, C 76/10 and not rewritten in a different form, are Treaty Rolls, I, no. 651, p. 255; no. 654–9, pp. 256–9. 126  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 648, pp. 253–4 = TNA, C 47/27/13/26 and Paris, ANF, J//634, no. 5; no. 649, p. 254 = TNA, C 47/27/13/24–25; no. 650, p. 255 = TNA, C 47/27/13/22–23. 127  On this point see Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 11–12. 128  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 639–47, pp. 248–53. On this mission see above n. 76.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

178

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

mission of the bishops of Winchester and Norwich and the Earl of Richmond to France, which was dispatched on 6 May 1325 after the French envoys offered Edward II very harsh terms for peace and news from Gascony hinted at a possible French invasion of the Duchy;129 and finally the embassy of the bishops of Winchester and Norwich and the Earl of Richmond, sent to France on 5 July 1325 in order to authorize Edward II’s donation of the Duchy to Prince Edward and his homage to the French king.130 All the letters of credence concerning the first mission on 15 November 1324 were cancelled in membranes 6 and 7 of C 76/10 and rewritten without any correction in membrane 2 apart from one, namely Edward II’s letter announcing the arrival of his envoys to Charles IV. Significantly, this letter was crossed out, corrected and rewritten in membrane 6, where it lacks some significant references to the war (guerra) and the truces formerly agreed (treugae), listed in the clauses concerning the envoys’ faculties in the deleted version of the letter.131 Furthermore, the letters of credence rewritten in membrane 2 of C 76/10 are followed by Edward II’s letter to Charles IV, dated 24 August 1325, in which the English king excused himself for cancelling his trip to France, where he should have paid the already postponed homage to the French crown on 29 August.132 The presence of this document may well explain why deleted letters of credence for the mission of November 1324 were rewritten in C 76/10 without any correction. This document probably informed later negotiations in August 1325, when Edward II once more delayed his homage to Charles IV. Accordingly, all the letters of credence given to Edward II’s envoys for the mission in May 1325 were deleted, while two of them were corrected in C 76/10 on the basis of the text of the o­ riginals. Once again in such cases the differences between the enrolled documents and the originals occur in the section of the document listing the envoys’ faculties.133 Only two letters of credence were ultimately enrolled without further corrections for this mission and, unsurprisingly, they do not contain the clause listing the envoys’ faculties, already cancelled in the previous versions of these documents.134 Finally, all the letters of credence concerning the mission of July 1325 are crossed through, although they do not appear to have been reissued in a different form.135 Indeed, the only extant documents concerning this mission in C 76/10 are the copies of the Anglo-French peace agreement 129  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 648–651, pp. 253–5. See also above n. 120 and Phillips, Edward II, pp. 472–3. 130  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 654–659, pp. 256–9. See also Phillips, Edward II, p. 476. 131  On Edward II’s letter to Charles IV see Treaty Rolls, I, no. 646–647, pp. 252–3. 132  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 670, pp. 265–6. See Phillips, Edward II, pp. 479–80. The diplomatic mission of November 1324 is also the focus of a distinct diplomatic dossier in ASV, Reg. Vat. 113: see above n. 73. 133  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 649, p. 254 = TNA, C 47/27/13/24–25; no. 650, p. 255 = TNA, C 47/27/13/22–23. The controversial clause is the ‘clause of limitation’: ‘Dantes eisdem quatuor . . . et nuncios nostros quatuor’ (see Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 109). We can speculate that these documents were enrolled from drafts and corrected in accordance with the text of the original, which was sealed and dispatched in two identical copies. This argument is supported by Treaty Rolls, I, no. 650, p. 255, where the cancelled entry, after being enrolled in TNA, C 76/10, was compared and eventually corrected in accordance with the corrections of the original. 134  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 652–653, pp. 255–6. 135  Treaty Rolls, I, no. 654–659, pp. 256–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

179

and its ratifications, dated on 31 May and 13 June 1325, where the issue of homage had been duly addressed.136 Arguably, the examination of C 76/10, which has especially focused on extant, deleted and duplicated documents, also surviving as originals, supports the idea that the chancery compiled this enrolment to keep track of and inform those involved in the convoluted diplomatic negotiations to end the war of St Sardos between November 1324 and July 1325. This process in fact required the issuing of duplicated copies and originals, which had to be distributed among the crown’s diplomatic representatives. Accordingly, these letters of credence had to be updated on the basis of on-going diplomatic negotiations among the parties. The analysis of the amendments made to these documents highlights that between November 1324 and July 1325 two controversial points were especially discussed: the long overdue English homage to the French crown and Edward II’s donation of the Duchy to his son. Furthermore, the corrections to the envoys’ letters of credence recorded in C 76/10 show that during the peace talks the English crown’s representatives considered particularly problematic any mention of two topics, namely the war in Gascony and the numerous lapsed truces among the parties. It was, therefore, decided that later and final versions of the envoys’ letters of credence should leave these references out; in other words, the envoys were not given a mandate to discuss these points.137 Ultimately, C 76/10 represents a record of Anglo-French diplomatic discourse, which was probably updated as the negotiations went on. Significantly, only five documents out of a total of thirty-two enrolled in C 76/10 had not been deleted and discounted by August 1325. These extant five entries therefore are the definitive record of the Anglo-French negotiations and, once more, witness to the amount of paperwork and administrative sophistication required to inform diplomatic missions by the third decade of the fourteenth century.138 The examination of the extant diplomatic correspondence in other ­contemporary series of chancery diplomatic enrolments seems further to confirm my hypothesis. We have seen that, together with the rolls de Alemannia (now Treaty rolls), from the late thirteenth century the English chancery also kept other series of diplomatic enrolments, organized according to the topic and geographical relevance of their entries, such as the Gascon rolls (C 61), which enrolled documents concerning Gascon affairs from 1273, and the Roman rolls (C 70).139 The entries in the Gascon rolls are often complementary to those recorded in the calendars of the keeper of processes and in the Treaty rolls, as happens for the peace ­negotiations in early 136 Paris, ANF, J//634, no. 6, 7, 7bis, 8, 8bis, 8tris, 8quart, 8quint, 9, 9bis; Treaty Rolls, I, no. 660–662, pp. 259–64. News of the Anglo-French truce and details of the Anglo-French peace negotiations had been already dispatched by the Aragonese ambassadors at the papal curia to James II in April–May 1325: Acta Aragonensia, no. 214, pp. 471; 473. 137  Treaty Rolls, I, 652–653, pp. 255–6. 138  The entries, which were not cancelled, are only seven on a total of thirty-two entries: Treaty Rolls, I, no. 638, pp. 246–8; no. 660–662, pp. 259–64; no. 670, pp. 265–6. 139  On the Gascon rolls see http://www.gasconrolls.org/en/. On the Roman rolls see Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 606–12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

180

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

July 1325, which concerned both Treaty rolls and the Gascon rolls.140 Similarly, while the entries in Roman rolls often complement other series of chancery enrolments, such as the Gascon, Patent and Close rolls, their importance arguably lies in the fact that they offer a unique insight into how the English crown and the Apostolic See employed comparable administrative practices during the first half of the fourteenth century in order to manage their foreign affairs.141 Whereas the majority of entries recorded in the Roman rolls for the years 1323–7 (C 70/5 and 6) concern provisions to ecclesiastical benefices and ecclesiastical lawsuits, a number of entries in fact deal with papal mediations in the Anglo-French conflict and can be mapped against the ‘diplomatic dossiers’ recorded in the registers of secret letters of the apostolic chamber as well as in other series of chancery enrolments, especially the Treaty rolls.142 For example, the important mission to England of the papal envoys Henry of Sully and Hugh of Angouleme in early July 1324 is accounted for in C 70/5, which in fact enrols the crown’s diplomatic correspondence, complementing one of the papal chamber’s diplomatic dossiers recorded in Reg. Vat. 112.143 Furthermore, this enrolment covers Henry of Sully’s mission to the papal curia in October 1324, following the English defeat at La Réole, along with the proposed articles for an Anglo-French peace, which were initially masterminded by the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange and sent to John XXII.144 Finally, some entries in C 70/5 demonstrate how the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange oversaw the Anglo-French negotiations in May 1325 and provide evidence for the extent of their support for Isabella’s diplomatic mission in France, which, as noted above, is extensively recorded in C 76/10 but is not properly detailed in Reg. Vat. 113. On 8 May 1325 John XXII was briefed on this mission while, on 14 May, his envoys were involved in Anglo-French talks concerning Edward II’s homage due to Charles IV, which lay at the core of the negotiations.145 Meanwhile, as C 70/5 shows, the papal envoys also dealt with the dispute between Edward II and Adam Orleton, which is recorded in the third diplomatic dossier concerning England of Reg. Vat. 113.146 Similarly, C 70/6, the Roman roll covering the implementation of the Anglo-French peace-agreement and the deposition of Edward II between July 1325 and December 1326, specifically documents Anglo-papal relations focusing on four diplomatic missions, which are also mentioned in the registers of 140  For the Treaty rolls see above n. 130. For the Gascon rolls see TNA, C 61/38, no. 1–2: http:// www.gasconrolls.org/en/edition/calendars/C61_38/document.html#fn05 (accessed on 17 February 2017). On cancelled entries rewritten in other series of chancery enrolments see Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 610–12. 141  Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 610–12. On this point see also Chapter  8. Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 264–7, briefly addresses the importance of the Roman rolls to study Anglo-papal relations. 142  TNA, C 70/5 and 6. 143  TNA, C 70/5, m. 4r; Rymer, II/1, pp. 563–4. See also above n. 50, 54, 57. 144  TNA, C 70/5, m. 3r; Rymer, II/1, pp. 575–7. See also above n. 73. 145  TNA, C 70/5, m. 1r and 8v; Rymer, II/1, p. 599. On the account of this mission in ASV, Reg. Vat. 113 see above n. 79–81. On TNA, C 76/10 see above, n. 129, 133–134. 146  TNA, C 70/5, m. 1r; see above n. 81.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



The War of St Sardos and the Deposition of Edward II (1323–1327)

181

secret letters of the apostolic chamber. First, C 70/6 records the mission of the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange in October 1325, which aimed at implementing the Anglo-French peace in Gascony and dealt with Edward II’s request for a marriage dispensation for his daughter in order to consolidate his alliance with Castile.147 Second, the enrolment deals with William Weston’s embassy to the papal curia, announced in early December 1325. Weston had to report to the pope on the king’s opinions as to the state of the Anglo-French peace and to engage with Isabella’s refusal to come back to England, explicitly mentioned in a letter sent to John XXII on 3 January 1325.148 Third, C 70/6 documents the ­negotiations undertaken at the papal curia since February 1326 by William Weston and John Stratford, who dealt with Isabella’s prolonged stay in France and the Anglo-French peace, also accounted for in the third diplomatic dossier recorded in Reg. Vat. 113.149 And finally, C 70/6 records the mission of the archbishop of Vienne and the bishop of Orange, who arrived in England on 19 May 1326 to mediate between Edward II and Isabella, whose activity is also documented in the first diplomatic dossier concerning England of Reg. Vat. 113. In this case, the enrolment not only records Edward II’s letter to John XXII but also a piece of supporting evidence, namely a letter from the king, issued under the privy seal and addressed to Charles IV, which was enrolled in both French and Latin.150 All in all, the Roman rolls, therefore, not only provide unique insights into Anglo-papal relations by enrolling diplomatic documentation which is often complementary to the records of the Apostolic See, most notably the registers of secret letters, but they also complement other series of diplomatic enrolments, calendars and registers, which were kept and produced in other crown administrative departments, especially from the beginning of the fourteenth century. As shown above, the office of the keeper of processes was in fact established to keep track of the crown’s diplomatic correspondence, mostly preserved in the wardrobe, the ­exchequer and the chancery, and to liaise with other crown administrative departments.151 Such administrative reorganization was ultimately needed to inform diplomatic envoys and to support foreign policy decisions through appropriate documentation not only at times of relative domestic and international peace, as Cuttino has argued, but above all during periods of conflict and domestic turmoil, notably the years 1323–7. Evidence from this period indeed suggests a good deal of complexity and bureaucratic organization in the crown administrative and diplomatic practices, which arguably developed in response to international conflicts and internal political circumstances. 147  TNA, C 70/6, m. 5r; Rymer, II/1, pp. 611–14. See also Phillips, Edward II, pp. 486–7. 148 TNA, C 70/6, m. 4r and 3r; Rymer, II/1, p. 616, 618; CPL, II, p. 477. See also Phillips, Edward II, pp. 488, 495. 149  TNA, C 70/6, m. 3r–2r. See above n. 89. 150 TNA, C 70/6, m. 2r; Rymer, II/1, p. 625. See also above n. 86 and Phillips, Edward II, pp. 496–7. 151  On the role of the chancery in managing foreign affairs during the first three decades of the fourteenth century see Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 598, 612–14.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

182

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century C O N C LU S I O N S

The examination of diplomatic correspondence produced at the papal curia and in England between the outbreak of the war of St Sardos in 1323 and the deposition of Edward II in 1327 suggests how far the Anglo-French conflict and domestic turmoil in England influenced the growth of administrative and diplomatic practices. The unsettled political circumstances indeed prompted both polities to implement new administrative practices, especially with regard to record-keeping, in response to the practical demands of managing and properly informing foreign affairs and international relations. While the papal curia and English crown administrative departments charged with managing diplomatic correspondence seem to have adopted quite independently of each other comparable methods of record-keeping and informationgathering through the compilation of registers, calendars and enrolments, their administrative efforts were undoubtedly complementary. Indeed, the diplomatic correspondence produced at the papal curia and in England between 1323 and 1327 bears witnesses to specific diplomatic missions, which attempted to negotiate the Anglo-French conflict and to deal with the clash between Isabella and Edward II. Significantly, the examination of the techniques employed to record and archive such diplomatic correspondence at the papal curia and in England has demonstrated that both polities adopted comparable administrative solutions because their needs were shared and similar. They ultimately consisted in compiling ‘diplomatic dossiers’, arranged according to thematic and geographic criteria rather than chronologically, in order to inform the day-to-day diplomatic exchange. As previously indicated, both the papal and English diplomatic dossiers can be convincingly mapped against the missions of the papal and English diplomatic envoys. My intention here is not to argue that papal and English administrative practices either copied from or influenced each other. Indeed, their comparable solutions arguably arose as a result of what Weber called an ‘autonomous logic’. However, such logic was seemingly grounded in the increasing specialization of judicial and administrative practices, which ultimately led to a shared culture in the management of foreign affairs across Europe throughout the fourteenth century alongside the formation of a ‘shared administrative and performative language’ of diplomacy.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

8 Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War When questioning how far political change and conflict affected the growth of diplomatic and administrative practices in late Medieval Europe, the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337 ought to be considered as a major turning-point. Whilst its duration (1337–1453) arguably coincided with the most troubled phases in the history of the later Medieval papacy, notably the settlement of the Apostolic See in the South of France, the return of the papacy to Rome, the outbreak of the Great Schism (1378–1417) and its aftermath, the period of the Hundred Years’ War also saw the emergence all over Europe of polities with ‘stronger centers, more complex administrations and clearer boundaries’, as John Watts has recently put it.1 This chapter specifically focuses on Pope Benedict XII (1334–42) to see how the outbreak of the conflict between England and France impacted on Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse and practice during his pontificate. In particular, this case study questions how comparable administrative and diplomatic practices developed in response to similar political circumstances and will investigate the contribution of human agency to bureaucratic reforms, especially with regard to record-keeping. Remarkably, an overall assessment of papal involvement in the Hundred Years’ War covering the whole period 1337–1453 still remains to be published. With a few exceptions, the extensive historiography on the war has not in fact paid much attention to the role of the papacy as a political actor in the Anglo-French conflict, and any mention of papal diplomatic mediation between England and France is limited to references to individual popes, who intervened in the conflict at different stages. Furthermore, when focusing on Benedict XII’s role in the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War, scholars have unanimously acknowledged his efforts at peacemaking and have mainly seen the failure of papal mediation as an outcome of the complex political situation within early fourteenth-century Europe, d ­ ominated by the individual agendas of Philip VI, Edward III, and Lewis of Bavaria. The only monographs on Benedict XII and the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War date from the early twentieth century. In 1902 French historian Déprez published a seminal study on the diplomatic exchange between the papacy, France, and England in the period 1328–42, underlining Benedict XII’s original contribution as a mediator within the broader European context. In his opinion, unlike Benedict XII’s predecessor John XXII, who was only a ‘spectator’ in the conflict 1 J. Watts, The making of polities. Europe, 1300–1500 (Cambridge, 2009), p. 425.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

184

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

between England and France, Benedict XII not only asserted with strength, pride, and conviction his role as an arbiter of war and peace in the Anglo-French conflict, but also dealt with the political situation in the German Empire, Flanders, Spain, and Italy as well as the organization of a new crusade.2 In 1933, the American historian Jenkins put forward a similar argument, although she was unaware of Déprez’s work. Jenkins focused on the papal organization of a new crusade, on Benedict’s instrumental use of excommunication, interdict and dispensations, and on his political involvement in the international scene through the employment of papal envoys and political correspondence.3 Apart from Déprez and Jenkins, specialists in the Hundred Years’ War have however only occasionally assessed Pope Benedict XII’s mediatory role between England and France at the outbreak of the conflict, most often mentioning his failed attempts at organizing a crusade in 1334–5, securing Anglo-French collaboration, and establishing a truce between the two parties in the early 1340s.4 In particular, Perroy epitomized Benedict XII’s attempts at delaying the outbreak of the war and pacifying the two parties through truces as ‘dogged but ill-fated’,5 while Sumption addressed the pope’s attitude in dealing with Philip VI as ‘faultless’, ‘realistic’, ‘austere and independent’, pointing out that ‘of all the Avignon popes, [Benedict XII] was the least sympathetic to French interests’.6 Equally, Templeman maintained that the circumstances which led to the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War had already characterized earlier Anglo-French crises and that in 1337 the conflict broke out owing to the lack of political standing of Benedict XII, Edward III, and Philip VI.7 Moreover, the historiography of the Avignon papacy has traditionally focused on papal allegiance to the French monarchy during the fourteenth century as well as on Benedict XII’s failed attempts at delaying the outbreak of the war, organizing a new crusade and securing truces at different stages of the conflict.8 More recently, Plöger and Willershausen emphasized how, 2 E.  Déprez, Les préliminaires de la Guerre de Cent Ans. La papauté, la France et l’Angleterre (1328–1342) (Paris, 1902), pp. 400–5. Accordingly, Kamp has argued that Benedict XII saw papal arbitration in the Anglo-French conflict through his cardinals as a means to pacify the conflict: H. Kamp, Friedensstifter und Vermittler im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2001), pp. 233–5. 3 H. Jenkins, Papal efforts for peace under Benedict XII (1334–1342) (Philadelphia, PA, 1933), p. 81. 4 F. Lot, La France des origines à la Guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1942), p. 264; P. Contamine, La guerre de Cent ans (Paris, 1968), p. 15; J. Favier, La guerre de cent ans, 1337–1453 (Paris, 1980), pp. 21–2, 76, 90, 100–1; A. Curry, The Hundred Years’ War, 1337–1453 (Oxford, 2002), p. 27. On the historiography on the Hundred Years’ War see also M. Vale, ‘England, France and the Origins of the Hundred Years’ War’, in England and her neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in Honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. M.  Jones, M.  Vale (London, 1989), pp. 199–216. No mention of Benedict XII’s role is found in C. Allmand, The Hundred Years War. England and France at war, c. 1300–c. 1450 (Cambridge, 1988), p. 10, which only refers to the mediation of John XXII between England and France in 1327. 5 E. Perroy, The Hundred Years War (London, 1959), pp. 88, 90, 100–2, 106. 6 J.  Sumption, Trial by Battle. The Hundred Years War, I (London 1990), pp. 145–6, 152–5, 169–70, 395. 7  G.  Templeman, ‘Edward III and the beginning of the Hundred Years War’, TRHS 2 (1952), p. 88. 8 D. Waley, Opinions of the Avignon papacy: a historiographical sketch, in Storiografia e storia. Studi in onore di Eufenio Duprè Theseider (Rome, 1974), pp. 175–88. See also Sumption, Trial by Battle, p. 152. See also Y. Renouard, The Avignon papacy, 1305–1403 (London, 1970), pp. 39–40; Y. Renouard, ‘Les papes et le conflit franco-anglais en Aquitaine de 1259 à 1337’, in Études d’histoire médiévale, II

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

185

from 1338 onwards, Benedict XII pursued peace-making policies (viae pacis), strategically seizing the initiative with the different parties involved in the AngloFrench conflict through the use of legates.9 All in all, historians have therefore been more concerned with assessing the interaction between Philip VI and Benedict XII rather than focusing on the relationship between Edward III and the Apostolic See. When scholars have engaged with Anglo-papal relations, they have tended to address French involvement in the Scottish wars and the crusade rather than examining the English crown’s diplomatic exchange with the papal curia per se. Arguably, Edward III’s role as an active interlocutor with the Apostolic See at the outbreak of the Anglo-French conflict deserves further attention, especially in light of the king’s efforts at opening up the conflict internationally, through the alliance in 1337–8 with the Flemish nobility and the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria, on which Déprez and, to some extent, Jenkins had already focused.10 Edward III’s radical engagement in diplomatic discourse between 1334 and 1342 is indeed evidenced in the production of diplomatic and administrative correspondence and in the dispatch of several diplomatic missions to the continent, documented in the English crown’s diplomatic records, especially the Roman rolls and the so-called Treaty rolls. In turn, after the outbreak of the AngloFrench conflict in 1337, Benedict XII raised the level of his diplomatic missions to England and France, employing two cardinals as his representatives and activating his diplomatic networks to negotiate a truce among the parties.11 This chapter is, therefore, organized in two parts. First, I address the Anglo-papal diplomatic relations in the period 1335–42. Second, following in Déprez’s footsteps, I focus on the chancery records of the English crown, especially the Roman rolls and the so-called Treaty rolls, which enrol most of the diplomatic correspondence exchanged between England, the papal curia, the Empire, and France in the 1330s, as well as other diplomatic documents, preserved in miscellaneous series at The National Archives (especially C 47/27–32) and partly edited by Chaplais.12 These records will be investigated to question how diplomatic and administrative practices evolved during periods of political conflict and the extent to which their implementation provided a satisfactory means to inform the diplomatic discourse between England and the papacy, especially within the political milieu that characterized the first few years of the Anglo-French conflict, itself notoriously subject to sudden changes of alliances.

(Paris, 1968), p. 934; B. Guillemain, I papi di Avignone. Arte, cultura, organizzazione, carità: la Chiesa al passaggio dal medioevo al mondo moderno (Cinisello Balsamo, 2003), p. 70; B. Guillemain, ‘Le pape Benoit XII (1334–1342) et l’élargissement du monde’, in Cristianità ed Europa. Miscellanea di Studi in onore di Luigi Prosdocimi, ed. C. Alzati, I (Rome—Freiburg—Vienna, 1994), pp. 653–60; J. Favier, Les papes d’Avignon (Paris, 2006), p. 402. 9 K. Plöger, England and the Avignon Popes. The Practice of Diplomacy in Late Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2005), p. 29; Willershausen, pp. 115–24, 399–400. 10 Jenkins, Papal efforts, p. 22. 11  B. Bombi, ‘Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War’, in Pope Benedict XII. The guardian of orthodoxy, ed. I. Bueno (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 205–206. 12  See EMDP.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

186

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century A N G L O - PA PA L R E L AT I O N S B E T W E E N 1335 AND 1342

As Curry has pointed out, ‘it is not easy to define the first action of the Hundred Years’ War’ since ‘there was no “declaration of war” in the modern sense’.13 A similar view had already been suggested in earlier scholarship. In particular, Déprez emphasized the importance of Edward III’s crossing to the continent in the summer 1338 as a turning-point in Anglo-French hostilities, while Jenkins argued that Benedict XII’s peace-making efforts changed in their nature from the summer of 1338, when actual warfare began between England and France.14 In a similar fashion, Perroy stated that the period 1337–8 was ‘a vigil of arms’, while Sumption maintained that between 1337 and summer 1338 Edward III attempted to consolidate his international alliances in order to prepare for the opening of hostilities.15 As I argue elsewhere, the examination of Anglo-papal diplomatic exchanges in the period between 1334, when Benedict XII was elected, and the summer of 1338, when Edward III left England for the continent and Anglo-French h ­ ostilities began, shows extremely intense cross-channel diplomatic activity, marked by Benedict XII’s efforts to manage Edward III’s political expectations.16 In this period we can in fact observe the relentless presence of English envoys at the papal curia, while the papacy dispatched important diplomatic missions to England. In particular, after Benedict XII’s election the Anglo-papal diplomatic agenda covered three main areas: the organization of a new crusade to the Holy Land, the urgency of which had been prompted by the arrival of the Armenian ambassador Gregory de Signelie at the papal curia in early 1335, after the Muslims had attacked Cilician Armenia;17 the Anglo-Scottish war, which saw pro-Scottish-French involvement and several papal attempts at mediation between the parties, especially in Autumn 1335, when the two papal nuncii Hugh d’Aimery and Roland of Asti were dispatched to England to negotiate a truce between Edward and David Bruce;18 and the negotiations concerning the restitution of English territories in Gascony. As early as July 1335 Edward III sent his representative John Piers to Avignon to report viva voce before the papal curia with regard to the affairs concerning the French crown and the preparation for the crusade. Detailed instructions, probably given to the envoy for his mission to France in June–July 1335, survive in a hitherto overlooked document still preserved at The National Archives, while the letter

13 Curry, The Hundred Years’ War, p. 29. 14 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 237–84; Jenkins, Papal efforts, p. 41. 15 Perroy, The Hundred Years, p. 100; Sumption, Trial by Battle, pp. 185–233. 16  B. Bombi, ‘Benedict XII’, pp. 95–204. 17 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 108–9; Y. Renouard, ‘Une expédition de céréales des Pouilles en Arménie par les Bardi pour le compte de Benoît XII’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome 53 (1936), pp. 287–329; N. Housley, The Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 1305–1378 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 30–1. See Benedict XII’s letter addressed to Philip VI of France and Edward III on 14 May 1335: Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 55, p. 33; Barbiche, no. 2802, p. 234. 18  Rymer, pp. 926–7; Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 113–14, 117–18. See also Zutshi, no. 173, p. 86. On the funding used to finance this mission see Lunt, Financial Relations, p. 622.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

187

recommending John Piers to the pope was enrolled in the Roman rolls.19 Although the latter document mentions the negotiations with the French crown and the crusade as equally important on John Piers’s agenda, the private instructions for the English envoy clearly witness to Edward III’s attempts at lobbying Benendict XII against Philip VI. In particular, John Piers had to prove the French king and chancellor’s negligence in complying to the agreement of 1294–7 on restitution of Gascon territories to the English crown and possibly to obtain the resumption of the process of Montreuil.20 The instructions further hint at the increasing sophistication of English diplomatic practice. Indeed, John Piers stressed that he had brought with him two enrolments, probably containing copies of the commissions of the process of Montreuil, in order to support the English case before the pope.21 Finally, John Piers was instructed to consult with Edward III’s legal advisers so that he could prove the guilt of the French king, as had been done at the time of the process of Montreuil, in order to have Philip VI prosecuted per viam peccati at the papal curia and to obtain the French king’s excommunication as well as an interdict on his kingdom.22 When Anglo-Scottish negotiations collapsed in March 1336, after the English parliament rejected the papal envoys’ proposals to confirm Edward Balliol as king of Scotland and David II’s nomination as his heir, Benedict XII eventually cancelled the crusade. As Perroy put it, this papal decision ‘infuriated Philip VI’, who was ready to take the leadership of the expedition to the Holy Land and ‘felt that he had been fooled, since he had agreed not to pursue the Scottish alliance for the sake of the crusade, which was now denied to him’.23 Once the crusade was out of the picture, England and France immediately began their preparations for war and the restitution of the English territories in Gascony took centre-stage in the Anglo-French and Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse. Furthermore, at the end of 1336 the Gascon affair coincided with English support for Philip VI’s cousin, Robert of Artois, who had been despoiled of all his properties and 19  TNA, C 47/28/4/3. A copy of these instructions is attached to the instructions for a second mission of John Piers to France, contained in a writ of Edward III dated on 6 April 1337: TNA, C 47/30/6/1. The latter clearly refers to the transfer of the process of Montreuil that the envoy had received from Elias Joneston, the custos processuum. Willershousen, pp. 117–18, refers to John Piers’ second embassy to the papal curia in 1338 and wrongly dates these instructions to 1338. On Edward III’s letter of recommendation to Benedict XII see TNA, C 70/14, m. 4, dated 10 April 1335. See also E. Déprez, Les ambassades anglaises pendant la Guerre de Cent Ans: Catalogue Chronologique (1327–1450) (Paris, 1900), p. 43, who points out that John Piers’ mission was carried out between 20 July 1335 and 28 January 1336. On John Pier’s diplomatic activity see also Chapter 5. 20 G.P. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), pp. 69–70. 21 Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 71 and 82. 22  On the legal aspects of the process of Montreuil see Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 52–70. Similar arguments against the French crown are mentioned in two other documents, possibly dating to 1334, which explicitly mentioned the clash between Boniface VIII and Philip IV, king of France, in 1302, as a precedent when the French king had been prosecuted by the Apostolic See ratione peccati: TNA, C 47/28/3/18–19. 23 Perroy, The Hundred Years, p. 91. Perroy’s view has been strongly challenged by Felten, who argued that the French king never considered the crusade as one of his priorities: F.J.  Felten, ‘Auseinandersetzungen um die Finanzierung eines Kreuzzuges im Pontifikat Johannes’ XXII. (1316– 1334)’, in L’hostie et le denier. Les finances ecclésiastiques du haut Moyen Age à l’époque moderne, ed. M. Pacaut, O. Fatio, M. Granjean (Genève, 1991), pp. 79–99.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

188

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

c­ ondemned by the French king for treason, ultimately repairing to England at the court of Edward III.24 On the whole, while Edward III managed to keep on good terms with the papal curia in such fluctuating circumstances, Philip VI’s diplomatic relations with Benedict XII deteriorated after the cancellation of the crusade and, in January 1337, at the papal curia the French representative Philippe de Chambarlac expressed Philip’s discontent with what he perceived as Benedict XII’s favourable policy towards Edward III.25 Ultimately, on 16 March 1337 the French great council decreed that the Duchy of Aquitaine had to be taken into the French king’s hands, since Edward III, Philip’s vassal, had given protection to the king’s enemy, Robert of Artois, in breach of his feudal obligations. Furthermore, on 24 May 1337 Philip VI confiscated the Duchy of Guyenne, probably aware of Anglo-Flemish negotiations at Valenciennes, where the English envoys Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, William of Montacute, and William of Clynton had been dispatched in May 1337.26 What indeed prompted a new change of allegiances in the summer of 1337 was the ratification of the Anglo-Flemish and Anglo-German alliances on 26 August at Stamford, through which Edward III secured financial and military support against France.27 From January 1337 Benedict XII had in fact dreaded the alliance between his enemy, the excommunicated Emperor Lewis of Bavaria, and Edward III, and he had warned Philip VI in an attempt to involve French diplomacy in peace ­negotiations between the Emperor and the papacy.28 Furthermore, in July 1337 Benedict XII had further raised the level of his diplomatic efforts, appointing as negotiators for the Anglo-French conflict two cardinal nuncii, Pedro Gomez de Barroso, cardinal of Santa Prassede, and Bertrand of Montfavès, cardinal of Santa Maria in Aquiro, who were given very broad faculties to negotiate a peace between the parties.29 Undoubtedly, the choice of two cardinals as papal diplomatic envoys after the French declaration of war against England highlights the crucial political importance of their peace-making mission, whereas before spring 1337 Benedict XII’s diplomatic envoys were all of a lower status, possibly also to contain the ­spiralling costs of papal diplomacy.30 24 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 414–15. 25 Déprez, Les préliminaires, 144–5; Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 263, col. 171; Vatikanische Akten zur deutschen Geschichte in der Zeit Kaiser Ludwigs des Bayern, ed. S.  Riezler (Innsbruck, 1891), no. 1864, p. 664; no.1867, pp. 664–5. See also Jenkins, Papal Efforts, 28–9. 26  Chronographia regum Francorum, ed. H. Moranville (Paris, 1893), II, pp. 26–7, Treaty Rolls, II, pp. 2–10; 12–13; 16–31. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 152–4; Perroy, The Hundred Years, pp. 95–6; Faviers, La Guerre, pp. 75–9. 27  Copies of the alliance agreements are enrolled in TNA, C 76/11, m. 4–11, edited in Treaty Rolls, II, pp. 2–10; 12–13; 16–31. See also Sumption, Trial by Battle, p. 199. 28  Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 277, col. 176; no. 280, col. 179–82. 29  Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 305, col. 196–198; no. 306, col. 199; nos. 310–1, col. 200; no. 313, col. 201; no. 317, col. 202; no. 336, col. 206–8. The faculties of the nuncios are listed in Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 307–9, col. 199–200; no. 314, col. 201; no. 316, col. 202; no. 318–34, col. 202–205. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, p. 148. 30 B.  Guillemain, La cour pontificale d’Avignon, 1309–1376. Étude d’une société (Paris, 1966), pp. 229–30. H. Gilles, ‘Juristes languadociens au service de la papauté’, in La papauté d’Avignon et le Languedoc, 1316–1342 (Toulouse, 1991), pp. 115–16, argues that the Avignon popes seem to have chosen their envoys for particularly important diplomatic missions on the basis of their individual

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

189

Despite papal efforts for peace, on 7 October 1337 Edward III repudiated the homage taken before Philip VI in 1329 and claimed his succession rights to the French throne through his mother.31 In order to support his new political statement before the papacy, Edward III dispatched a major English embassy to Avignon, where Henry Burghersh, bishop of Lincoln, William de Bohun, and Robert Offord had to report vive vocis oraculo on the king’s latest claims.32 Meanwhile, Benedict XII sent Pedro Gomez de Barroso and Bertrand of Montfavès to England with the intention of delaying Edward III from crossing to the continent and opening hostilities.33 The cardinals arrived in England on 20 December 1337 and were kept waiting for a decision of the English parliament, which finally met at Westminster between 3 and 14 February 1338.34 Parliament set the English terms of reconciliation with France, requesting that the lands of Guyenne under French occupation should be returned to English control, that Philip VI should withdraw his support from the Scots, and that he should promise to go on crusade.35 As Haines has argued, the cardinals probably spent the time at their disposal in England in vain attempts to persuade John Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury, and other prelates that they should sway Edward III in favour of a truce. Equally, evidence shows very intense English diplomatic activity, while the cardinals were in England between January and early February 1338. In those two months Edward III’s advisers in fact relentlessly worked on building their accusations against France, focusing once more on the question of English possessions in Gascony and referring back to the process of Montreuil.36 On 20 November 1337, while the cardinals were waiting for a safe conduct to cross the Channel, Edward III had already sent a writ to his clerks Adam Murimouth, Richard de Chaddesleye, Henry de Iddelesworth, Thomas de Plumstok, and Michael de Northburgh, asking them to consult with Andrew of Offord, Henry of Canterbury, and Roger of Stanford about the proceedings against the king and his subjects at the papal curia. The outcome of this request was arguably two documents, still preserved at The National Archives. The first one is an enrolment, probably dating from January–February 1338, which includes four membranes and summarizes in seven points the matters ability as well as their personal allegiance to the pope, their connections and background. On the appointment of the two cardinals as nuncii rather than legates see Chapter 5. 31  Treaty Rolls, II, pp. 40–1. 32  TNA, C 70/15, m. 2; Rymer, II/2, p. 1002. At the same time Edward III presented his envoys before two papal chaplains and members of the papal household, Guido of San Germano and Niccolò Capocci, as well as before the papal representative already present in England, Peter Bourguignon: TNA, C 70/15, m. 2. 33  TNA, C 70/15, m. 2; Rymer, II/2, pp. 1002–4; TNA, C 70/15, m. 2; Rymer, II/2, p. 1004; TNA, C 70/15, m. 2; Rymer, II/2, p. 1004. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 171–4. 34  Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 389, col. 246–7; no. 399, col. 257; no. 407, col. 259; Rymer, II/2, p. 1007; 1010–12. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, 180–2. 35  Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, ed. E.M. Thompson (Oxford, 1889), pp. 60–1. See also The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, 1275–1507, ed. C. Given-Wilson, P. Brand, A. Curry, R.E.  Horrox, G.  Martin, W.M.  Ormrod, J.R.S.  Phllips (Leicester, 2005): http://127.0.0.1:8000/ AnaServer?PROME+0+start.anv+id=EDWARDIII; Fryde, ‘Parliament’, pp. 245–6. 36 R.M. Haines, Archbishop John Stratford. Political Revolutionary and Champion of the Liberties of the English Church, ca. 1275/80–1348 (Toronto, 1986), pp. 252–3. On the English efforts to build arguments against the French see TNA, C 47/28/5/34.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

190

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

concerning the war with France to be mentioned to the cardinals before they left England.37 These points touched upon the English wars in Gascony, Scotland, and Wales as well as English control over the Channel Islands. This enrolment also explicitly referred to other enrolments recording English complaints presented to Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 and listed supporting evidence as appendices to the main body of the text.38 Meanwhile, the second document is a memorandum, also compiled in January–February 1338, which covers most of the same issues as the first enrolment above, reinforcing the idea that the English were trying to exploit the cardinals’ presence in England in order to establish a strong and well-documented case before Benedict XII.39 Soon after the Westminster parliament the cardinals rapidly left England for France with a mandate to present the English requests before Philip VI. However, any attempt at negotiating a peace between the parties finally collapsed on 1 May 1338, when Edward III asked his officials in Gascony to renew his hereditary claims to the French throne.40 On 27 June Edward III announced to the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria his imminent journey to the continent and sought his military support by virtue of the Anglo-German alliance, ultimately leaving on 16 July for the Low Countries.41 On 5 August Edward III and Lewis of Bavaria met at Niederwerth near Koblenz, where the English king settled the payment owed to his allies for their military support against France and accepted the title of Imperial vicar.42 As Jenkins pointed out, between summer 1338 and spring 1342, when he died, Benedict XII did not cease to intervene in the Anglo-French conflict. Between July 1338 and the end of 1339, having failed to prevent it, the pope unsuccessfully tried to control the Anglo-French conflict, while from 1340 he tried to stop it.43 Even though in the winter of 1338–9 Benedict XII continued to promote peacemaking efforts through his nuncios, Edward III and his allies finalized the ­preparation for the campaign against the French in the Cambrésis, where the two opponents faced each other in September–October 1339. However, in the winter of 1339–40 growing domestic criticism of his huge war expenditure prompted Edward III’s return to England, where on 26 January Edward declared himself King of France, while consolidating his alliance with the Flemish towns.44 In the first half of 1340 Benedict XII’s peace-making efforts were once more frustrated 37  TNA, C 47/28/4/32. 38  TNA, C 47/30/6/13 (duplicated in C 47/32/21). 39  TNA, C 47/28/6/1. 40  Treaty Rolls, II, pp. 91–6; 101–17. A document, including four membranes and probably compiled in May 1338, summarizes in twelve points the arguments that Edward III’s envoys had to put forward against the king of France at the papal curia: TNA, C 47/32/16. 41  Rymer, II/2, p. 1046; 1049–50. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 192–4. 42 Déprez, Les préliminaires, p. 199; Sumption, Trial by Battle, pp. 243–4. 43 Jenkins, Papal Efforts, p. 41. 44 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 282–3, 290 n. 3, maintained that letters sealed with a new great seal representing Edward III as King of England and France were issued in Latin and French in February 1340, and provoked Benedict XII’s strong reaction in March 1340, evidencing once more how diplomatic and administrative practice went hand-in-glove. See also M.A.C. Hennigan, Peace efforts of the popes during the first part of the Hundred Years’ War: case study of Innocent VI (PhD, Pennsylvania State University, 1977), pp. 28–9, who defined Benedict XII’s reaction to Edward III’s claim to the French throne as strong, and Perroy, The Hundred Years War, p. 105.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

191

after the French arrested the English diplomatic envoy Nicolino Fieschi just outside Avignon, thus bringing the Anglo-French diplomatic negotiations to a halt and allowing Edward and his allies to buy time to prepare for the summer campaign in the Tournaisis. Eventually, the French defeat at the sea battle of Sluys on 24 June, alongside the standstill in the English siege of Tournai begun in late July and Brabant’s defection from the English coalition, facilitated Benedict XII’s biggest diplomatic achievement after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War, when on 25 September 1340 an Anglo-French nine-month truce was agreed at Esplechin.45 In Déprez’s opinion the truce was achieved through intense diplomatic exchange between the papal curia, England, and France, and carried out thanks to two papal chaplains, Guillaume Ami, rector of Lavaur, and William Bateman of Norwich, dean of Lincoln, whom the pope had secretly dispatched respectively to Philip VI and Edward III.46 The instructions for the papal envoys, dated 26 August 1340, were recorded in Benedict XII’s register of curial and secret letters (Reg. Vat. 135). Significantly, in the instructions given to Guillaume Ami, the choice of a nuncius of lesser rank was justified to reduce the cost of this mission and enable secrecy, while the pope conceded that nuncios of higher rank should be dispatched in the case of bilateral negotiations, excusing his personal incapacity to travel to the location of a peace conference because of his poor health. Furthermore, Guillaume Ami’s instructions assigned the blame for several delays in the negotiations to Edward III and tried to persuade Philip VI that a truce was the only way forward, listing the risks of the on-going conflict for both him and his kingdom.47 Meanwhile, the instructions given to William Bateman of Norwich mainly dealt with the risky English strategy of seeking anti-French alliances with Flanders and the Empire, and explicitly referred to the outstanding question of English possessions in Gascony.48 Significantly both sets of instructions given to the two papal envoys maintained that the pope had ordered this mission manu propria and remarked on the secret character of their missions. Such a statement was especially needed to reassure Edward III, always wary of the involvement of the cardinals in any decision-making process at the papal curia, since the majority of them were either French or had benefices in France, and it further reassured the English king that the pope would have personally carried out the Anglo-French negotiations.49

45  Paris, ANF, J//636, no. 12, 12bis, 13, 14, 14bis, 15, 16. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 335–44; Perroy, The Hundred Years War, p. 106; Sumption, Trial by Battle, pp. 358–9. Willershousen, pp. 121–2, has recently stressed the importance of the mediation of the abbess of Fontenelles, Joan of Valois, who was Philip VI’s sister and Edward III’s mother-in-law. 46  On William Bateman of Norwich’s mediation at the papal curia see also: TNA, C 70/17, m. 4 (14 March 1339); TNA, C 70/17, m. 2b (3 June 1340). 47  ASV, Reg. Vat. 135, fol. 107r–109v; CPL, II, pp. 581–2; Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 763–764, col. 473–478. 48  ASV, Reg. Vat. 135, fol. 110(bis)rv; Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 335–44; no. xiii, pp. 423–6. 49  ASV, Reg. Vat. 135, fol. 108v–109v, at fol. 108v: ‘Credentia commissa per dominum papam magistro Guillelmo Amici super exponendis per eum . . . regi Francie quam quidem credentiam idem dominus papa per eumdem magistrum Guillelmum scribi mandavit et fecit manu propria et sibi realiter assignari’; Reg. Ben. XII (communes), no. 2871. The same wording is found in William Bateman’s ­letter of credence: ASV, Reg. Vat. 135, fol. 110(bis)r; Déprez, Les préliminaires, no. xiii, pp. 423.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

192

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

On 27 October Philip VI replied to the pope, once more highlighting the confidential nature of Guillaume Ami’s mission (ex parte vestra multum secrete nobis exposuit viva voce). The French king accepted papal mediation over Guyenne, which was of a strictly private nature, although he asked in return that Edward should give up the use of the title and great seal as French king.50 On 10 November Edward III likewise dispatched to Avignon William Bateman, who had by then received a ‘dual appointment’ as papal and royal envoy, John Offord, archdeacon of Ely, John Thoresby, canon of Southwell, and Nicolino Fieschi.51 The English mission had been instructed to address five requests, antagonistically turned down by Philip VI. The first three argued for Anglo-French marriage alliances through the union of the Prince of Wales with one of Philip’s daughters; of Edward’s sister with one of Philip’s sons; and of Edward’s brother, the Duke of Cornwall, with another of the French princesses. Moreover, Edward asked the French for ­monetary compensation and offered his participation in the crusade and truces with the Scots in return for the restitution of his territories in Guyenne.52 The paperwork for this English diplomatic mission, which was produced by English envoys at the papal curia and attached to their letters of credence under the envoy’s seals, was once again noteworthy. The latter in fact consisted of a detailed legal consilium, which strongly maintained Edward III’s rightful hereditary claim to the French throne and Philip VI’s felony towards his vassal, supporting these assertions with accurate and detailed references to Roman and canon law.53 Arguably, the failure of Anglo-French negotiations at the papal curia in the winter 1340–1 was precipitated by the sudden change of alliances, which saw Lewis of Bavaria shifting his support to Philip VI.54 While the pope was in fact working to achieve a lasting Anglo-French peace, the Emperor and Alfonso XI of Castile put themselves forward as arbiters of the conflict, substituting secular for papal negotiation in the Hundred Years’ War and undermining Benedict’s diplomatic efforts.55 Furthermore, in spring 1341 the succession crisis in the Duchy of Brittany exacerbated the Anglo-French conflict following the death of Duke John III, whose title was claimed by both Joan of Penthièvre, supported by Philip VI, and John, count of Montfort, backed by Edward III, thus prompting a new military campaign in Brittany in the second half of 1342.56 50  Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 787, col. 485–486: ‘placebit nobis quod vos ut privata persona de et super predictis per viam amicabilem vel rationis . . . cognoscere ac ordinare possitis, dum tamen ante omnia prefatus rex Anglie nomen regis Francie quod usurpative noscitur assumpsisse ac sigillum de armis Francie quo per tempus aliquod usus est indebite et adhuc uti nititur’. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 348–9. 51 Déprez, Les préliminaires, no. xii, pp. 421–3; CPL, II, p. 583–4. 52  ASV, Reg. Vat. 135, fol. 112v-116v; CPL, II, pp. 584–8; EMDP I/2, no. 239, pp. 434–452. Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 350–1. At least one of the English envoys, John de Offord, was professor of civil law: BRUO, II, pp. 1391–2; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 107. On John Thoresby see also P. Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre and the office of notary in Chancery, 1355– 1375’, Journal of the Society of Archivists 4 (1971), pp. 170–3. 53  See Chapter 5. 54 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 373–4; Perroy, The Hundred Years, p. 111. 55 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 285–399; Jenkins, Papal efforts, pp. 54–69; Willershausen, pp. 115–24. 56 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 373–99; Perroy, The Hundred Years, p114–17; Sumption, Trial by Battle, pp. 370–410.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

193

What is however more remarkable, and has been so far been overlooked by historians, is that between 1338 and 1342 Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse dealt with political and military strategies as much as with issues concerning e­ cclesiastical administration in England, especially as far as marriage dispensations and provisions to benefices were concerned. As argued above in Chapter 4, the latter were in fact of considerable importance in striking the right balance within fourteenthcentury Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse.57 Notably, during the negotiations that followed the truce of Esplechin, Edward III was aware of the importance of cultivating unofficial networks at the papal curia and explicitly mentioned to the envoy William Bateman his concerns about established French influence at the papal curia, particularly in the consistory.58 Decisive evidence of the English crown’s concerns with managing foreign affairs through official diplomatic missions as well as unofficial channels is ultimately provided by the Roman rolls for Edward III’s 12th–16th regnal years (C 70/16–18), covering the period after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War (1338–43).59 Uncharacteristically, these enrolments in fact hardly record any official Anglo-papal diplomatic correspondence, while they focus instead on collation of royal protégés and curialists to benefices in England as well as in French territories under English control. This was particularly the case with the election to the archbishopric of York disputed between William Kilsby, promoted by Edward III in return for his service and loyalty in the first phase of the Anglo-French conflict, and William de la Zouche, dean of York, who was elected by the chapter on 2 May 1340 and was supported by John Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury, and intermittently chancellor between 1338 and 1340.60 On the one hand, William Kilsby, as trusted keeper of the privy seal between July 1338 and June 1342 and probably author of the Walton Ordinances of 1338, was among Edward III’s most steadfast advisers and, as one of the royal envoys who negotiated the Anglo-German alliance in 1337, in Benedict XII’s eyes he was arguably not a viable candidate for the see of York. On the other hand, William de la Zouche was very close to John Stratford and relished his ecclesiastical duties rather than royal service, along with the archbishop of Canterbury, who in Haines’s assessment ultimately challenged Edward’s attempts to impose royal taxation on ecclesiastical income to fund the AngloFrench war.61 Given the importance of the two rivals and their political standing in Edward III’s household, it is, therefore, hardly surprising that as early as April 1340 Edward III instructed his envoys at the papal curia to discuss the disputed 57 On the relevance of marriage alliances in Church–State relations see D.  D’Avray, Papacy, Monarchy and Marriage, 860–1600 (Cambridge, 2015), esp. pp. 1–9, 64–79. See also Chapter 4. 58 Déprez, Les préliminaires, p. 342 n. 1. See also above n. 48. 59  See below nn. 89–91. This date is remarkable since, as Guillemain has argued, Benedict XII took a very light touch when it came to the papal right to collate benefices in England, intervening only 104 times during his pontificate (on average five times in each diocese). This figure is considerably outnumbered by Benedict XII’s interventionist approach in France, where the pope intervened on average twenty-four times in each diocese: B. Guillemain, La politique bénéficiale du pape Benoit XII, 1334–1342 (Paris, 1952), pp. 78–88. 60  See below n. 96. 61 Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 363–4; Haines, Archbishop John Stratford, pp. 267–9, 281–5. On the Walton Ordinances see below n. 71.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

194

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

election at York alongside the negotiations over the peace conference with France. Accordingly, the king defended himself from mendacious accusations made against him at the papal curia, addressing both the pope and Raymond de Farges, cardinal of Santa Maria Nuova, by then the non-resident dean of Salisbury and clearly among the unofficial network of friends of the English crown at the papal curia.62 In June 1340, William Bateman, John de Offord, and John Thoresby were dispatched to France to discuss the disputed election at York before Benedict XII and the cardinals, once more along with the on-going negotiation for the truce of Esplechin.63 Meanwhile, strongly supported by the king, William Kilsby probably tried to prevent his opponent William de la Zouche from appealing to the papal curia, as Benedict XII remarked in a mandate addressed to John Stratford on 13 August 1340, when the pope requested the archbishop of Canterbury to excommunicate those who had prevented William from travelling to Avignon.64 At the end of 1340 royal involvement in the disputed election at York finally coincided with the second and definitive fall from royal grace of John Stratford, which saw Kilsby among Stratford’s main opponents.65 Between 3 December 1340 and 17 January 1341 Edward III in fact sent fewer than six petitions to the pope and cardinals. Edward III openly supported William Kilsby and defended his participation in the negotiations with Lewis of Bavaria in 1337, in turn challenging William de la Zouche’s canonical election and addressing him as a ‘notorious murderer and of illegitimate birth’.66 Finally, on 18 January 1341 Edward III ordered William de la Zouche’s expulsion from the diocese of York, since he had not properly sought royal assent before appealing to the papal curia against Kilsby.67 As Déprez and Haines both suggest, the disputed provision to the see of York coincided with the struggle at the heart of Edward III’s household between 1340 and 1341 as well as with the Anglo-French conflict. Indeed, this ecclesiastical dispute was addressed at the papal curia alongside the Anglo-French peace n ­ egotiations, which eventually led to the truce of Esplechin. The disputed election to the see of York is therefore representative of the complexity of late Medieval diplomacy unfolding through both official and unofficial channels. Accordingly, what is ­worthy of notice when questioning how far diplomacy and administrative practices intertwined in the first half of the fourteenth century is how the English chancery 62  TNA, C 70/17, m. 4; Rymer, II/2, p. 1118. See also Déprez, Les préliminaires, pp. 294–5. The petitions to Raymond de Farges are enrolled in the Roman roll TNA, C 70/17, m. 3 and dated 18 April 1340. These petitions are recorded with the note ‘cassat quia restituta fuerit’, suggesting that they may have not been actually dispatched in this form. On the latter see also Déprez, Les préliminaires, no. 10, p. 420; Haines, Archbishop John Stratford, p. 268. See Chapter 4. 63  TNA, C 70/17, m. 2b and 1. M. 2b was added to this enrolment in 1922, as an archival note points out. 64  CPL, II, p. 549. 65 Haines, Archbishop John Stratford, pp. 281–327. John Stratford’s brother, Robert, who had taken over as chancellor from John on 20 June 1340, resigned as keeper of the great seal and chancellor on 1 December 1340. The chancellorship was vacant until 14 December, when Robert Bourchier took over the office. See B. Wilkinson, The Chancery under Edward III (Manchester, 1929), p. 201. 66  TNA, C 70/17, m. 5–6. 67  CPR, 1340–1343, pp. 109–10. Clement VI provided William de la Zouche to the see of York on 26 June 1342 after arbitration at the papal curia: CPL, III, p. 52.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

195

meticulously recorded this dispute and the networking activity underlying it in a special series of enrolments, the Roman rolls, which complemented other series of diplomatic enrolments, such as the diplomatic enrolments now known as Treaty rolls, serving to keep track of more official business. T H E E N G L I S H C ROW N ’ S D I P L O M AT I C C O R R E S P O N D E N C E B E T W E E N 1 3 3 7 A N D 13 4 2 The outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War in 1337 arguably coincided with a phase of reorganization in the English chancery and its archives, which moved out of court during the reign of Edward III.68 Such administrative adjustments were especially needed between 17 July 1338 and February 1340 and between July and late November 1340, when Edward III campaigned in the Low Countries and northern France. As Wilkinson pointed out, in his absence the king left the chancellor a seal of absence, while he took with him the great seal, which was placed in the custody of the keeper of the privy seal, since the king needed to seal the numerous alliances and treaties in the Netherlands against France; the king also needed the privy seal, used to control the activity of the chancery and the seal of absence more efficiently.69 Indeed, such arrangements were set up in the Walton Ordinances of July 1338 issued by the king before he left for the continent. In the Ordinances Edward III prescribed co-ordination between domestic and continental departments of the royal administration, namely between the chancery and the ­exchequer, which remained in London, and the wardrobe and privy seal, which accompanied Edward to the Low Countries.70 The seventh clause of the Walton Ordinances specifically maintained that all privy seal warrants to chancery ought to be recorded on rolls and counter-rolls, now lost, which had to be audited every year against the outgoings of the lower exchequer in order to ensure that payments for the issue of these chancery instruments had been authorized. Accordingly, every quarter a committee audit, including a bishop, a banneret, and a clerk, had to check the rolls of chancery against the privy seal rolls and counter-rolls in the presence of the keeper of the privy seal together with the clerk of the chamber responsible for the counter-enrolment of warrants.71 Similarly, in the 1330s Edward III’s chancery rationalized its record-keeping. As argued in Chapter 7, while during the thirteenth century diplomatic documents 68 Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 10–11. See Chapter 2. 69 Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 104–7, 209–10. See also, Haines, Archbishop John Stratford, pp. 273–5. 70 W.M.  Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace Français, espace Anglais, ed. K. Fianu, D.J.  Guth (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997), pp. 58–9; W.M. Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven, CT—London, 2011), pp. 198–9. On the Walton Ordinances see also T.F.  Tout, Chapters in the administrative history, III (Manchester, 1928), pp. 98–105, 143–50. 71 Tout, Chapters, V, p. 10–15; Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, pp. 62–3. On the loss of the privy seal enrolments see P. Chaplais, ‘Privy Seal Drafts, Rolls and Registers (Edward I–Edward II)’, EHR 73 (1958), pp. 270–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

196

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

had been in fact distributed among chancery, exchequer, and wardrobe, English diplomatic correspondence was reorganized from 1299 in the office of the keeper of processes.72 However, soon after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War, Edward III discontinued this office and proceeded to different arrangements, clearly separating the department of the rolls of chancery from the rest of the office.73 The efforts to rearrange the issuing and archiving of documents in Edward III’s chancery arguably not only witness to growing bureaucratic sophistication but above all responded to the inherent necessity of creating an efficient administrative system which could support and inform the diplomatic discourse in the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War. This necessity was undoubtedly even more stringent between 1338 and 1340, when Edward III travelled to the continent. As argued in Chapter 2, ‘especially tailored’ chancery enrolments organized according to subject matter had been already created as early as 1259, while during the reigns of Edward II and Edward III the chancery enrolments included series especially dealing with foreign and diplomatic affairs, such as the Gascon rolls, the Roman rolls, and the Rotuli de Francia and the Rotuli de Alemannia, now arranged in the Treaty rolls series (C 76).74 In his review of Chaplais’s edition of the first volume of the Treaty rolls, published in 1958, Le Patourel dismissed these rolls as ‘hardly representative of the class in which they now find themselves’. He indeed argued that these enrolments ‘are discontinuous; they have been shuffled into the Treaty rolls from a number of sources; and most of them are more like a file of letters on some given subject than a normal chancery roll’.75 Leaving aside the issue regarding the archival reorganization of these enrolments in the P.R.O.  at Chancery Lane, I would instead argue that a closer look at this artificial series of enrolments, especially those dating between 1337 and 1342 and covering Edward III’s 10th–16th regnal years, can provide a better understanding of why new series of enrolments recording diplomatic correspondence were compiled in the third and fourth decades of 72  See Chapter  6. P.  Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London, 2003), pp. 147–8, has argued that the letters sent to the English kings were filed on a monthly basis from Edward I’s reign onwards, when domestic and foreign files were created and occasionally discontinued. 73 Wilkinson, The Chancery, 54–9. See also H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, Historical notes of the use of the Great Seal of England (London, 1926), pp. 400–3; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, pp. 22–48. On the use of the wardrobe and privy seal to manage more secret diplomatic correspondence from Edward I’s reign see also P. Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents to the End of Edward III’s Reign’, in , ed. D.A. Bullogh, R.L. Storey The Study of Medieval Records. Essays in honour of K. Major (Oxford, 1971), p. 32. 74  List of chancery rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, List and indexes XXVII (Dublin, 1908) pp. iv–vi; P. Chaplais, ‘Preface’, in Diplomatic documents preserved in the Public Record Office, I: 1101–1272 (London, 1964), p. v; B. Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research, 85 (2012), pp. 605–7. In the early twentieth century these rolls were collected in the TNA series Treaty rolls (C 76), and have been published up to 1339 in Treaty Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, ed. P. Chaplais, J. Ferguson, II (London, 1955–72). On the creation of TNA, C 76, see H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, ‘Preface’, in H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, List of Chancery rolls, pp. iii–x; D.L. Evans, ‘Preface’, in Treaty Rolls, I, p. v; Treaty Rolls, II, p. v. C 76/1 was formerly Close roll, 46, while TNA, C 76/2–7 were part of Chancery, Miscellaneous Rolls Bundle 14 (P.R.O., 2nd Annual Report (1841), app. I, p. 3; P.R.O., 2nd Annual Report, app. II, p. 45). 75  J. Le Patourel, Review of ‘Treaty Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, I: 1234–1325, ed. P. Chaplais (London, 1955)’, EHR (1958), p. 668.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

197

the fourteenth century, why they were eventually discontinued by the English chancery and, above all, how they served as records of the English crown’s diplomatic efforts after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War. Nevertheless, I would maintain that the compilation of the diplomatic enrolments for the years 1336–42, now preserved in the Treaty rolls as C 76/11–17, ought to be understood alongside the compilation of other contemporary series of chancery records containing diplomatic correspondence, such as the Roman rolls, as well as various scattered documentation now preserved at The National Archives in the so-called Chancery Miscellanea (C 47).76 Significantly, a closer examination of the contents of the Roman, Alemand, and French rolls provides further evidence that the compilation of these records was undertaken with a clear rationale and was eventually discontinued because of changes in political circumstances between 1336 and 1342. This is the case for the diplomatic correspondence for the 10th regnal year of Edward III (25 January 1336–24 January 1337), when royal letters addressed to the papal curia were enrolled in Roman roll 14 (C 70/14) alongside records of missions sent to France, such as the one led by John Piers between 1335 and 1336.77 Equally, from the 11th regnal year of Edward III (25 January 1337–24 January 1338), after the agreement of Anglo-German and Anglo-Flemish alliances against France, the English chancery began enrolling diplomatic documents on this subject matter in the socalled rotuli Alemannie (C 76/11), while the Roman rolls (C 70/15) became an exclusive repository of petitions addressed to the papal curia and were increasingly concerned with provisions to benefices.78 The length of these enrolments also mirrors this trend. Treaty roll C 76/11 is composed of eleven membranes written on the recto, although its current composition is possibly a later archival creation, since it includes four membranes, originally enrolled as rotulus Alemannie (m. 4–1), and four membranes, formerly marked as Vascon(ie) and containing documents on the alliance between Edward III and Lewis of Bavaria.79 76  The inventory of William Burstall in 1381 already listed among the chancery rolls the Alemand rolls and the French rolls alongside the Roman rolls as three series of enrolments recording diplomatic correspondence during the reign of Edward III: see below n. 77. While the enrolments for the years 1337–42 belonging to the first two series are now preserved in the Treaty rolls, respectively as TNA, C 76/11–16 (rotuli Alemannie) and TNA, C 76/17 (rotulus Francie), the Roman rolls are still available as an independent series of records at The National Archives as TNA, C 70/14–18. The inventory also mentions 52 Gascon rolls: List of chancery rolls, p. vi. 77  TNA, C 70/14. No other enrolment recording diplomatic correspondence for the 10th regnal year of Edward III survives in the Treaty rolls series (TNA, C 76). The instructions to John Piers are recorded in TNA, C 47/28/4/3. 78  Strictly speaking only three petitions in TNA, C 70/15 deal with diplomatic affairs and concern the papal dispatch of his envoys Bernard Sistre to England (m. 3) and Pedro Gomez de Barroso, cardinal of Santa Prassede, and Bertrand of Montfavès, cardinal of Santa Maria in Aquiro, to France (m. 2). See the edition of TNA, C 76/11 in Treaty Rolls, I, pp. 1–43. 79  On the verso of m. 11, 10, 8 and 6 there are notes pointing out that these membranes concern Gascon matters (Treaty Rolls, II, p. 1 n. 1; p. 5 n. 3; p. 13 n. 2, p. 22 n. 1). Given the cohesive nature of these four membranes, all concerning the Anglo-German alliance in 1337, it may be suggested that these membranes became part of TNA, C 76/11 at a later stage. Equally, the Gascon roll for this year (TNA, C 61/49) includes 40 m. all numbered consequentially. On the four membranes annotated as rotulus Alemannie see Treaty Rolls, II, p. 29 n. 2; p. 32 n. 1; p. 33 n. 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

198

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

Equally, Roman roll C 70/15 is uncharacteristically very short and includes three membranes only written on the recto.80 The same pattern is followed for the 12th regnal year of Edward III (25 January 1338–24 January 1339): the Roman roll covering this year (C 70/16) only includes two membranes enrolling petitions addressed to the pope and exclusively dealing with provisions to benefices, marriage dispensations and recommendations of royal protégés at the papal curia. Significantly, a note following the last petition of C 70/16 points out that this petition was sealed in London with the seal of absence, de facto indicating that correspondence with the papal curia concerning routine affairs were enrolled in this enrolment, as Edward had planned in the said Walton Ordinances before leaving for the continent.81 Meanwhile, the English chancery enrolled two long rotuli Alemannie for this year (C 76/12–13), respectively including 35 and 18 membranes, written on both recto and verso.82 As argued above, the registration of entries in these enrolments was not random and can be easily understood owing to the change in political circumstances after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War.83 Treaty rolls C 76/12–13 in fact cover Edward III’s stay in the Low Countries between 17 July 1338 and January 1340 and between 24 June and 28 November 1340 as well as his appointment as an Imperial vicar on 1 September 1338. Similarly, the Chancery Miscellanea (C 47) further preserves a short enrolment, comprising two membranes and recording letters issued by Edward III in the Low Countries as Imperial vicar between 18 September and 21  November 1338, which once more evidences how diplomatic records were enrolled in a ‘tailor-made fashion’ in response to specific political circumstances.84 This special enrolment concerning Edward III’s tenure as Imperial vicar may not represent an unique attempt either. Indeed, two later registers produced in the office of the privy seal, rather than in the chancery, record seventeen more items concerning Edward III’s tenure as Imperial vicar between 1338 and 1339. These later registrations may have been either compiled on the basis of drafts from the time of Edward III’s tenure as Imperial vicar, which were available to the privy seal personnel from the mid-fourteenth century onwards, or further copied in a now lost chancery enrolments from that period.85 Remarkably, the chancery enrolments dealing with diplomatic correspondence followed a similar pattern in the 13th–15th regnal years of Edward III (25 January 1339–24 January 1342), while their nature began to change in his 16th regnal year 80  However TNA, C 76/11, m. 11, seems a later addition and it was possibly originally attached to the Gascon rolls as a note on the verso of m. 11 points out: Treaty Rolls, II, p. 1, n. 1. 81  TNA, C 70/16, m. 1: ‘Datum Londonie sub sigilllo quo iam utimur in Anglia.’ 82  See TNA, C 70/16; C 76/12–13; Treaty Rolls, II, pp. 44–336. 83  See also above n. 56–57. 84 TNA, C 47/32/20. The documents of this enrolment are dated according to the regnal and imperial years of Lewis of Bavaria, showing how Edward’s clerks adapted their diplomatic practice in accordance to circumstances. 85  Manchester, John Rylands Library, ms. 404, fol. 35v-39r; London, BL, Add. Ms 24062, fol. 141v; 151v; 167rv. On the manuscript now preserved in Manchester, dated in about 1360, see F. Bock, ‘An Unknown Register of the Reign of Edward III’, EHR 45 (1930), nn. 88–104, pp. 365–7. On the manuscript now at the British Library, dated in about 1420–4, see The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II, ed. E. Perroy (London, 1933), pp. xiv–xvi.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

199

(25 January 1342–24 January 1343). Arguably, these further adjustments in chancery enrolment practice once more reflected sudden changes in political circumstances and alliances that characterized Edward III’s return to England in January 1340: his claim to the throne of France (26 January 1340); the ultimate failure of the Anglo-French truce of Esplechin (between 25 September 1340 and June 1341); and the breakdown of the Anglo-German alliance in November 1340. On the one hand, only one Roman roll (C 70/17) survives for the 13th and 14th regnal years of Edward III (25 January 1339–24 January 1341) and contains scattered information on Anglo-papal diplomatic correspondence in this period, mainly dealing with marriage dispensations and provisions to benefices, such as the disputed election to the see of York, discussed at length earlier in this chapter.86 On the other hand, we have two substantial rotuli Alemannie for these years, enrolling diplomatic correspondence that mainly concerns Edward III’s campaigns in the Cambrésis and the north of France in 1339 and 1340.87 Likewise, there is no surviving Roman roll for the 15th regnal year of Edward III (25 January 1341–24 January 1342), while we have a very long rotulus Alemannie for this year (C 76/16), including twenty-nine membranes annotated on the recto and the verso. The roll mostly concerns English control over Aquitaine and thematically overlaps with the Gascon rolls, dealing with control over the Channel and Anglo-French n ­ egotiations in the period of the truce of Esplechin.88 Finally, Roman roll C 70/18, covering the 16th regnal year of Edward III (25 January 1342–24 January 1343), includes three membranes of petitions addressed to Pope Benedict XII and Clement VI, who was elected on 7 May 1342 after Benedict’s death, mainly requesting provisions to benefices, while the diplomatic correspondence concerning Edward III’s campaign in Brittany is recorded in a very long rotulus Francie (C 76/17).89 Undoubtedly, the organization of diplomatic enrolments in the year 1338–42 arose from the implementation of reforms that led the chancery out of court during the reign of Edward III. As pointed out in Chapter  2, at that time the responsibility for the management of chancery diplomatic correspondence and its enrolment in fact fell to the keeper of the rolls of chancery, who distributed petitions for enrolment on the basis of geographic considerations for diplomatic correspondence as well as subject matter in the case of domestic affairs. Significantly, by 1336 the writing and enrolling of documents of international character was specifically allocated to one of the chancery clerks of the first bench, known as notarius regis in sua cancellaria.90 Furthermore, as Wilkinson pointed out, during the 86  TNA, C 70/17 is composed of six membranes. Its state of preservation is pretty poor and two membranes were added in 1922 as 2a and 2b. 87 TNA, C 76/14 (composed of eighteen membranes enrolled on recto and verso) and TNA, C 76/15 (composed of 29 membranes enrolled on recto and verso). 88  On cross references with the Gascon rolls see for instance TNA, C 76/16, m. 28r: ‘Vacat quia restituta fuit et rotulata in rotulo Vasconie de hoc anno’. This petition cannot be found in TNA, C 61/53. 89 TNA, C 76/17 contains 47 membranes enrolled on the verso and recto. Tout, Chapters, III, p. 152 n. 3, quotes a note in the Patent rolls (CPR, 1340–1343, p. 561), which refers to a now lost ‘roll of Brittany’ for this year. 90 P.  Chaplais, English Royal Documents. King John – Henry VI, 1199–1461 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 3–4, 20–1; Chaplais, ‘English Diplomatic Documents’, pp. 55–6; P. Chaplais, ‘Master John de

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

200

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

reign of Edward III the keeper of the rolls was normally the chancellor’s lieutenant, who replaced the chancellor and kept the great seal during the latter’s absence from duty. This was especially true between 1339 and 1340, when the chancellor was replaced no fewer than nine times and there were two vacancies (between 8 December 1339 and 28 April 1340 and between 1 and 14 December 1340) as a result of the conflict between the king and the chancellor John Stratford.91 In such political turmoil, the keepers of the rolls represented continuity in the work of the chancery and were often commissioned to hold the great seal as well. This was the case for John of St Pol, keeper of the rolls between 28 April 1337 and 2 December 1340, keeper of the seal of absence from 1338, who was further commissioned to hold the great seal between 8 December 1339 and 28 April 1340 and again between 20 June and 12 July 1340.92 William Kilsby, mentioned above as Edward III’s candidate for the see of York, acted as keeper of the privy seal between 6 July 1338 and 4 June 1342, keeper of the rolls between 2 December 1340 and 3 January 1341, and was ultimately commissioned to hold the great seal on 2 December 1340, after John Stratford’s definitive fall from Edward’s grace.93 Finally, John Thoresby, already mentioned as one of the English envoys negotiating the truce of Esplechin at the papal curia, served as keeper of the rolls between 21 February 1341 and June 1345, and received a commission to hold the great seal between 18 August and 29 September 1341 under the chancellorship of Robert Parvyng.94 Arguably, as Tout already noted, the tenure of William Kilsby stands out from the others. Kilsby in fact presided as keeper of the offices of the privy seal, the great seal and the rolls of chancery (2 December 1340 and 3 January 1341). Although Kilsby’s simultaneous oversight of these offices was probably justified because of exceptional domestic and international political circumstances, his joint keepership of the privy seal and the great seal meant that temporarily the king’s private secretary also became head of the chancery, raising some eyebrows among Kilsby’s contemporaries.95 On the one hand, Kilsby’s career witnesses to the new position of keeper of the privy seal after the Walton Ordinances of 1338, which were probably drafted by Kilsby himself.96 The Ordinances had in fact placed both the chancery and the exchequer under the control of the privy seal office, which, despite its household character, was slowly transformed into a lesser office of state owing to the stringent Branketre and the Office of Notary in Chancery, 1355–1375’, Journal of the Society of Archivists IV/3 (1971), pp. 169–99; see Chapter 2. On the importance of notarial practices in fourteenth-century Europe Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes, pp. 274–5. On the enrolment of petitions in the chancery rolls see also Fleta, ed. H.G. Richardson, G.O. Sayles II (London, 1955), pp. 124–5. 91 Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 71–3, 109–10, 200–1; Haines, Archbishop John Stratford, pp. 274–8. See also above n. 62–71. 92 Tout, Chapters, III, p. 111; Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 200–1, 203. In Tout’s opinion, some of these men such as John of St Pol and John Thoresby were very close to the Stratfords and gave continuity to the office of chancery despite the adverse political circumstances for John Stratford between 1339 and 1340: Tout, Chapters, III, pp. 42–3. 93 Tout, Chapters, V, pp. 15–17; Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 201, 203. See above n. 63–66. 94 Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 201, 204. See above n. 50 and 64. 95 Tout, Chapters, V, pp. 14–17. 96  See above n. 59.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

201

necessities that followed the outbreak of the Anglo-French conflict.97 On the other hand, the role of administrators, such as Kilsby, demonstrates the influence of human agency on the development and implementation of diplomatic and administrative practices between 1337 and 1342. Indeed, the reorganization of the chancery diplomatic correspondence and its enrolments in different series, such as the Roman rolls, the Alemand rolls and French rolls, was initiated and eventually discontinued during the tenures of such experienced administrators and close royal advisers, heavily involved in Anglo-papal and Anglo-French diplomatic n ­ egotiations after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War. This was especially the case for John of St Pol, a very experienced clerk of chancery responsible for the enrolment of chancery diplomatic correspondence in the 11th–13th regnal years of Edward III, when registration of diplomatic letters was distributed among Alemand and Roman rolls.98 Likewise, William Kilsby was responsible for the enrolment of Roman roll C 70/17 that carefully recorded the election dispute over the see of York, in which Edward III backed the same Kilsby as a candidate. Finally, John Thoresby, who was an experienced diplomat, employed by Edward III on several missions to the continent between 1330 and 1346, most notably the negotiations for the truce of Esplechin, was responsible for the chancery enrolments in the 15th–16th regnal years of Edward III, when the rolls show evidence of a substantial reorganization in the recording of diplomatic correspondence.99 Yet, in the chancery diplomatic enrolments there are only a few traces of these administrators’ activity. In this respect, a notable exception is represented by the Alemand roll for the 14th regnal year of Edward III (C 76/15), where a note refers to John of St Pol as keeper of the new seal of absence.100 C O N C LU S I O N S Arguably, the examination of the Roman rolls alongside the French and Alemand rolls sheds new light on the complexity of Anglo-papal diplomatic and administrative practices of record-keeping after the outbreak of the Anglo-French conflict, which was conducted through official negotiations as well as management of routine business at the papal curia. As pointed out above, such routine business often had major repercussions for Anglo-papal relations, as was the case for the disputed 97 Tout, Chapters, V, pp. 10–14; Ormrod, ‘The English Royal Secretariat’, pp. 64–76. 98  See above n. 86–87. 99  See above n. 88–89. On John of St Pol see Tout, Chapters, III, pp. 43, 103, 111, 121. On William Kilsby see S.L. Waugh, ‘Kilsby, William’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent. ac.uk/view/article/50146 (accessed on 13 October 2015). On John Thoresby see Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 118–20; Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, p. 92; J. Hughes, ‘Thoresby, John’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/27333?docPos=1 (accessed on 13 October 2015). 100  TNA, C 76/15, m. 31: ‘memorandum de novo sigillo hic liberatum fuit quoddam magnum sigillum pro regimine regnorum terrarum et dominiorum regis de novo fabricatum domino Johanni de Sancto Paulo, custodi rotulorum cancellario ipsius domini regis, prout patet in quodam memorando dorso clausarum primo die Marcii hoc anno rotulatur’. See also Tout, Chapters, III, p. 111.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

202

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

election to the see of York, which directly concerned the appointment of the king’s close adviser William Kilsby. Indeed, the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War had an impact on the English administrative and diplomatic practice in at least two respects. On the one hand, Edward III’s lengthy campaigns on the continent and the changeable political alliances after 1337 prompted the reorganization of crown administrative departments, raising the overall profile of the privy seal office over the chancery and the exchequer following the Walton Ordinances of 1338. On the other hand, probably as a result of this administrative reshuffle, between the 1330s and 1340s the chancery personnel also reorganized the department of the rolls, especially with regard to diplomatic correspondence. As noted above, diplomatic documents were indeed rearranged in complementary series of enrolments according to thematic and geographic criteria that, to a great extent, made documents more movable and ­accessible and facilitated the retrieval of information during diplomatic negotiations. Indeed, cross-referencing across chancery diplomatic enrolments for this period is overall consistent, in that it is almost always possible to find letters which were moved from one enrolment to another.101 Furthermore, when series of enrolments containing diplomatic correspondence were eventually discontinued, this was not done on the basis of discretional decisions of chancery clerks or random considerations. On the contrary, the discontinuation of series of chancery diplomatic enrolments was often dictated by changing political circumstances, such as the collapse of the Anglo-Imperial alliance in 1340–1, and by criteria of cost effectiveness.102 Notably, the record-keeping of diplomatic correspondence implemented in the English chancery between 1337 and 1342 was not unique and remarkably mirrored comparable practices in other contemporary polities. While, as pointed out in previous chapters, from the 1330s the French chancery also adopted an analogous thematic and geographic organization of its records, the papal curia began registering its political and diplomatic correspondence in batches both in the ­registers of common letters and in the registers of secret letters. Accordingly, papal administrative departments abandoned their traditional chronological registration of letters and opted for recording documents in accordance with their subject matter.103 As Zutshi has recently argued, during Benedict XII’s pontificate two 101  Bombi, ‘The Roman rolls’, pp. 610–11. I would therefore challenge Maxwell-Lyte’s statement that the enrolment of diplomatic documents in the chancery was irregular and that its unmethodical organization of record-keeping led to too many mistakes: Maxwell-Lyte, Historical Notes, pp. 366, 380, 392–3. 102  See above. 103  F. Bock, ‘Einführung in das Registerwesen des avignonesischen Papsttums’, QFIAB 31 (1941), pp. 1–7; F. Bock, ‘Über Registrierung von Sekretbriefen. Studien zu den Sekretregistern Benedikts XII.’, QFIAB 29 (1938–1939), pp. 42–69; P.N.R.  Zutshi, ‘Changes in the Registration of Papal Letters under the Avignon Popes (1305–1378)’, in Kuriale Briefkultur im späteren Mittelalter. Gestaltung – Überlieferung – Rezeption, ed. T. Broser, A. Fischer, M. Thumser (Köln—Weimar—Vienna, 2015), pp. 251–3. On the French chancery see O. Guyotjeannin, ‘Les méthodes de travail des archivistes du roi de France (XIIIe–début XVIe siècle), Archiv für Diplomatik 42 (1996), pp. 307–14. For the role of the king’s secretaries in the French chancery after 1316 see Chapter 2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War

203

reforms were introduced with regard to the record-keeping of diplomatic and political correspondence: first, accumulated drafts of secret letters were directly registered in batches in parchment registers at the end of each pontifical year, bypassing the earlier registration in paper registers, which was still in use during John XXII’s pontificate; and second, the responsibility of composing and registering secret letters shifted from the chancery to the chamber, where the pope’s secretaries were assigned these tasks.104 Indeed, in 1341 three scriptores are mentioned as the pope’s secretaries and seem to have been working on the composition and registration of secret letters: Peter Villars, Arnaldus Fabrii, and Pontius Fabrii.105 In at least two instances Benedict XII emphasized and explained the function of these registers of secret letters recording political and diplomatic correspondence. First, in a letter addressed to Philip VI, king of France, in 1337 the pope famously remarked that letters issued in the apostolic chamber, namely secret letters, were registered in order to stop forgeries.106 Moreover, in another letter addressed to the French king in 1341 with regard to the French-Castillian alliance, Benedict XII confirmed that papal political correspondence addressed to rulers was systematically recorded in the papal registers to keep track of papal decisions and challenge possible false statements against them.107 Indeed, papal concerns about keeping records of political decisions in the ­registers of secret letters are highly revealing, since the documentation was meant to inform papal diplomatic activity in the international milieu, especially after the outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War, when Benedict XII took on a mediatory role in the Anglo-French conflict.108 In fact, they once more evidence how administrative practices went hand-in-glove with political change and conflict. We can therefore conclude with a degree of confidence that in the period 1337–42 English, French, and papal administrations developed similar administrative and diplomatic 104  P. Gasnault, ‘L’Élaboration des lettres secrètes des papes d’Avignon: chambre et chancellerie’, in Aux origines de l’état moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Rome, 1990), pp. 214, 221; Zutshi, ‘Changes’, pp. 254–5. That the registration of accumulated drafts took place in batches is well evidenced in the register of secret letters recording the negotiations for the truce of Esplechin in Autumn 1340 (Reg. Vat. 135, fol. 106r-121r), where the business concerning the Anglo-French negotiations are recorded without following strict chronological criteria. See also Chapters 2 and 7. 105 E. Göller, Mitteilungen und Untersuchungen über das päpstliche Register- und Kanzleiwesen im 14. Jahrhundert (Rome, 1904), pp. 28–30, 46–47; G.  Opitz, ‘Die Sekretäre Franciscus de Sancto Maximo und Johannes de Sancto Martino. Bemerkungen zur Frühzeit des päpstlischen Sekretariats’, QFIAB 30 (1940), p. 191; Guillemain, La cour, p. 295–7. 106  Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 341, col. 209: ‘cum intercipiuntur false littere, de facili cognoscuntur et maxime cum omnes et singule littere tam patentes quam clause, que per nostram cameram transeunt, registrentur’. As Zutshi pointed out, this was not true, as there are some examples of secret letters that were not registered: pp. lxxxvi–lxxxviii; Zutshi, ‘Changes’, p. 255. 107  Reg. Ben. XII (France), no. 888, col. 563–564: ‘Et tamen, quia labilis est hominum memoria, registra nostra, in quibus omnes et sigule littere nostre, quas regibus et principibus ac quibusvis personis aliis postquam ad summi pontificatus apicem divina miseratio nos assumpsit, destinavimus et nos destinare contingit, registrate sunt et registrantur de verbo ad verbum continue, perquiri fecimus diligenter, in quibus nichil de premissis, sicut nec unquam cogitata fuerunt, penitus reperitur. Quare, si forsan alique littere mentionem de contrario facientes que procul dubio totaliter essent false, ad manus regias devenirent, nos de illis velit regia providentia efficere quamtocius certiores.’ 108  J.M. Vidal, ‘Introduction’, in Reg. Ben. XII (communes), III, pp. xxx–xxxiii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

204

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

procedures, especially with regard to record-keeping, because each of them was facing comparable political challenges after the outbreak of the Anglo-French conflict. These new administrative and diplomatic practices were indeed devised and implemented thanks to the contribution of human agencies, notably the expert work of administrators, such as John Thoresby, John of St Pol, and William Kilsby in England and Peter Villars, Arnaldus Fabrii, and Pontius Fabrii at the papal curia.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

9 From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais Administrative and Diplomatic Practice in England and at the Papal Curia The period between the battle of Poitiers (19 September 1356), when the English defeated the French army and managed to capture the French king, John II, and the ratification of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais (24 October 1360), which concluded the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War and marked Edward III’s renunciation of the French crown in return for ample territorial concessions in northern France, has been the focus of much historiographical debate. In particular, h ­ istorians concerned with papal mediation in the Anglo-French conflict have emphasized Innocent VI’s personal involvement in the Anglo-French peace n ­ egotiations and the role of the two papal nuncios, Talleyrand de Périgord, cardinal bishop of Albano, and Niccolò Capocci, cardinal priest of San Vitale, who were involved in arbitrating three peace agreements between 1357 and 1359, negotiating the ransom of John II and the settlement for an enduring Anglo-French peace: the truce of Bordeaux (23 March 1357); the First Treaty of London (8 May 1358); and the Second Treaty of London (24 March 1359). On the one hand, Perroy, Allmand, Sumption, and Plöger concurred on the unsuccessful outcome of the missions of Talleyrand de Périgord and Niccolò Capocci, especially at the time of the battle of Poitiers, when Talleyrand notoriously stormed into the battlefield in an attempt to persuade the armies to agree on a last-minute truce. In their opinion, the nuncius’ efforts ultimately reinforced English mistrust of Innocent VI, suspected of French allegiance during the peace negotiations of 1356–60.1 Admittedly, Hennigan maintained that the pope was a ‘realist’ and acted with ‘a sense of public welfare’, being preoccupied with the Anglo-French conflict as well as with the domestic turmoil in France between 1356 and 1358.2 Nevertheless, Hennigan agreed that 1 E. Perroy, The Hundred Years War (London, 1959), pp. 130–1; C. Allmand, The Hundred Years War. England and France at War, c. 1300–c. 1450 (Cambridge, 1988), p. 17; J. Sumption, Trial by Fire. The Hundred Years War, II (London, 1999), pp. 231–2, 236–7, 263–4, 290–1, 374; K. Plöger, England and the Avignon Popes. The Practice of Diplomacy in Late Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2005), pp. 40–2. Plöger concluded (p. 41): ‘Clement VI and Innocent VI lacked the influence to end the feud once and for all and obtained only rather limited recognition of their peace-making powers.’ 2 M.A.C. Hennigan, Peace efforts of the popes during the first part of the Hundred Years’ War: case study of Innocent VI (PhD, Pennsylvania State University, 1977), pp. 140, 209–13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

206

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the pope’s peace-making attempts were hampered by the actions of his nuncios Talleyrand de Périgord and Niccolò Capocci, as well as by the French crown’s negotiator from 1357, Pierre de la Foret, former chancellor of John II and cardinal of the XII Apostles. In her opinion, papal efforts were further undermined by the charges of partiality moved against him by the English against the French pope and Innocent VI’s lack of appreciation for the controversy over Guyenne.3 On the other hand, a positive assessment of Innocent VI and his nuncios, especially Talleyrand, had been given by Delachenal, who highlighted the pope’s efforts toward a moderate arbitration among the parties despite Edward III’s suspicions of him, and Autrand, who emphasized Innocent VI and his nuncios’ wise and dynamic mediation in the Anglo-French conflict in the 1350s.4 Similarly, in his monographic work on Talleyrand de Périgord, Zacour maintained that, although Talleyrand’s diplomatic mission between 1356 and 1359 ‘appeared to have been a complete failure’, it ultimately ‘helped lay the basis for peace between England and France’ and ‘to ease the tension between England and the papacy’, especially as far as alien provisions to benefices in England were concerned.5 In this respect, these positive assessments of the papal mediation in the Anglo-French conflict echo the picture sketched out by Le Patourel and Given-Wilson, who emphasized how papal diplomacy was hindered because of political and financial circumstances as well as the domestic turmoil in France outside the control of the Apostolic See.6 More recently, Willershausen maintained that the mediation of Talleyrand de Périgord and Niccolò Capocci between 1356 and 1359 was less clear-cut than previously argued.7 In his opinion, Innocent VI deliberately avoided using ­cardinals as representatives to oversee the Anglo-French peace agreements drafted in a provisional form at Brétigny on 8 May and ratified at Calais on 24 October 1360, but rather employed experienced lower-ranking nuncii for this purpose, namely Androin de la Roche and Hugh de Genève, who also helped to redraft the Brétignytreaty as the Calais-ratification alongside Hugh Pellegrini.8 Arguably, the effectiveness of papal arbitration between 1356 and 1360 not only depended on specific political circumstances and key personalities, most notably the pope and his representatives, but was very much constricted by the procedures of treaty-making, established in the second half of the twelfth century in England and continental Europe. Nevertheless, in 1356–60 Innocent VI and his representatives, who were acquainted with the opposing parties, acted as independent mediators

3 Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 136–43, 148–52, 162–72. 4 R. Delachenal, Histoire de Charles V, I (Paris, 1909–1931), pp. 47–79, 186–9; F. Autrand, Charles V (Paris, 1994), pp. 199–205, 247–8, 268–72, 394–402. 5 N.P. Zacour, Talleyrand: the Cardinal of Périgord (1301–1364) (Philadelphia, PA, 1960), pp. 61, 64. 6  J. Le Patourel, ‘The Treaty of Brétigny, 1360’, TRHS 10 (1960), pp. 38–9; C. Given-Wilson, ‘Edward III’s Prisoners of War: The Battle of Poitiers and Its Context’, EHR 116 (2001), pp. 802–33. 7 Zacour, Talleyrand, pp. 51–4, 58–64; Sumption, Trial by Fire, pp. 231–3, 236–8, 289–91; Plöger, England, pp. 40–1; J. Favier, Les papes d’Avignon (Paris, 2006), pp. 407–10; Willershausen, pp. 210–35. 8  Willershausen, pp. 249–54; 269–271. See also Chapter 5 and below n. 82.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

207

and arbiters, as was usually the case in peace negotiations among equals.9 Similarly, in 1356–60 Anglo-French negotiations followed a well-established procedure, unfolding in four distinct phases: the so-called pax inita, when the envoys of the parties met and initiated their negotiations (tractatus) and eventually agreed a composicio pacis (draft articles of peace)—in the case of the Treaty of BrétignyCalais the latter were summed up in the First and Second Treaty of London of 1358 and 1359; the pax firmata, which was sealed on 8 May 1360 at Brétigny, where the representatives of the parties took an oath to observe the articles of peace; the ratificatio, which in the case of the Brétigny-treaty took place at Calais on 24 October 1360, where the parties ratified their peace agreements through the formal exchange of sealed documents;10 and the publicatio, which consisted in the publication of the peace agreement in both countries.11 Not only did such a procedure provide guarantee to the parties throughout the negotiations, but also, if skillfully exploited, it gave them further scope for maneuvering until the last minute.12 As Delachenal and Le Patrouel concluded, this was especially the case for the Calais-ratificatio of the Treaty of Brétigny, when the most important section of the treaty agreed at Brétigny was taken out and listed in a separate document, known as littere cum clausula c’est assavoir, which allowed the parties to postpone to 24 June 1361 the implementation of the peace agreement. The littere cum clausula c’est assavoir removed in fact from the Calais-ratificatio Edward III’s renunciation of the French throne in return for large territorial concessions in Aquitaine, as had been already agreed in principle in the First and Second Treaty of London in 1358 and 1359.13 In other words, the administrative and diplomatic practice adopted in the Calais-ratificatio, which resulted in the compilation of separate side agreements and deadlines for the implementation of the peace, allowed the French and the English to buy time but also made the fulfillment of the Anglo-French peace difficult, ultimately leading to the resumption of open hostilities in 1369. Accordingly, since the outcome of each phase of the negotiations and bilateral agreements were recorded in writing and systematically archived by the parties, the treaty-making procedure outlined above led to a proliferation of written documents, 9  P. Chaplais, ‘The Making of the Treaty of Paris (1259) and the Royal Style’, EHR 67 (1952), p.  237; J.  Benham, Peacemaking in the Middle Ages. Principles and Practice (Manchester, 2011), pp.  186–7; J.M.  Moeglin, S.  Péquignot, Diplomatie et «  relations internationales  » au Moyen Age (IXe-XVe siècle) (Paris, 2017), pp. 159–68, 498–579. 10  Notoriously the latter never took place in the case of the Anglo-French Treaty of Guines in 1354: see Chapter 5. 11  Chaplais, ‘The Making’, pp. 237–8; P. Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London – New York, 2003), pp. 56–61. See also G.P. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940), pp. 105–17. An alternative way to look at peace negotiations in the early Middle Ages has been recently suggested by Benham, Peace making, pp. 189–95. On the failed publication of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais see Some documents regarding the fulfilment and interpretation of the Treaty of Brétigny, ed. P. Chaplais (London, 1952), pp. 1–84. 12  A similar assessment is made by F.  Tout, Chapters in administrative history, III (Manchester, 1930), p. 229: ‘the French negotiators at Calais were astute enough to weaken the force of the treaty without the English rivals apparently noticing what they were allowing to happen’. 13 Delachenal, Histoire, II, pp. 245–8; Le Patourel, ‘The Treaty’, pp. 19–21; Some Documents, pp. 5–8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

208

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

ultimately requiring the implementation of new administrative and diplomatic practices.14 Indeed, the Anglo-French negotiations of 1356–60 overlapped with noticeable bureaucratic developments in England and the papal curia, where the management and record-keeping of diplomatic correspondence was increasingly administered not in the chancery, but by the privy seal office and the pope’s secretariat in the apostolic chamber. Although these administrative developments in Anglo-papal diplomatic practices have not gone unnoticed, they have been mostly explained in terms of administrative history.15 However, it remains to be investigated how far smaller and less institutionalized departments, such as the privy seal and the pope’s secretariat, took over the management of diplomatic ­correspondence not only because of administrative necessity but also owing to c­ hanging political circumstances that characterized the complex Anglo-French peace negotiations in 1356–60. The remaining part of this chapter is, therefore, organized in two sections: first, an assessment of the extent to which in England the privy seal worked alongside the chancery in the management of diplomatic correspondence between 1356 and 1360 and how far this development in administrative practice was influenced by the Anglo-French negotiations; and second, an examination of the correlation between papal arbitration in the Anglo-French conflict and contemporary developments in papal administrative and diplomatic practices. E N G L I S H D I P L O M AT I C C O R R E S P O N D E N C E B E T W E E N   1 3 5 6 A N D 1 3 6 0 : C H A N C E RY OR PRIVY SEAL? The diplomatic paper trail detailing Anglo-French negotiations between 1356 and 1360 survives in two forms: original documents and authenticated copies, mainly preserved at the Archives Nationales in Paris and The National Archives in London; and copies, recorded in registers and enrolments, both now mostly kept in French and English archives. The collection of original documents at the Archives Nationales in Paris is especially remarkable, although recent scholarship has mostly disregarded it.16 This documentary dossier includes 101 items, both originals and notarized copies, of the agreements ratified by the parties at Calais between 14 Chaplais, English Diplomatic Practice, pp. 72–4; N.  Vincent, ‘Why 1199? Bureaucracy and Enrolment under John and his Contemporaries’ in English Government in the Thirteenth Century, ed. A. Jobson (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 17–48; Benham, Peacemaking, pp. 188–90. 15 Tout, Chapters, pp. 32–8; The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II, ed. E. Perroy, (London, 1933), pp. xiii–xxvii; P. Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre and the office of notary in Chancery 1355-1375’, Journal of the Society of Archivists 4 (1971), pp. 169–99; P. Gasnault, ‘L’élaboration des lettres secrètes des papes d’Avignon: chambre et chancellerie’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Rome, 1990), pp. 210–22; P. Jugie, ‘Les mentions hors teneur dans les minutes de lettres secrètes et curiales du pape Innocent VI (1352–1362): un chantier en course’, in Les mentions de chancellerie. Entre technique administrative et savoir de gouvernement (Paris, 23–24 Septembre 2013), p. 5 (forthcoming). 16 To my knowledge the only two historians who made extensive use of these documents were Delachenal, Histoire, II, pp. 239–65, publishing in 1909–30, and Chaplais, ‘Master John’, pp. 169–99, publishing in 1971. On the contrary, Willershausen, p. 259, only mentions this dossier.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

209

24 and 30 October 1360. Among the original documents we find mainly letters of Edward III, issued by his chancery under the great seal, of John II and of the Dauphin Charles.17 Furthermore, copies of the relevant Anglo-French agreements survive in two manuscripts, now preserved at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris.18 Here the most notable item is a fourteenth-century manuscript (BNF, Ms. Fr. 2873), containing a copy of the Calais-ratificatio and a number of its side agreements, namely letters of Edward III and John II. The French cursive handwriting of this manuscript and its codicological features suggest that it was compiled for administrative purposes.19 Meanwhile, the English crown’s dossier of documents concerning the AngloFrench negotiations of 1356–60 not only survives in ninety-five originals, preserved at The National Archives in London, but also in enrolments and registers.20 The division of material between different formats is quite systematic: the ratifications and promises of John II, the Dauphin Charles, and their associates agreed at Calais between 24 and 30 October 1360 were preserved as originals, while the documents issued by Edward III, the Black Prince and their associates throughout the negotiations were mostly enrolled and registered. The main bulk of enrolled documentation is found in the French rolls (TNA, C 76) and, to a lesser extent, the Roman rolls (TNA, C 70). Overall, ten French rolls cover the period 1356–60, of which the last three (TNA, C 76/41-43) detail the negotiations at Calais and are known as ‘rolls of Calais’.21 These enrolments contain copies of the bilateral agreements and 17  These documents are preserved in Paris, ANF, J//638A; J//638B; J//639; J//640. There is no modern catalogue for this series; for the old catalogue see Inventaire des pièces relatives à l’Angleterre et à l’Ecosse conservées aux Archives du Royaume (1836). These documents represent the dossier of the Calais-ratificatio preserved in the French crown’s archives, namely the so-called Trésor des Chartes (layettes). On the latter see A. Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Chartes (Paris, 1863), pp. v–xxiv; O. Morel, La Grande Chancellerie Royale (1328–1400) (Paris, 1900), pp. 331–43. 18  Three more Early Modern manuscripts at the BNF contain copies of documents concerning the Anglo-French negotiations of 1356–60: Paris, BNF, Ms. Fr. 6377 (seventeenth century); Paris, BNF, Ms. Fr. 2876 (sixteenth-century); Paris, BNF, Ms. Fr. 16956 (seventeenth century). 19  Paris, BNF, Ms. Fr. 2873. The manuscript includes only twenty-eight folios, organized in two quires and written in a fourteenth-century administrative hand, which also added rubrics in the margin. Space is left for the initials of individual documents, which were never added. There is no decoration throughout the manuscript. See: http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc49319p. Furthermore, a copy of the Second Treaty of London (1359) collated from the original is contained in a seventeenth-century manuscript, including a number of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century AngloFrench treaties: Paris, BNF, Ms. Fr. 2875, fol. 35r–42v. See: http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ ark:/12148/cc49321z (accessed on 4 October 2017). Another early fifteenth-century manuscript (BNF, Ms. Fr. 2699), probably produced during the reign of Charles VI (1380–1422), records details of the Anglo-French negotiations between 1356 and 1360 (fol. 2r–80r). Although the documents collected in this manuscript probably came from the archives of the royal chancery, strictly speaking however this manuscript is not an administrative register, but a treatise on Anglo-French relations produced in the entourage of the chancellor Petrus Helye. See http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ ark:/12148/cc49180m. Finally, another fifteenth-century manuscript (BNF, Ms. Fr. 15490) contains a copy of the Treaty of Brétigny alongside other Anglo-French treaties: C.  Taylor, Debating the Hundred Years War: Pour ce que plusieurs (la loy salicque) and A Declaration of the Trew and Dewe Title of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 275–6. 20  For the originals see TNA, E 30/75, 78–79, 81–95, 97–98, 100–108, 110, 111–122, 124–144, 146–172, 175, 177–179, 1083. Most of these documents have been edited in Rymer III/1, pp. 520–49. 21  TNA, C 76/34–43. For the Anglo-French negotiations at Brétigny and Calais in 1360 see TNA, C 76/41 (Rotulus Calais et de Rupella): on the exchange of hostages and return of La Rochelle and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

210

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

pardons issued by the English crown, which mostly also survive as o­ riginals at the Archives Nationales in Paris.22 Furthermore, earlier petitions addressed by Edward III to Innocent VI just before the battle of Poitiers between May and September 1356, denouncing the French-Navarrese alliance and detailing the mission of the papal nuncios Talleyrand de Périgord, cardinal bishop of Albano, and Niccolò Capocci, cardinal priest of San Vitale, are copied in the Roman roll for that year (C 70/25).23 Finally, important diplomatic c­ orrespondence for the years 1356–60 is recorded in a parchment register now preserved in Manchester at the John Rylands Library.24 This manuscript, already known in the 1930s to Bock and Perroy as the ‘Leconfield register’, contains 138 diplomatic documents dating between 1337 and 1360 and collects items concerning English diplomatic affairs in France, Flanders, Gascony, Austria, the Empire, Scotland, Brittany, and Normandy.25 As Bock pointed out, the documents here are organized in six sections in accordance with geographic criteria and a majority of items in this register duplicate documents also found in other chancery enrolments, such as the French rolls (C 76/11, 15, 26 and 34) and the Patent rolls (C 67/17-18), as well as documents scattered in miscellaneous chancery collections.26 Significantly, the fifth section of the register includes items concerning the Anglo-French ­negotiations of 1354–60, notably a copy of the Treaty of Guines of 1354, which was never ratified, together with procurations for Edward III’s plenipotentiaries (1354–6), five letters of Innocent VI on Anglo-French affairs (dating 1356 and 1357), and a copy of the Second Treaty of London of 1359.27 Bock debated at length which English administrative department was ­responsible for the production of the Leconfield register, concluding that, although it contains a number of documents issued under the great seal and recorded in the chancery enrolments, it was compiled by a scribe of the privy seal. Indeed, the Leconfield register also includes documents, such as the first draft of the Treaty of Guines (dated 6 April 1354), which were never ratified and did not find their way into other chancery records.28 Perroy took Bock’s conclusions further, comparing the production of the Guines, as agreed in the Treaty of Brétigny (24 October–1 November 1360); TNA, C 76/42 (Rotulus Calais de negociis communibus): recording bilateral agreements and pardons (31 August–28 October 1360); C 76/43 (24 October 1360): Calais-ratification of the Treaty of Brétigny. On these three enrolments see Tout, Chapters, p. 228. See below n. 36 and 42. 22  See above n. 17. 23  TNA, C 70/25, m. 2–3. The latter is very short and represents the last enrolment for this series, which was discontinued by the English chancery after 1357. See below n. 41. 24  Manchester, John Rylands Library, ms. 404, fol. 50r-64v. See also F. Taylor, Supplemented handlist of Western Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library (Manchester, 1937), p. 9. 25 F.  Bock, ‘An Unknown Register of the Reign of Edward III’, EHR 45 (1930), pp. 353–72; F. Bock, ‘Some new documents illustrating the early years of the Hundred Years War (1353–6)’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 15 (1931), pp. 60–99; The Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. xvii–xix. 26  Bock, ‘An Unknown Register’, pp. 358–70. On the entries in this register concerning Edward III’s activity as Imperial vicar see also Chapter 8. 27  Bock, ‘An Unknown Register’, no. 118–128, pp. 368–70. Bock did not notice that a new quire began at fol. 56r under the heading De tractatu pacis. 28  Bock, ‘An Unknown Register’, pp. 355–7; Bock, ‘Some new documents’, pp. 82–3. The second draft of the Treaty of Guines (dating 24 August 1354) was instead enrolled in the French rolls: C 76/32, m. 2; Rymer, III/1, p. 283.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

211

Leconfield register to other similar fourteenth- and fifteenth-century registers of diplomatic correspondence compiled by the privy seal personnel, notably the wellknown formulary of the poet-clerk Thomas Hoccleve (1420–4),29 and two other registers dating between 1370 and 1390, now r­ espectively preserved in Cambridge University Library and Edinburgh University Library.30 In Perroy’s opinion these registers ultimately demonstrate that from the mid-fourteenth century the privy seal became the normal place where diplomatic correspondence was kept, in this respect replacing the chancery.31 Perroy built his argument largely on the work of Tout, who focused on the slow process that led the privy seal to become an office of state by the mid-fourteenth century and to collaborate very closely with other departments, especially the chancery. In Tout’s words, in 1356 the privy seal underwent an ‘epoch-making’ reorganization alongside the chancery under the keepership of John Winwick (1355–60).32 Between 28 October 1359 and 18 May 1360, when he died, Winwick accompanied the king to France, taking over the keepership of the great and privy seals, and was responsible together with his clerks for negotiating and drafting the Treaty of Brétigny, agreed just before his death on 8 May 1360.33 Edward III was in fact attended in France by his wardrobe and household, to which non-household personnel from the chancery and privy seal, such as Winwick, were attached in order to manage the war administration and peace negotiations at Brétigny between 1 and 8 May 1360.34 Accordingly, for the first time during the king’s absence abroad rigorous arrangements were put in place, giving the regency its own chancery, exchequer and privy seal, left to the keepership of John Buckingham. As Tout put it, such formal arrangements ultimately demonstrate that by 1359 the privy seal had become a third ministry of state.35 Equally, when the process of ratification of the Treaty of Brétigny began in July 1360, the chancellor William Edington and some of his staff moved to Calais, leaving David Wooler as his deputy in England. At Calais Edington oversaw the vast production of documents, compiled alongside the treaty ratification and enrolled in the three ‘rolls of Calais’ mentioned above. Tout maintained that Edington was responsible for the English ‘diplomatic defeat’ that saw the success of Brétigny slip away, while Pierre Chaplais gave a more positive assessment of the achievements of

29  BL, Add. Ms. 24062; The Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. xiv–xvi. See also H.C. Schulz, ‘Thomas Hoccleve, Scribe’, Speculum 12 (1937), pp. 71–81; A.L. Brown, ‘The Privy Seal Clerks in the Early Fifteenth Century’, in The Study of Medieval Records. Essays in honour of K. Major, ed. D.A. Bullough, R.L. Storey (Oxford, 1971), pp. 260–81. See also Chapter 9. 30  Cambridge, UL, Dd. III. 53; The Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. xix–xxi; and Edinburgh, UL, Ms. 183 (formerly Ms. Laing 351a); The Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. xxi–xxvii. Perroy edited a number of documents from these manuscripts in the same volume. 31  The Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. xii–xiii. On the use of registers and enrolments to record privy seal documents in the first two decades of the fourteenth century see P. Chaplais, ‘Privy Seal Drafts, Rolls and Registers’, EHR 73 (1958), pp. 270–3. 32 Tout, Chapters, V, pp. 34–5. On John Winwick see also ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com. chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/50141 (accessed on 4 October 2017). 33 Tout, Chapters, III, pp. 225–27; V, pp. 36–7. 34 Tout, Chapters, III, pp. 224–7. 35 Tout, Chapters, III, pp. 222–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

212

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the English administrative personnel at Calais.36 Focusing on the well-documented activity of a chancery notary, John Branketre, who served as ‘secretary for foreign affairs in chancery’ between 1355 and 1375, Chaplais concurred on the close collaboration between the privy seal and the chancery in the mid-fourteenth century, as evidenced in the work of Branketre, who was, among other things, probably responsible for drafting the Second Treaty of London in 1359 and verifying a number of individual articles of the Calais-ratification issued under the great seal.37 Apart from Branketre, who clearly occupied a leading position, the original documents of the Calais-ratification preserved at the Archives Nationales in Paris also shed light on other English chancery clerks involved in the administrative work at Calais in October 1360.38 Indeed, as Chaplais argued, what was more remarkable about Branketre and his team’s activity was the implementation of continental diplomatic and administrative practices in English chancery diplomatic correspondence, possibly influenced by Branketre’s background as a notary public, which ultimately helped to shape a ‘shared language of diplomacy’, supporting the administrative and diplomatic procedures during the peace ­negotiations of 1360.39 In addition, the close interaction and collaboration between privy seal and chancery at the time of the Anglo-French negotiations of 1356–60 has been also considered as a decisive factor in the chancery decision to discontinue the Roman rolls after 1356. In Perroy’s opinion the disappearance of the Roman rolls meant that the letters previously recorded in these enrolments were no longer registered by the crown’s administrative departments, and in fact only a limited number of the king’s petitions and letters addressed to the papal curia were recorded by the smaller seals, especially the privy seal.40 Indeed, it is remarkable that the enrolment of petitions in the Roman rolls ceased after the battle of Poitiers, at a significant time in the Anglo-French peace negotiations.41 Such a change in English administrative and diplomatic practice may be explained in two ways.

36 Tout, Chapters, III, pp. 228–30. See also above n. 12 and 21. 37  Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre’, pp. 182–6, no. 2, p. 193; no. 3b, p. 197. On John of Brankrete’s activity see also TNA, E 30/104. For the Second Treaty of London of 1359 see Manchester, John Rylands Library, ms. 404, fol. 59v–64v. 38  The name of these clerks are found on the top right corner of the plica of some letters of Edward III issued under the great seal. Among the great clerks we find Elias Grimsby (Paris, ANF, J//638A no. 3: littere cum clausula c’est assavoir); Henry Coddington (Paris, ANF, J//638A no. 6ter; J//639 no. 17); Walter Power (Paris, ANF, J//638A no. 7bis); Nicholas Spaigne (Paris, ANF, J//638A no. 41); William Mirfield (Paris, ANF, J//638B no. 12; J//639 no. 15); Thomas Brayton (Paris, ANF, J//639 no. 15, 15sept, 16); see also Wilkinson, The Chancery under Edward III (Manchester, 1929), Appendix III, pp. 205–8. Among the chancery clerks we find John Scarle, Roger Sutton, and William Tickhill (Paris, ANF, J//638A no. 3; J//638B no. 12; Paris, ANF, J//639 no. 15; see Wilkinson, The Chancery, pp. 66–7). 39  Chaplais, ‘Master John de Branketre’, pp. 185–8. See above Chapter 3. 40  The Diplomatic Correspondence, pp. ix–xi; xv–xvii. A section of the register of Thomas Hoccleve, mentioned above, under the title Missives contains some petitions addressed to the pope, which would have been previously recorded in the Roman rolls with other letters addressed to foreign rulers: BL, Add. Ms. 24062, fol. 195r-197r. See also a petition of the barons addressed to Clement V dated 5 August 1309 at fol. 168rv. 41  See above n. 23.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

213

On the one hand, as pointed out above, the Anglo-French negotiations in 1356–60 coincided with a reorganization of the crown’s departments dealing with foreign affairs, where clerks such as John Branketre, John Winwick, and William Edington closely collaborated, drafting the most important Anglo-French treaties in this period, which were ultimately enrolled in the above-mentioned three French rolls known as ‘rolls of Calais’.42 Such an overhaul of crown administration was arguably not only dictated by the urgency arising from Edward III’s absences abroad in 1359–60 but also by the peace-making efforts at a time when the English saw a real possibility of successfully ending the war following the humiliation of the French army at Poitiers and the capture of John II together with a number of his barons. In these circumstances of intense diplomatic negotiations, the administrative practices of English governmental departments, especially the chancery and privy seal, arguably had to be better coordinated in order to provide the ­political peace efforts with adequate administrative support. In this respect, it is likely that the Roman rolls became redundant, since diplomatic correspondence concerning the Apostolic See and traditionally recorded in those enrolments came under the watch of the team of administrators who were entrusted with the task of managing the peace negotiations in 1356–60. In those circumstances other means to record the diplomatic correspondence with the Apostolic See were soon devised. Evidence of such a shift in English record-keeping practice is once more provided by the Leconfield register which, by all means, can be considered as a product of the team of clerks who managed the Anglo-French peace process on behalf of the English crown in 1356–60. Among other items concerning the Anglo-French negotiations in 1356–9, the register in fact records five letters of Innocent VI, detailing papal involvement in the Anglo-French peace talks in 1356 and 1357.43 On the other hand, as argued in Chapter 3, the discontinuation of the Roman rolls after 1356 witnesses to the clash between the English crown and the Apostolic See over alien provisions to English ecclesiastical benefices in the aftermath of the Ordinance of Provisors of 1343, the Statute of Provisors of 1351 and the Statute of Praemunire of 1353.44 The disagreement between Edward III and the papacy over provisions in fact led to a break-up of Anglo-papal relations, especially between 1349 and 1353, reducing the amount of routine business primarily recorded in the Roman rolls. Indeed, as already noted, the Roman rolls covering the period 1346–56 became shorter and increasingly concerned with routine matters, while their employment ultimately ceased after 1356, when a dedicated team of chancery and privy

42  TNA, C 76/41–43. See above n. 21. Evidence that Anglo-papal diplomacy still functioned in this period and English diplomatic envoys travelled to and from Avignon is provided in Plöger, England, pp. 242–3, and in ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 39rv and 58r; CPL, III, p. 630, acknowledging the mission of the knight William Burton in May 1360. On the latter see also Zutshi, no. 256, p. 130 and accounts rendered to the exchequer by William Burton and Richard Stratford: TNA, E 101/313/39. 43  Bock, ‘An Unknown Register’, no. 123–127, pp. 369–70. These letters are all registered in the papal registers of secret letters as Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2484, 2412, 2448, 2586, 2782. See above n. 28. 44  See above Chapter 3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

214

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

seal administrators began managing and recording the diplomatic ­correspondence concerning Anglo-French negotiations at that time.45 In conclusion, it seems likely that between 1356 and 1360 the administrative reorganization and the close collaboration of the chancery and privy seal in the management of diplomatic correspondence not only arise from an autonomous administrative logic but mostly from the pressing political necessity of having a team of clerks who could manage the paperwork produced in connection with the Anglo-French peace talks, which were conducted for the English by Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry, Duke of Lancaster.46 Undoubtedly, the duration of the Anglo-French negotiations, which took place across both sides of the Channel and saw the prolonged absence of Edward III from England, required more flexible administrative procedures and a team of administrators who could follow the king to France and employ continental administrative and diplomatic practices in English diplomatic correspondence, ultimately forging a ‘shared language of diplomacy’ that was essential to securing good outcomes during international diplomatic negotiations. Furthermore, the complex Medieval procedures of treaty-making inevitably generated a paper trail of notable size, which required continuous reworking. Most importantly, these diplomatic records had to be precisely recorded and archived, since they were ultimately crucial as a point of reference for the political negotiations. As the decision to decouple the littere cum clausula c’est assavoir from the Calais-ratification shows, poor administrative choices could indeed have severe repercussions for the outcome of the peace process. This was undoubtedly the case for the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais in 1360, notwithstanding the undeniable military and political strengths of the English at that time. I N N O C E N T V I ’s S E C R E TA R I E S AND THEIR RECORDS (1356–1360) The correlation between papal arbitration in the Anglo-French conflict in 1356–60 and contemporary developments in papal administrative and diplomatic practices still remains to be investigated. Indeed, in the years 1356–60 Innocent VI repeatedly seized the initiative to secure a durable Anglo-French peace not only through his nuncios but also through his personal interventions. As a cardinal between 1345 and 1347, Étienne Aubert, the future Innocent VI, had already been involved in the Anglo-French negotiations that followed the English victory at Crécy on 26 August 1346 and resulted in the truce of Calais (28 September 1347), which secured a substantial period of peace, further welcomed because of the devastation caused by the Black Death that de facto halted Anglo-French hostilities.47 Soon after his election to the Apostolic See at the end of 1352, Innocent VI immediately dispatched cardinal Guy de Boulogne on a peace-making mission, the notable 45  TNA, C 70/19–25. 46  On the English representation at Brétigny see Delachenal, Histoire, II, pp. 197–8. 47 Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 35–42. See also Chapter 5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

215

outcome of which was the unratified Treaty of Guines of 1354.48 Finally, after the French defeat at Poitiers in 1356, the pope pushed for fresh peace talks, sending Talleyrand de Périgord and Niccolò Capocci to England. Although the cardinals’ mission did not achieve the desired results, it ultimately helped to set preliminary peace agreements, discussed at Brétigny and ratified at Calais in 1360, where the papacy was represented by Androin de la Roche, Hugh de Genève, and Hugh  Pellegrini. The proactive mediatory role of Innocent VI and his nuncios in 1356–60 is selfevident when examining contemporary chronicles, papal letters, and peace-treaties. In particular, the fourteenth-century English chronicles of Henry of Knighton and the Anonymus Cantuariensis paid considerable attention to Innocent VI’s interventions in the Anglo-French conflict. On the one hand, Henry of Knighton maintained that after the battle of Poitiers the Apostolic See seized the initiative, dispatching to England Talleyrand de Périgord and Niccolò Capocci. In Henry’s account, although the cardinals had come to London to negotiate (tractare) the AngloFrench peace agreements, they refused to discuss Edward III’s claim to the French throne and thus failed in their mission.49 When in 1358 the Anglo-French negotiations resumed, the parties managed to reach an agreement, known to h ­ istorians as the First Treaty of London, which, as Henry put it, was sent to the Apostolic See ‘to be ratified and confirmed’.50 Finally, according to Henry, Innocent VI once again seized the initiative, dispatching his nuncios to negotiate a definitive peace in 1360, when the Anglo-French peace talks risked being jeopardized by Edward III’s clash with Thomas Lisle, bishop of Ely, and the resumption of ­hostilities in northern France.51 On the other hand, the well-informed Anonymus Cantuariensis recorded that the mission of Talleyrand of Périgord and Niccolò Capocci to London in 1357 followed Innocent VI’s appeal for peace to Edward III and the Black Prince in October 1356. In the Anonymus’s view, in the run-up to the First Treaty of London 48 Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 47–106, argued that alongside the Anglo-French negotiations, Innocent VI had two other related issues on his agenda: the organization of the crusade and the security of the Papal State in Italy. See also Chapter 5. 49  Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon monachi Leycestrensis, ed. J.R.  Lumby, I (London 1895), pp. 94–5. See also Delachenal, Histoire, II, pp. 55–7. Three other contemporary chronicles only mention the arrival of the cardinals in London in 1357: Eulogium historiarum, ed. F.S. Haydon, III (London, 1858–1863), p. 227; Anonimalle Chronicle 1333 to 1381, ed. V. Galbraith (Manchester, 1927), p. 43; Chronique de Jean le Bel, ed. J. Viard, E. Déprez, II (Paris, 1904–1905), p. 239. On the use of the verb tractare and its meaning in fourteenth-century Anglo-papal relations see Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 680–8. 50  Chronicon Henrici Knighton, pp. 101–2: ‘et forma concordie missa est ad curiam Romanam ad ratificandum et confirmandum’. See below n. 87. 51  Chronicon Henrici Knighton, pp. 103–4 (here p. 103): ‘redeunt nuncii de curia pape dicentes papam et totam curiam letam fore de concordia et suum assensum prebuisse’; pp. 112–14 (here p. 112): ‘nam papa misit nuncios solemnes cum literis ad regem Anglie ad tractandum de pace et concordia’. Two other fourteenth-century English chronicles, Thomas of Walsingham and Thomas Gray, briefly record the failure of the cardinals’ negotiations in London in 1357 and their departure, associating the issue concerning the Anglo-French negotiations and the clash between Edward III and Innocent VI over the bishopric of Ely: Chronica monasterii Sancti Albani Tome Walsingham, ed. H.T. Riley, II (London, 1863–1864), pp. 283–6; Thomas Gray, Scalacronica, 1272–1363, ed. A. King (Woodbridge, 2005), p. 150–3. On the clash between Edward III and Thomas Lisle see W.M. Ormrod, Edward III (New Haven, CT – London, 2011), pp. 381–3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

216

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the cardinals had a proactive role in mediating the terms of the Anglo-French peace agreements and acted as negotiators with both John II and Edward III.52 However, the Anonymous blamed the cardinals along with the French for putting off the confirmation of the peace agreements and for leaving England without having concluded the peace treaty.53 By contrast, the Anonymous had more complimentary words for Androin de la Roche and the other ‘papal legates’ sent to ‘intervene’ between England and France and to oversee the redaction of the articles of peace in 1359, whereas he completely overlooked the role of the papal envoys during the negotiations of Brétigny-Calais in 1360.54 The diplomatic practice and language adopted in Innocent VI’s correspondence addressed to the English and the French between 1356 and 1360 further support this argument. Most of papal political and diplomatic correspondence concerning Anglo-French matters in these years is recorded in the registers of secret letters, as was common practice from the pontificate of Benedict XII (1334–42).55 As Gasnault pointed out, such political and diplomatic correspondence was drafted under the direct supervision of the pope, his close entourage and the consistory and was written either by the pope himself or by his secretary, mostly in answer to rumours, intelligence or incoming foreign diplomatic letters. Accordingly, secret letters were often dispatched along with other relevant documents (cedula interclusa) containing sensitive diplomatic and political information, which were, however, not recorded in the papal registers and often do not survive.56 As mentioned in earlier chapters, the drawing up and expedition of secret letters did not, 52  Chronicon Anonymi Cantuariensis, ed. C. Scott-Stokes, C. Given-Wilson (Oxford, 2011), no. 43–46, pp. 39–43. See especially the use of the verbs tractare and procurare in Chronicon Anonymi Cantuariensis, p. 40: ‘et dicti cardinales tractarunt cum consilio regis France, quam cum consilio regis Anglie pro reformacione pacis inter eos, pro qua fuerant ad Angliam destinati’; p. 43: ‘post hec autem, multis et variis tractatibus pacis inter dictos reges et regna habitis, procurantibus cardinalibus antedictis, nulla via pacis ad utriusque regni honorem potuerant invenire’. Here the account of the Anonymus Cantuariensis presents textual overlaps with Jean Froissart, Chroniques de Jean Froissart, ed. S. Luce, V (Paris, 1874), § 403, pp. 83–4, while the cardinals’ efforts for peace are only briefly mentioned in the Amiens recension of Froissart’s chronicle (Froissart, Chroniques, V, p. 300). 53  Chronicon Anonymi Cantuariensis, no. 49, pp. 43–5; no. 51, p. 46–7. 54  Chronicon Anonymi Cantuariensis, no. 61, pp. 54–5; no 64, pp. 56–7: ‘et statim super reformacione pacis huiusmodi, intervenientibus dictis legatis, quibusdam articulis pacis deliberate conceptis et in scriptis redactis’. Androin’s successful mediation at the time of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais is further recorded in the Anonimalle Chronicle, p. 47; the Chronique de règnes de Jean II et de Charles V, ed. R.  Delachenal, I (Paris, 1910), pp. 258–9. Jean Froissart, Oeuvres de Froissart: Chroniques, ed. K. de Lettenhove, VI (Bruxelles, 1878), pp. 274, 285–6, also mentioned alongside Androin, Hugh de Genève and Simon de Langres. 55  The exceptions to this pattern are the mandate of appointment to negotiate between Charles of Navarre and the Dauphin Charles given to Talleyrand of Périgord and Niccolò Capocci in 1357, which is recorded in Innocent VI’s register of common letters (ASV, Reg. Vat. 233, fol. 4rv) alongside other faculties to dispense, to grant absolution and to appoint notaries public during their mission in England (ASV, Reg. Vat. 232, fol. 2v): CPL, III, pp. 580–1; 591. See also below n. 61 and Chapter 8. 56  Gasnault,‘L’élaboration’, pp. 212–13. See, for instance, Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2499, concerning the arrival of Talleyrand of Périgord at the papal curia in December 1356 with news about the journey of the Dauphin to Metz: ‘Ceterum licet dilectus filius nobilis vir Bernardus, comes Ventadorensis, qui die veneris proxime preterita hora tarda huc applicuit litteras tuas quas benigne recepimus nobis obtulerit et de nonnullis habuerit nobiscum diffuse sermonem, ea tamen que secum in secreto contuleras, prout eedem littere continebant, nondum nobis potuit aperire.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

217

therefore, fall under the control of the chancery, like ordinary correspondence, but rather under the watch of the apostolic chamber.57 Interestingly, by the pontificate of Innocent VI the apostolic secretaries, whose service was known as secretaria, were responsible for the production and expedition of secret letters together with their scribes.58 The advantages of managing sensitive and political correspondence in the apostolic chamber through the pope’s secretaries rather than in the chancery were twofold: on the one hand, the drafting and expedition of secret letters through the pope’s secretaries allowed for more direct papal control over the outgoing ­correspondence; on the other hand, as Zutshi recently pointed out, this speeded up the overall production process and facilitated the dispatch of diplomatic ­letters, crucially meeting the needs of nuncios involved in frenetic shuttle diplomacy, especially at times of political turmoil and conflict.59 However, during the Anglo-French negotiations of 1356–60, the papal secretariat underwent a substantial administrative reorganization, possibly prompted by the death of the pope’s secretary Francesco Calvo of San Massimo, who oversaw the redaction of secret letters in the apostolic chamber by four scribes between 1347 and the end of 1357.60 Indeed, as Jugie recently pointed out, at the death of Francesco Calvo, the registration of secret letters in special registers appears to have been discontinued, whereas the register of secret letters for the sixth year of pontificate of Innocent VI (30 December 1357–29 December 1358) is missing and possibly was never compiled.61 Francesco Calvo’s tenure was followed by a transitional period, when the registration of secret letters in the apostolic chamber was reorganized and gradually assigned to three secretaries, who carried out their tasks simultaneously from 1358: Arnaud de Molières, Zanobi da Strada, and Rinaldo 57  Gasnault,‘L’élaboration’, pp. 210–11. See also P.N.R. Zutshi, ‘Changes in the Registration of Papal Letters under the Avignon Popes (1305-1378)’, in Kuriale Briefkultur im späteren Mittelalter. Gestaltung – Überlieferung – Rezeption, ed. T.  Broser, A.  Fischer, M.  Thumser (Köln – Weimar – Vienna, 2015), pp. 254–5. On the registers of secret letters and the role played by the apostolic chancery in the production and expedition of papal letters see Chapters 2, 7, and 8. 58  Gasnault,‘L’élaboration’, pp. 213–21; Jugie, ‘Les mentions’, p. 5 (forthcoming). As a comparison, it should be noted that the French crown employed eighteen secretaries in 1359: R.H. Bautier, ‘Les notaires et secrétaires du roi, des origines au milieu du XVIe siècle’, in Les notaires et secrétaires du roi sous les règnes de Louis XI, ed. A. Lapeyre, R. Scheurer (Paris, 1978), p. XIII. 59  Zutshi, ‘Changes’, pp. 257–8. On the use of the pope’s secretaries as a means to speed up the bureaucratic procedure for the expedition of secret letters, especially during diplomatic negotiations, see the examples given in E. Göller, ‘Aus der Kanzlei der Päpste und ihrer Legaten’, QFIAB 10 (1907) pp. 303, 309–10, 313–18; G.  Opitz, ‘Die Sekretärsexpedition unter Urban  V.  und Gregor XI.’, QFIAB 33 (1944) p. 188 n. 6; Zutshi, ‘Changes’, p. 258 n. 140. 60 G.  Opitz, ‘Die Sekretäre Franciscus de Sancto Maximo und Johannes de Sancto Martino. Bemerkungen zur Frühzeit des päpstlischen Sekretariats’, QFIAB 30 (1940), p. 193–6; Jugie, ‘Les mentions’, pp. 9–10. 61  P. Gasnault, ‘Contribution à l’histoire des registres de lettres secretes d’Innocent VI’, Annali della scuola speciale per archivisti e bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 12 (1972), pp. 78–9; Jugie, ‘Les mentions’, pp. 3–4. As Renouard pointed out, only drafts survive for this year in ASV, Reg. Vat. 244 K: Y. Renouard, ‘Les minutes d’Innocent VI aux Archives du Vatican’, in Études d’histoire médiévale, II (Paris, 1968), pp. 833–45. A further piece of evidence in support of the idea that the register of secret letters for the sixth year of pontificate of Innocent VI was never compiled is the registration of political and diplomatic correspondence dating from these months in the registers of common letters, as pointed out above n. 55.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

218

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

de’ Zambrasi da Bologna.62 Ultimately, the use of three secretaries, who, as Jugie noted, were often involved in diplomatic missions outside Avignon, allowed for more flexibility in the management and record-keeping of secret correspondence.63 Arguably, the personal and direct involvement of Innocent VI and his close advisers in the Anglo-French negotiations of 1356–60 is not only witnessed through the examination of administrative and diplomatic practices, which lay behind the production of secret letters at the papal curia in those years, but also in the language adopted in papal diplomatic correspondence concerning AngloFrench matters. In this respect, Innocent VI undoubtedly had two main concerns: on the one hand, the pope repeatedly exhorted the English and French kings on moral grounds to avoid further bloodshed and to work for peace; on the other hand, the pope attempted to exercise political pressure on the two opponents, involving the Emperor as a third party and making sure that the domestic turmoil in France, which became an international matter because of the involvement of the king of Navarre, did not get in the way of an Anglo-French peace. Indeed, as also mentioned in the English chronicles, soon after the battle of Poitiers on 19 September 1356, Innocent VI tried to start fresh Anglo-French negotiations to discuss the release of John II and a possible peace. Between 1 and 7 October he mandated to his nuncios Talleyrand de Périgord and Niccolò Capocci to start peace talks with the English and French. Meanwhile, after Niccolò had moved to Paris to try to undertake his own negotiations with the French, the pope urged his representatives to reconcile their disagreements and to travel to England, if needed. Between October and November 1356 the pope repeatedly wrote to Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry of Lancaster, exhorting them to promote peace and recommending his nuncios’ mission.64 While the papal envoys were planning for their journey to England, Innocent VI further tried to internationalize his peace efforts and to involve Emperor Charles IV in the peace negotiations, dispatching his nuncius Androin de la Roche. Charles IV was in fact related to John II, whose first wife was Charles’s sister, while his father, John of Luxembourg, King of Bohemia, had fought alongside the French army at Crécy, where he died. Already before the battle of Poitiers, the French had unsuccessfully tried to involve Charles IV in the Anglo-French conflict. In December 1356 Innocent VI’s plan consisted of asking the Emperor to mediate between England and France, dispatching the French Dauphin Charles and Talleyrand de Périgord to attend the imperial diet at Metz. However, as Sumption pointed out, although playing on the French-imperial established friendship, the 62  In 1358 the work in the apostolic chamber was probably carried on by Jean Fabri de St Martin, who acted since 1347 as a scribe in the same office under Francesco Calvo’s tenure: Opitz, ‘Die Sekretäre’, p. 202; Jugie, ‘Les mentions’, pp. 9–12. Opitz had further argued that after 1357 these three secretaries formed a college of secretaries in the apostolic chamber: Opitz, ‘Die Sekretärsexpedition’, pp. 158–61; Opitz, ‘Die Sekretäre’, p. 205. However, Jugie challenged this interpretation and rather argued for the simultaneous activity of these three individuals. 63  Jugie, ‘Les mentions’, pp. 13–17. Notably, Arnaud de Molières accompanied Androin de la Roche and the Dauphin to the imperial diet in Metz in December 1357: Jugie, ‘Les mentions’, pp. 12–13. 64  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2396, 2404, 2406, 2411, 2412, 2447, 2448, 2449, 2478, 2481, 2482, 2510. See also CPL, III, pp. 621–3. See also below n. 84.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

219

papal plan here was misconceived, since Charles IV had virtually no means to influence Edward III’s deliberations.65 Meanwhile, Innocent VI also tried to address the problematic issue of the Anglo-Navarrese alliance, well aware that Philip of Navarre was in England to negotiate the lieutenancy of Normandy with Edward III.66 In February 1357 Innocent VI ultimately accepted the mediation of the cardinal of the XII Apostles, Pierre de la Foret, who was the former chancellor of the French crown and related to two of the high-ranking French captives of the battle of Poitiers, namely Jean of Melun, count of Tancarville, and Bouchard VI, count of Vendome. From Innocent VI’s letter it is clear that the other two papal nuncios, Talleyrand and Niccolò, had asked that Pierre de la Foret, representing the French crown, should join them in finding a solution to the Anglo-French conflict, probably hoping to exploit Pierre’s connections with John II and the French captives in order to advance their cause.67 Significantly, on 23 March 1357, despite the increasing weakness of the French crown, the king’s captivity and the opposition of the Estates-general, papal peacemaking efforts achieved their first success with the truce of Bordeaux. This truce was fully endorsed by Innocent VI and his representatives, who were authorized to go to England for further negotiations at the end of June 1357.68 As the secret letters recorded in the papal registers evidence, Innocent VI carefully prepared the mission of Talleyrand and Niccolò to England and made the most of Pierre de la Foret’s privileged position in the negotiations. The pope wrote to Edward III, reminding him that the Anglo-French conflict was an obstacle to the organization of a new crusade to the Holy Land, and also promoted the mission of the French negotiator, Pierre de la Foret, and the papal nuncios Talleyrand and Niccolò in further letters to John II, Philippa, Queen of France, and Isabella, Queen of England.69 Meanwhile, Innocent VI tried to curb the threats posed in Provence by the routiers, who devastated the region in the summer of 1357, and to arbitrate in the clash between Charles of Navarre and the Dauphin, which risked jeopardizing the Anglo-French peace.70 Although only one papal letter addressed to Talleyrand and Niccolò survives from the time when the two nuncios were in England, this document clearly illustrates the breadth of the pope’s involvement in the ­international milieu, acting as a mediator not only in the Anglo-French conflict but also in the French political domestic turmoil.71 Notoriously, in 1358–9 the parties agreed the First and Second Treaty of London without any direct papal mediation, although both treaties clearly acknowledged

65  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2407, 2414, 2497, 2500. See Sumption, Trial by Fire, II, pp. 263–4. 66  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2462, 2485. Sumption, Trial by Fire, II, pp. 274–7. 67  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2555. On the relations between Pierre de la Foret and the French crown see also Anonymus Cantuariensis, no. 43, pp. 38–9. 68  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2586, 2587, 2588, 2753 (its original is mentioned in Zutshi, no. 246, pp.125–6), 2759, 2813. See Sumption, Trial by Fire, II, pp. 250–93. 69  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2753, 2781, 2782, 2783, 2898, 2899; CPL, III, pp. 625–7. 70  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2701, 2780, 2798, 2955. See also Sumption, Trial by Fire, II, pp. 294–307, 362–5. 71  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2940.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

220

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

the right of the pope and the Apostolic See to confirm those bilateral agreements.72 Accordingly, surviving papal records do not shed any further light on papal involvement in the Anglo-French negotiations during 1358, since the papal register of secret letters for this year was either lost or never compiled.73 However, the three known original papal letters, which survive in English and French archives from 1358, reveal that Innocent VI continued to pursue his commitment for peace. On 27 November 1357, in the run-up to the First Treaty of London (April 1358), the pope pressed the French and English kings to conclude an agreement, while between December 1357 and January 1358 he encouraged the allegiance of the French clergy to the Dauphin, ultimately dispatching his nuncios Talleyrand and Niccolò to oversee the peace between Charles of Navarre and the Dauphin in August 1358.74 Equally, Innocent VI resumed a proactive role in the Anglo-French negotiations through the planning of the peace conference at Brétigny, when he appointed Androin de la Roche and Hugh de Genève as his nuncios.75 In particular, the pope was still concerned with the international context within which the Anglo-French talks were taking place and charged his nuncios with promoting peace-making efforts before Emperor Charles IV, Charles of Navarre, and the Dauphin Charles.76 Indeed, the choice of Androin de la Roche as a chief envoy for the papal mission was not accidental, since he was an experienced diplomat who had already been involved in Anglo-French negotiations together with Guy de Boulogne at the time of the Treaty of Guines and led negotiations with Charles IV after the battle of Poitiers in 1356.77 At the same time, the pope wrote to Henry of Lancaster and the Black Prince, the most prominent members of Edward III’s council, asking them to endorse the peace plans before the king.78 Even after peace agreements were drafted at Brétigny, Innocent VI continued to push for the ratification of the treaty. The pope was well aware of French difficulties in fulfilling the preliminary agreements insofar as the payment of the ransom for the hostages was concerned and in early July 1360, while congratulating Edward III and John II on the treaty, he also announced a new mission of his envoys Androin

72  See below n. 87. 73  See above n. 61. 74  Zutshi, no. 248, p. 126; no. 251, p. 128; Barbiche, no. 3006–3007, pp. 313–14. Further evidence is also provided by the drafts of secret letters for this year, collected in ASV, Reg. Vat. 244 K, which accounts for Innocent VI’s mediation with the Dauphin in March (ASV, Reg. Vat. 244 K, no. 89, fol. 45r) and August 1358 (ASV, Reg. Vat. 244 K, no. 251, fol. 132r) as well as with Edward III (ASV, Reg. Vat. 244 K, no. 110, fol. 53rv; no. 253, fol. 133rv). The best account of the Anglo-French negotiations in this period is provided in Delachenal, Histoire, II, pp. 64–77, who points out how in the early months of 1358 the English tried to put the peace negotiations on hold in the hope of obtaining from the pope cancellation of their arrears on the payments of the Peter’s Pence, which was forcefully demanded by the Apostolic See. Delachenal’s interpretation on this point is mostly based on the Scalacronica of Thomas Gray: see above n. 51. 75 ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 22r; 24r; 25rv; 27v; CPL, III, p. 629. The letter addressed to the papal nuncios also survives in original: Zutshi, no. 255, pp. 129–30. Alongside Androin and Hugh in November 1359 Innocent VI also dispatched the Dominican friars Symon and William of Lenne, papal chaplain and auditor causarum, to England to discuss the peace-negotiations: Zutshi, no. 254, p. 129. On the French representatives at Brétigny see Delachenal, Histoire, II, pp. 193–5. 76 ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 12rv; 21v–23v; 25v–27v; CPL, III, p. 629. 77  See above n. 65. 78 ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 23v–25rv.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

221

and Hugh, who had been asked to negotiate more flexible terms.79 Indeed, the papal nuncios played a crucial role when it came to implementing the peace treaty and building towards its ratification, as clearly stated in a letter addressed by Innocent VI to Androin de la Roche on 6 July 1360, when the pope explicitly asked the nuncius to silence promptly any doubts about the peace agreements raised by the parties.80 Finally, at the time of the negotiations for the Calais-ratification of the treaty, Innocent VI recommended before the parties his recently appointed nuncios Androin and Hugh together with another representative, the experienced Hugh Pellegrini, who was well acquainted with England, where he had been papal collector and took part in the Anglo-French negotiations in June–October 1357 and in April 1358.81 Arguably, both the evidence provided in the papal registers of secret letters for the years 1356–60 and the diplomatic and administrative practices employed in their compilation seem decisive in assessing the nature of Innocent VI’s involvement in Anglo-French negotiations. As already noted in Chapter  5, the pope employed ‘teams of representatives’ of different ranks, counting on experienced nuncios of cardinal status in 1357–8 and on lower-ranking envoys at the time of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais.82 Indeed, it was rather a matter of choosing the right men for the job than just relying on the status of the envoys, and undoubtedly Innocent VI’s ‘teams of representatives’ in 1356–60 had the advantage of providing the Apostolic See with varied and complementary portfolios of expertise. This was certainly the case for the nuncios employed during the negotiations for the Calaisratification of the Treaty of Brétigny, when the Apostolic See not only relied on the service of Androin de la Roche and Hugh of Genève, already involved in the talks at Brétigny, but also on Hugh Pellegrini, who had strong connections with England and was given a letter of credence to present the pope’s arguments before Edward III and John II on 26 September 1360.83 In the run-up to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais, the pope further focused on facilitating and building towards durable peace agreements through his direct interventions and the ‘shuttle diplomacy’ of his nuncios. Indeed, what is most remarkable between 1356 and 1360 is the 79 ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 93v-99r; CPL, III, p. 630; Zutshi, no. 261, pp. 132–3. Androin received further faculties on 30 June 1360, when his mission was newly commended to Edward III: Zutshi, no. 259–260, pp. 131–2. Accordingly, in July 1360 Innocent VI wrote to the French clergy, asking them to contribute to the crown’s financial commitments listed in the Treaty of Brétigny: Barbiche, no. 3008, pp. 314–15. On the exchange of prisoners at the time of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais and the payment of the ransom see Delachenal, Histoire, II, pp. 220–37; Le Patourel. ‘The Treaty’, pp. 33–9; Given-Wilson, ‘Edward III’s Prisoners’ pp. 802–30. 80 ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 99r: ‘super condicionibus, convencionibus et pactis in dicto tractatu contentis aliqua dubia fortisan orarentur vos inter reges ipsos, quibus convenire videritis, viis et modis prefata submovere dubia et eorum animos ad prefatam inclinare concordiam studeatis’. 81 ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 109r-113r; CPL, III, pp. 630–1; Zutshi, no. 264, p. 263; ASV, Reg. Vat. 244 K, no. 95, fol. 48rv. On Hugh Pellegrini see Plöger, England, no. 62, p. 242 and above Chapter 5. 82  See also above n. 8 and Chapter 5. 83 ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 110v; 113r: ‘pro parte nostra exponenda commisimus’. The letter further states that Hugh was given ‘fide plenaria circa exposita’. Accordingly, on 4 March 1360, in the run-up to the Brétigny-negotiations, Androin was given the faculty of exposing Innocent VI’s arguments ‘vive vocis oraculo’, while Hugh de Genève and the two nuncios were explicitly asked to liaise with each other (ASV, Reg. Vat. 240, fol. 24r, 25rv).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

222

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

international breadth of papal diplomacy, which coordinated simultaneous missions to England, France, the Empire, and the king of Navarre. Arguably such wideranging diplomatic efforts were achievable thanks to the employment of experienced professional diplomats, such as Androin de la Roche, as well as through a careful organization of the papal secretariat and diplomatic correspondence, which allowed the pope to have more direct control over his diplomatic correspondence, to speed up the process of expedition of political and diplomatic letters and to keep track of the on-going communications with his envoys in partibus. In this respect, the extant papal registers of secret letters clearly show that the pope communicated with his envoys on a regular basis and with a remarkable degree of frequency at times of crucial diplomatic negotiations. This was particularly the case in the months which followed the French defeat at Poitiers (October–December 1356), when the records show the exchange of letters between the pope and his envoys on a fortnightly basis. Accordingly, in the weeks which preceded the arrival of Talleyrand de Périgord and Niccolò Capocci to England (May–June 1357), Innocent VI actively coordinated his envoys’ efforts with those of the French representative Pierre de la Foret, who de facto had an informal twofold allegiance given his cardinal status.84 Furthermore, as Plöger rightly argued, the texts of the Anglo-French treaties agreed in the 1350s show how the role of the pope as an arbiter throughout the Brétigny-Calais negotiations substantially changed and evolved in nature.85 Whereas at the time of the truce of Esplechin in 1340 and in the two drafts of the Treaty of Guines of 6 April and 24 August 1354 the popes and their envoys are described as mediating between the parties in their private capacity and in a nonjudicial role, in the Treaty of Brétigny and its Calais-ratification Innocent VI and the Apostolic See are clearly underwriting the peace and are considered responsible for the enforcement of it through spiritual sanctions in case of infringements. In particular, the private nature of Innocent VI’s arbitration is highlighted in the first draft of the Treaty of Guines, where the pope is explicitly referred to by his personal name (Étienne Aubert), while the second draft of the same treaty further emphasizes the extra-judicial character of papal mediation.86 Equally, in 1358 and 84  Reg. Inn. VI (de curia), no. 2478, 2499, 2500, 2807. See above n. 64 and 69. 85 Plöger, England, p. 41. The pope also acted as a mediator in the Anglo-French conflict in his personal capacity in previous occasions, most notably at the time of the of the war of St Sardos in  1324–1326: Zanke, Johannes XXII., pp. 339–40; see Chapter  7. This interpretation has been challenged by Willershausen, who argued that the papal arbitration in 1356–60 was still of private nature, whereas the papacy as institution was required to act as guarantor of the Anglo-French peace in the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais in 1360: Willershausen, pp. 259–71. On arbitration in diplomatic negotiations see Moeglin, Péquignot, Diplomatie, pp. 695–718. 86  For the first draft of the treaty (6 April 1354) see Bock, ‘Some new documents’, p. 91: ‘Cest laccort du tretee de pees tenu et fait deuant le Chastel de Guynes entre le tres noble seigneur le Roi dengleterre dune part et son aduersaire de France dautre, par la mediacion le Reuerent piere en dieu le Cardinal de Boloigne’; p. 92: ‘si autem discordaverint aut infra mensem Octobris non inquisiuerint, vt prefertur, aut non poterunt concordare, tunc sanctissimus papa dominus Innocencius, qui nunc est, sub nomine proprio Stephani Alberti, . . . mediabit et de dictis finibus bundis et limitibus iuxta bonam suam conscienciam ordinabit’. For the second draft of the Treaty of Guines (24 August 1354) see Rymer, III/1, p. 283:‘coram sanctissimo patre domino Innocentio, sancte universalis ecclesie, Summo Pontifice, extra judicialiter, tanquam coram persona privata, non tanquam coram judice, nec in forma

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



From the Battle of Poitiers to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais

223

1359 the First and Second Treaty of London mentioned the pope and the Apostolic See with regard to the confirmation of the preliminary Anglo-French agreements.87 Finally, both the Treaty of Brétigny and its Calais-ratification name the pope, his envoys and the Apostolic See in the capacity of guarantors of peace with powers to impose spiritual sanctions, if one of the parties were to breach the peace.88 Yet, the changing nature of papal arbitration at the time of the Treaty of BrétignyCalais and the role of the Apostolic See as a guarantor of peace in the ratified treaty in a sense represented the natural outcome of the involvement of Innocent VI and his nuncios in the peace negotiations of 1356–60, when the Apostolic See encouraged the peace talks, actively sought solutions to problems in the negotiations and nec figura judicii’. For Benedict XII’s private mediation at the time of the Truce of Esplechin see above Chapter 8. 87  For the First Treaty of London (8 May 1358), see Delachenal, Histoire, II, no. 23, p. 407: ‘come antrement qe pourra estre ou contraire de l’acomplissement et perfection des toutes choses devant dites ou aucune d’ycelles, tant par le pape et la court de Rome come par toute autre voie qe pourra estre profitable’. For the Second Treaty of London (24 March 1359) see Les grands traités de la guerre de cent ans, ed. E. Cosneau (Paris, 1889), no. 29, p. 25: ‘les exploiz aucunes besoingnes touchans le roy et le royaume d’Angleterre, en la court de Romme, messagers seront envoiés en ladicte court, d’une part et d’aultre, qui feront toute bonne et loyalle diligence, et au miex qu’il pourront à l’exploit de mesme les besoingnes’. The same role of the Apostolic See is acknowledged in the chronicle of Henry of Knighton: see above n. 50. 88 For the Treaty of Brétigny in its French and Latin version (quoted here) see Rymer, III/1, pp. 492–3: ‘quod reges supradicti tenebuntur facere confirmari omnia supradicta per nostrum sanctum patrem papam et erunt vallata per iuramenta et sententias et censuras curiae Romane et omnia alia ligamenta fortiori modo fieri poterit. Et erunt impetrate dispensationes, absolutiones et litere a dicta curia Romana, tangentes perfectionem et completionem huius presentis tractatus et erunt tradite partibus, ad ultimum infra tres septimanas postquam rex applicuerit Calesii’ (art. 34); ‘Et, cum hoc, dicti reges submittent se et heredes et regna sua, cohercioni nostri sancti patris pape, ad finem quod ipse possit constringere per sententias et censuras ecclesiasticas et alias vias debitas, illum qui fuerit rebellis, secundum quod iustitia suadebit’ (Art. 36); ‘concordatum est quod nullus dictorum regum procurabit, nec faciet procurari per se vel per alium, quod aliqua novitates seu gravamina fiant per ecclesiam Romanam vel alios de sancta ecclesia, quicumque fuerint, contra presentem tractatum’ (Art. 39). On the pope’s role in confirming the treaty see Paris, ANF, J//639, no. 10. For the Calaisratification see Rymer, III/1, p. 517: ‘Que les roys dessusdiz soient tenuz de faire confermer toutes les choses dessus dittes par notre saint pere le pape et seront vallees par seremens, sentences, et censures de court de Rome et touz autres lieus, en la plus fort maniere que faire se pourra; et seront empetrees dispensations et absolutions et lettres de la ditte court de Rome, touchant la parfection et acomplissement de ce present traittie et seront baillees aus parties, au plus tart, dedands le trois semaines, apres ce que le roy sera arrivez a Calais’ (Art. 33); ‘. . . et avec ce, soubzmetteront les diz roys, et leurs hoirs, et royaumes, a la cohercion de nostre saint pere le pape, a fin q’il puisse contraindre, par sentences, censures d’eglise et autres voyes deuez, celui qui sera rebelle, selonc ce qu’il sera de raison’ (Art. 35); ‘. . . et seront aussi faites et donnees d’une partie et d’autre, selon la nature du fait, toutes manieres de fermetes et seurtes, que l’on saura ou pourra deviser, tant par la pape, le college de la court de Rome, comme autrement, pour tenir et garder parpetuelment la paix et toutes les choses par dessus accordees’ (Art. 35); ‘Et avec ce, voulons et consentons que, notre saint pere le pape, pour ce que plus fermement soit tenue et gardee la ditte paix a parpetuete, toutes pactions, confederations, aliances et convenances, comme que elles puissent estre nommees, qui purroient estre preiudiciables, ou obvier, par quelconque voye, a la ditte paix, en temps present ou avenir, suppose qu’elles feussent fermes ou vallees par peines ou par seremens et confermees de l’auctorite notre saint pere le pape, ou d’autre, soient cassees, irritees et mises au neant, comme contraires a bien commun, et au bien de pais commune et profitable a toute Crestiente et deplaisant a Dieu. Et touz seremenz, faiz en tel cas, soient relachiez, et soit decerne, par le dit notre saint pere, que nul soit tenuz a tels seremens, alliances, ou couvenances tenir ou garder et defendre que, ou temps a venir, ne soient faites telles ou samblables’ (final mutual agreement). On Androin de la Roche as a guarantor of the Calais-ratification see TNA, E 30/94; TNA, E 30/97; Rymer, III/1, p. 547; E 30/132.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

224

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

coordinated the peace-making efforts on an international scale. I would therefore challenge the interpretations of Favier and Plöger, who assessed negatively Innocent VI’s diplomatic achievements in mediating in the Anglo-French conflict on the basis of their short-lived success. I would rather concur with Hennigan that, notwithstanding the long-term consequences, Innocent VI undertook the AngloFrench arbitration with a firm and persistent approach, without shying away from the opportunity to share his mediatory role with other agencies, most notably the Emperor.89 In this respect, it should again be emphasized that such a coordinated and pragmatic overall approach to the Anglo-French peace talks was possible thanks to the administrative and diplomatic practices followed in the papal chamber, where the pope’s secretaries oversaw the production and expedition of political and diplomatic letters. Undeniably, the administrative reorganization in the pope’s secretariat between 1357 and 1359 followed an autonomous logic and was prompted by the death of the long-standing papal secretary Francesco Calvo of San Massimo. However, the reorganization of this department also answered specific needs prompted by the international nature of papal diplomacy, ultimately providing the papal diplomatic services with a team of secretaries, who could s­ imultaneously work on papal correspondence and be deployed on diplomatic missions abroad. C O N C LU S I O N S On the whole, we ought to conclude that, although parallel and comparable, the reorganization of diplomatic administrative practices in England and at the papal curia between 1356 and 1360 arose out of different contexts. Whereas the ­collaboration between the English chancery and the privy seal and the implementation of continental practices in English diplomatic correspondence at the time of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais were arguably undertaken because of administrative and political circumstances emerging from the Anglo-French negotiations, the administrative reorganization of the pope’s secretariat followed an internal and autonomous logic. Although the management of foreign affairs through the pope’s secretaries answered to practical needs of speeding up diplomatic exchanges, it in fact gave the pope and his entourage a degree of control over diplomatic i­ nteractions with other polities. Significantly, as Chaplais believed, the most notable outcome of these parallel and comparable administrative and diplomatic reshuffles at the time of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais was the implementation of continental practices in England. The agencies of such administrative and diplomatic developments are once more to be found among the teams of administrators and professional diplomats, who contributed to the formation of a ‘shared language of diplomacy’ during a period characterized by intricate international conflicts and political domestic turmoil.

89 Hennigan, Peace efforts, pp. 208–13; Favier, Les papes, p. 145: ‘Innocent VI n’est pas un diplomate. Il est naïf et il est versatile’; Plöger, England, p. 41. Innocent VI and the Emperor are both mentioned as guarantors of the peace in one of the Calais-agreements: Paris, ANF, J//639, no. 15.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Conclusions Through the study of diplomatic exchange between England and the papacy this book explores how a ‘shared language of diplomacy’ came into existence in the first half of the fourteenth century, by examining whether comparable administrative and diplomatic practices developed in England and the papal curia as the result of mutual influences or because of an autonomous logic and who was responsible for their implementation. These questions are based on the assumption that later Medieval diplomacy developed and took the form that it did because of the increasing bureaucratization of polities across Europe, especially insofar as chancery practices and financial offices were concerned. Although the word ‘bureaucracy’ has to be used with extreme care with regard to the late Medieval milieu and stands for what Weber defined as ‘imperfect’ bureaucracy typical of ‘patrimonial bureaucratic states’, it has to be noted that the bureaucratization of the English and papal chanceries in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries led especially to the formation of in-house styles and administrative practices. These specific procedures deeply influenced the diplomatic discourse among polities, which essentially relied on written documentation, archival organization, and the expertise of diplomatic representatives. This was especially the case for Anglo-papal diplomacy, which was fundamentally influenced by the sophisticated set of procedures and ceremonies, known as the stilus curie. From the thirteenth century onwards the latter developed at the papal curia and all those who approached the Apostolic See were expected to comply with it. In this respect, it is my contention that the ‘shared language’ employed in fourteenth-century Anglo-papal diplomatic discourse did not emerge as a hybrid of two in-house traditions but rather resulted from the implementation of continental administrative and diplomatic practices in England. This ‘shared language of diplomacy’ was indeed used in both Anglo-papal oral and written communications. It equally developed in a fluid and flexible way in order to accommodate the complexity of the diplomatic discourse, which included the exchange of formal written documentation, the public reading of documents and the performance of orations. Accordingly, it had to accommodate the use of vernaculars, mostly Anglo-Norman French, together with Latin, which was the official language in use at the fourteenthcentury papal curia. Furthermore, the book emphasizes the fundamental role played by unofficial and informal contacts alongside formal diplomatic communications between England and the Apostolic See. Informal contacts were indeed required because of the governmental structure of the fourteenth-century papacy, which relied on the contribution of individuals often linked to the pope and his close advisers

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

226

Anglo-Papal Relations in the Early Fourteenth Century

by means of personal connections. To use Weber’s terms, to a great degree the government of the fourteenth-century papacy indeed featured the characters of ‘­traditional authorities’. It still heavily relied on the service of extra-patrimonial officials, who were rewarded with fiefs and benefices. Arguably, the necessity of creating such a web of connections at the papal curia represented a major challenge for the English crown, which was underrepresented at the papal curia in Avignon, especially when compared with the French crown, its enemy in the Hundred Years’ War. Nevertheless, despite this obvious disadvantage, it is my contention that the English crown managed to create a solid network of ‘friends’ and protégés at the papal curia among the entourages of the pope and the cardinals as well as among the curialists. The services of the crown’s informal contacts at the papal curia were ultimately secured not only through the distribution of rewards in money and kinds but also through the exploitation of wealthy English ecclesiastical benefices. However, while the employment of provisions to benefices to reward the crown’s friends and protégés at the papal curia became fundamental to Anglo-papal relations, from the 1340s it heavily jeopardized them, along with the papal attempts at mediating the Anglo-French conflict, especially at the time of the First Avignon Conference in 1344 and throughout the peace negotiations led by Guy de Boulogne in 1353–4. Ultimately, such a complex network of formal and informal diplomatic contacts between England and the papacy was managed through the fundamental contributions of diplomatic envoys and representatives dispatched by both parties. Arguably, it was the increasingly technical nature of the business transacted in the management of foreign affairs as well as the on-going Anglo-French conflict that determined the growing professionalization of these individuals, who were not only chosen on account of their personal connections and rank but also because of their specific training and expertise. Indeed, the same demands also changed the nature of Anglo-papal diplomatic missions, which, by the fourteenth century, almost always involved the contribution of ‘teams of representatives’ who displayed diverse and complementary skills and expertise and were themselves capable of negotiating simultaneously political, routine, and technical business. As argued in Part II of the book, where four relevant case studies are examined, Anglo-papal relations were, therefore, managed by means of flexible diplomatic and administrative modalities, which varied and adapted to the changing political circumstances characterizing the first phase of the Hundred Years’ War. These modalities were determined by different factors: the personal acquaintance of the English king with the pope, as was the case during Clement V’s pontificate; ­political instability and baronial opposition in England, as happened at the time of Edward II’s deposition; and, most importantly, the outbreak of the Anglo-French conflict in 1337, which changed the nature of Anglo-papal relations and saw the papacy involved in the international arbitration of the conflict as private person in the first two decades of the war and as guarantor of peace at the time of the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais. In these changing circumstances, the continuity of Anglo-papal discourse was maintained not only as the result of the diplomatic initiatives of the Apostolic See, which promoted on-going peace negotiations throughout the first

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Conclusions 227 half of the fourteenth century, but also thanks to the support and implementation of comparable diplomatic and administrative practices both in England and at the papal curia, which ultimately gave shape to the ‘shared language of diplomacy’ mentioned above. Through the expert contribution of administrators and envoys, these shared modes of communication in fact helped to incorporate continental administrative and ceremonial procedures, formulaic language and in-house styles into English administrative practice, ultimately favouring a beneficial outcome of international affairs. Accordingly, the information needed for diplomatic ­negotiations was made available through the organization of written documentary evidence in archival repositories. Significantly, throughout the first half of the fourteenth century—both in England and the papal curia—the issue of diplomatic correspondence and the management of diplomatic archives increasingly shifted from the control of the chancery to the competence of the ruler’s secretariat, evidencing the fundamental need for rulers to oversee and control directly international affairs, while other administrative departments, such as the chancery, were transformed into offices of state. It is my contention that such comparable and parallel developments in both polities arose not because of mutual influences, but due to the need to respond to the same challenges represented by the effects of the Anglo-French conflict on Anglo-papal relations in the first half of the fourteenth century, as especially evidenced at the time of the war of St Sardos and during the Anglo-French ­negotiations that led to the Treaty of Brétigny-Calais. This observation, therefore, answers the two fundamental questions raised in this book. In the first half of the fourteenth century parallel administrative and diplomatic practices independently and autonomously took shape in England and the papal curia. Their comparable features were prompted by the diplomatic discourse among polities, which shared communication practices in their diplomatic intercourse in response to the ongoing Anglo-French conflict and similar domestic political challenges. The ultimate responsibility for implementation of these practices lay with the expert administrators in both polities who contributed to the formation of a “shared language of diplomacy”.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Archival and Manuscript Sources C A M B R I D G E , U N I V E R S I T Y L I B R A RY ( U L ) Dd. III. 53 C I T TÀ D E L VAT I C A N O , A RC H I V I O S E G R E TO VAT I C A N O ( A S V ) AA., Arm. C 182 Arm. XXXI, 41 Instr. Misc., 837, 883, 944, 945, 1002, 1692, 1722, 1942, 1965, 1966, 2053, 5103, 6306 Reg. Av., 2, 7, 10, 11, 55, 120 Reg. Supp., 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 24, 28, 34 Reg. Vat., 30, 30A, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 100, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 135, 146, 232, 233, 235, 236, 240, 244 B, 244 K C I T TÀ D E L VAT I C A N O , B I B L I OT E C A A P O S TO L I C A VAT I C A N A ( B AV ) Barb. Lat. 2366 E D I N B U RG H , U N I V E R S I T Y L I B R A RY ( U L ) Ms. 183 (formerly Ms. Laing 351a) L O N D O N , B R I T I S H L I B R A RY ( B L ) Add. Ch. 11308 Add. Ch. 11309 Add. Ch. 59142 Add. Ms. 24062 Cotton, Caligula D. III Cotton, Faustina B, V (Historia Roffensis) Cotton, Nero D, X (Nicholas Trivet, Chronicle) L O N D O N , T H E N AT I O N A L A RC H I V E S ( T N A ) C 47 (Chancery Miscellanea): C 47/27/8/20; C 47/27/12/25; C 47/27/13/1–13; C 47/27/13/22–27; C 47/27/13/29; C 47/27/13/30–34; C 47/28/3/18–19; C 47/28/4/3; C 47/28/4/32; C 47/28/5/34; C  47/28/6/1; C 47/30/6/1; C 47/30/6/13; C 47/32/16; C 47/32/20; C 47/32/21; C 47/32/23 C 61 (Gascon Rolls): C 61/36; C 61/38; C 61/49; C 61/53

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

230

Archival and Manuscript Sources

C 70 (Roman Rolls): C 70/1–25 C 76 (Treaty Rolls—French Rolls): C 76/1–43 C 81 (Chancery: Warrants for the Great Seal, Series I): C 81/1716/1–84 E 30 E 30/75; E 30/78–79; E 30/81–95; E 30/97–98; E 30/100–108; E 30/110–122; E 30/124–144; E 30/146–172; E 30/175; E 30/177–179; E 30/1083 E 36/187 (Gascon Calendar) E 36/268 (Stapeldon’s Calendar) E 101 (King’s Remembrancer: Accounts Various): E 101/309/10; E 101/309/20; E 101/309/27; E 101/311/25; E 101/313/39; E 101/386/11 SC 1 (Special Collections: Ancient Correspondence of the Chancery and the Exchequer): SC 1/32/78–82; SC 1/33/10; SC 1/37/154; SC 1/37/155; SC 1/37/156; SC 1/37/158; SC 1/37/159; SC 1/38/148; SC 1/45/192; SC 1/49/177; SC 1/58/6; SC 1/58/14 SC 7 (Special Collections: Papal Bulls): SC 7/10/18; SC 7/18/22; SC 7/33/27; SC 7/36/3; SC 7/36/5; SC7/36/5; SC 7/36/6 L O N D O N , S O C I E T Y O F A N T I Q U A R I E S ( S O C . A N T. ) Ms. 120 M A N C H E S T E R , J O H N RY L A N D S L I B R A RY Lat. Ms. 234 Lat. Ms. 235 Lat. Ms. 404 PA R I S , A RC H I V E S N AT I O N A L E S D E F R A N C E ( A N F ) J//164B no. 51–52 J//615 no. 12–17 J//634 no. 2–22 J//636 no. 12, 12bis, 13, 14, 14bis, 15, 16. J//637 no. 1–12 J//638A no. 3, 6ter, 7bis, 41 J//638B no. 10, 12 J//639 no. 5, 10, 15, 15sept, 16, 17 J//640 J//654 no. 10 J//707 no. 241 L//306 no. 9 JJ//54a–55 JJ//62 JJ//86–88

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Archival and Manuscript Sources PA R I S , B I B L I OT H È Q U E N AT I O N A L E D E F R A N C E ( B N F )

Ms. Fr. 2699 Ms. Fr. 2873 Ms. Fr. 2875 Ms. Fr. 2876 Ms. Fr. 6377 Ms. Fr. 15490 Ms. Fr. 16956

231

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

Primary Sources A biographical register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500, ed. A.B. Emden, III (Oxford, 1958). Accounts rendered by papal collectors in England, 1317–1378, ed. W.E. Lunt, (Philadelphia, PA, 1968). Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französischen, spanischen zur Kirchenund Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II. (1291–1327), ed. H. Finke, III (Basel, 1908–1922). Adam Murimuth, Continuatio chronicarum, ed. E.M. Thompson (London, 1889). Anglo-Scottish relations 1174–1328. Some selected documents, ed. E.L.G. Stones (London, 1965). Annals of London, in Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, I, ed. W. Stubbs, RS 76/1 (London, 1882). Anonimalle Chronicle 1333 to 1381, ed. V. Galbraith (Manchester, 1927). Archives administratives de la ville de Reims, ed. P. Varin, III (Paris, 1848). Benoit XII (1334–1342). Lettres closes, patentes et curiales se rapportant à la France, ed. G. Daumet (Paris, 1920). Benoit XII (1334–1342). Lettres communes analysées d’après les registres dits d’Avignon et du Vatican, ed. J.M. Vidal, III (Paris, 1903–1911). Calendar of Chancery Warrants preserved in the Public Record Office, ed. H.C. Maxwell-Lyte, I (London, 1927). Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesty’s Public Record Office, London, ed. J. Bain, II (Edinburgh, 1884). Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland. Papal Letters, ed. W.H. Bliss, C. Johnson, II (London 1893–1896). Calendar of Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, XV (London, 1893–1966). Calendar of the Close Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office (London, 1892–1913). Catalogue des Rolles Gascons, Normans et François conservés dans les Archives de la Tour de Londres, ed. T. Carte, II (London, 1743). Chronica monasterii Sancti Albani Tome Walsingham, ed. H.T.  Riley, II (London, 1863–1864). Chronicon Anonymi Cantuariensis, ed. C. Scott-Stokes, C. Given-Wilson (Oxford, 2011). Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, ed. E.M. Thompson (Oxford, 1889). Chronicon Henrici Knighton vel Cnitthon monachi Leycestrensis, ed. J.R. Lumby, I (London 1895). Chronique de Jean le Bel, ed. J. Viard, E. Déprez, II (Paris, 1904–1905). Chronique de règnes de Jean II et de Charles V, ed. R. Delachenal, I (Paris, 1910). Chronographia regum Francorum, ed. H. Moranville, II (Paris, 1893). Clément VI (1342–1352). Lettres closes, patentes et curiales intéressant les pays autres que la France (1342–1352), ed. E. Déprez, III (Paris, 1961). Clément VI (1342–1352). Lettres closes, patentes et curiales se rapportant à la France, ed. E. Déprez, IV (Paris, 1925–1961). Das Formelbuch des Heinrich Bucglant. An die päpstliche Kurie in Avignon gerichtete Suppliken aus der ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts., ed. J. Schwalm (Hamburg, 1910).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

234

Primary Sources

Die Ausgaben der apostolischen Kammer unter Benedikt XII., Klemens VI., und Innocenz VI. (1335–1362), ed. K.H. Schäfer, Vatikanische Quellen zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Hof- und Finanzverwaltung: III (Paderborn, 1914). Die Ausgaben der apostolischen Kammer unter Johann XXII., ed. K.H. Schäfer, Vatikanische Quellen zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Hof- und Finanzverwaltung: II (Paderborn, 1911). Die Einnahmen der apostolischen Kammer unter Innozenz VI., ed. H. Hoberg, Vatikanische Quellen zur Geschichte der päpstlichen Hof- und Finanzverwaltung: VII (Paderborn, 1955). Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen von 1200–1500, ed. M. Tangl (Innsbruck, 1884). Die Zeremonienbücher der römischen Kurie im Mittelalter, ed. B.  Schimmelpfennig (Tübingen, 1973). Diplomatic documents preserved in the Public Record Office, ed. P. Chaplais, I (London, 1964). Documents pontificaux sur la Gascogne, ed. L. Guérard (Paris, 1903). English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, ed. P. Chaplais, I/1–2 (London, 1982). Epistola o sia ragionamento di Messer Lapo di Castiglionchio, ed. L. Mehus (Bologna, 1758). Eulogium historiarum, ed. F.S. Haydon, III (London, 1858–1863). Fasti Ecclesie Anglicane, 1330–1541, ed. J.  Le Neve, D.E.  Greenaway, XII (London, 1962–1967). Fleta, ed. H.G. Richardson, G.O. Sayles, II (London, 1955). Foedera, conventiones, litterae et cuiuscunque generis acta publica inter reges Anglie et alios quosvis, ed. T. Rymer, R. Sanderson (London, 1816–1830). Francesco Petrarca, Le Familiari, ed. V. Rossi, III (Florence, 1933–1942). Il Registro di Andrea Sapiti, procuratore fiorentino presso la curia papale nei primi decenni del XIV secolo, ed. B. Bombi (Roma, 2007). Innocent VI (1352–1362): Lettres secrètes et curiales, publiées d’après les Registres des Archives Vaticanes, ed. P. Gasnault, M.H. Laurent, III (Paris, 1959–1968). Inventaire des piéces relatives à l’Angleterre et à l’Ecosse conservées aux Archives du Royaume (1836). Jean Froissart, Oeuvres de Froissart: Chroniques, ed. K. de Lettenhove, I-XVIII (Bruxelles, 1870–1878). Jean Froissart, Chroniques de Jean Froissart, ed. S. Luce, V (Paris, 1874). Le cérémonial papal de la fin du Moyen Age à la Renaissance, ed. M. Dykmans, IV (Roma, 1977–1985). Les actes pontificaux originaux des Archives Nationales de Paris, ed. B. Barbiche, III (Città del Vaticano, 1975). Les grands traités de la guerre de cent ans, ed. E. Cosneau (Paris, 1889). Les registres d’Honorius IV (1285–1287). Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. M. Prou (Paris, 1886–1888). Les registres d’Innocent IV publiés ou analysés d’après les manuscrits originaux du Vatican et de la Bibliothèque Nationale, ed. E. Berger, IV (Paris, 1881–1921). Les registres d’Urbain IV (1261–1264). Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et communes analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. L. Dorez, J. Guiraud, S. Clémencet, IV (Paris, 1899–1958). Les registres de Clément IV. Recueil des bulles de ce pape, publiées et analysées d’après les manuscrits originaux des Archives du Vatican, ed. E. Jordan, II (Paris, 1893–1945). Lettres communes de Jean XXII (1316–1334), ed. G. Mollat, XVI (Paris, 1904–1946). Lettres secrètes et curiales du pape Jean XXII (1316–1334) relatives à la France, ed. A. Coulon, III (Paris, 1961–1972).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi



Primary Sources

235

List of chancery rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, List and indexes XXVII (Dublin, 1908). MGH, Legum, IV: Constitutiones VI/I, ed. I. Schwalm (Hannover, 1914–1927). Original Papal Documents in England and Wales from the Accession of Pope Innocent III to the Death of Pope Benedict XI (1198–1304), ed. J. Sayers (Oxford, 1999). Original papal letters in England (1305–1415), ed. P.N.R.  Zutshi (Città del Vaticano, 1990). P.R.O., 2nd Annual Report (1841). Records of Antony Bek, Bishop and Patriarch, 1283–1311, ed. C.M. Fraser (Durham 1953). Regestum Clementis pape V, ed. L. Tosti, IX (Roma, 1885–1888). Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, Cantuariensis archiepiscopi, ed. R. Graham, II (Oxford, 1956). Regulae, ordinationes et constitutiones Cancellariae apostolicae, ed. A. Meyer: https://www. uni-marburg.de/de/fb06/mag/institut/prof-dr-andreas-meyer/kanzleiregeln (accessed on 29 November 2018). Richard FitzNigel, Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. C.  Johnson, F.E.L Carter, D.E.  Greenway (Oxford, 1983). Rotuli Parlamentorum: ut et petitiones et placita in parliamento, ed. J.  Stacey (London, 1767–1777). Schröder, H., ‘Die Protokollbücher der päpstlichen Kammerkleriker, 1329–1347’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 27 (1937), pp. 121–286. Some documents regarding the fulfilment and interpretation of the Treaty of Brétigny, ed. P. Chaplais, (London, 1952). Taylor, C., Debating the Hundred Years War: Pour ce que plusieurs (la loy salicque) and A Declaration of the Trew and Dewe Title of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 2006). Taylor, F., Supplemented hand-list of Western Manuscripts in the John Rylands Library (Manchester, 1937). Teulet, A., Layettes du Trésor des Chartes (Paris, 1863). The Antient Kalendars and Inventories of His Majesty’s Exchequer, ed. F. Palgrave, I (London, 1836). The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II, ed. E. Perroy (London, 1933). The Gascon Calendar of 1322, ed. G.P. Cuttino (London, 1949). The Gascon Rolls project: http://www.gasconrolls.org/en/ (accessed on 29 November 2018). The Liber epistolaris of Richard de Bury, ed. N. Denholm-Young (Oxford, 1950). The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, 1275–1507, ed. C.  Given-Wilson, P.  Brand, A. Curry, R.E. Horrox, G. Martin, W.M. Ormord, J.R.S. Phllips (Leicester, 2005). The Statutes of the Realm, I (London, 1810). The War of Saint-Sardos (1323–1325). Gascon correspondence and diplomatic documents, ed. P. Chaplais (London, 1954). Thomas Gray, Scalacronica, 1272–1363, ed. A. King (Woodbridge, 2005). Treaty Rolls: Treaty Rolls, ed. P. Chaplais, I: 1234–1325 (London, 1955); Treaty Rolls, ed. J. Ferguson, II: 1337–1339 (London, 1972). Una silloge epistolare della seconda metà del XIII secolo, ed. F. Delle Donne (Firenze, 2007). Vatikanische Akten zur deutschen Geschichte in der Zeit Kaiser Ludwigs des Bayern, ed. S. Riezler (Innsbruck, 1891).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 29/06/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Secondary Sources Adel und Zahl: Studien zum adligen Rechnen und Haushalten in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. H. von Seggern, G. Fouquet (Ubstadt—Weiher, 2000). Ait, I., ‘I mercatores camere Bonifacii pape octavi’, in Dante e il giubileo, ed. E. Esposito (Roma, 2000), pp. 55–68. Alban, J.R. and Allmand, C.T., ‘Spies and Spying in the Fourteenth Century’, in War, Literature and Politics in the Late Middle Ages, ed. C.T. Allmand (Liverpool, 1976), pp. 73–101. Allmand, C., ‘The Civil Lawyer’, in Profession, Vocation, and Culture in Later Medieval England (Liverpool, 1982), pp. 155–80. Allmand, C., The Hundred Years War. England and France at War c. 1300–c. 1450 (Cambridge, 1988). Artifoni, E., ‘Gli uomini dell’assemblea. L’oratoria civile, o concionatori, e i predicatori nella società comunale’, in La predicazione dei frati dalla metà del ‘200 alla fine del ‘300 (Spoleto, 1995), pp. 141–88. Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zum geistlichen und weltlichen Gesandtschaftswesen vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Zey, C. Märtl (Zürich, 2008). Autrand, F., Charles V (Paris, 1994). Aux origines de l’État moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Roma, 1990). Baix, F., ‘Notes sur les Clercs de la Chambre apostolique (XIIIe–XIVe siècles)’, Bulletin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome 27 (1952), pp. 17–51. Baker, J.H., ‘Fastolf, Thomas’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/49670?docPos=3 (accessed on 8 December 2015). Baldwin, J.F., The King’s Council in England During the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1913). Barbiche, B., ‘Les procureurs des rois de France à la cour pontificale d’Avignon’, in Aux origines de l’État modern. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon, (Roma, 1990), pp. 81–112. Barbiche, B., ‘Les «diplomates» pontificaux du Moyen Âge tardif à la première modernité : office et charge pastorale’, in Offices et papauté (XIVe–XVIe siècle). Charges, hommes, destins, ed. O. Poncet, A. Jamme (Roma, 2005), 357–70. Barbiche, B., Bulla, legatus, nuntius. Études de diplomatique et de diplomatie pontificales (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Paris, 2007). Barbiche, B., ‘Diplomatique et histoire sociale: les “scriptores” de la chancellerie apostolique au XIIIe siècle’, in B. Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, nuntius. Études de diplomatique et de diplomatie pontificales (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Paris, 2007), pp. 43–55. Barbiche, B., ‘Le personnel de la chancellerie pontificale aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, in B. Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, nuntius. Études de diplomatique et de diplomatie pontificales (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Paris, 2007), pp. 21–34. Barbiche, B., ‘Les scribes de la chancellerie apostolique aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles: sources et méthodes d’une enquete prosopographique’, in B. Barbiche, Bulla, legatus, nuntius. Études de diplomatique et de diplomatie pontificales (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Paris, 2007), pp. 35–43. Barraclough, G., ‘The chancery of Nicholas III, a study of the sources’, QFIAB 25 (1933–34), pp. 192–250.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

238

Secondary Sources

Barraclough, G., ‘The English Royal Chancery and the Papal Chancery in the reign of Henry III’, MIÖG 62 (1954), pp. 365–78. Barraclough, G., Papal provisions: Aspects of Church History, Constitutional, Legal and Administrative in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1935). Barraclough, G., Public Notaries and the Papal Curia. A Calendar and a Study of a Formularium notariorum curie from the Early Fourteenth Century (London, 1934). Barratt, N., ‘The Revenue of King John’, EHR 111 (1996), pp. 835–55. Barratt, N., ‘The English Revenue of Richard I’, EHR 116 (2001), pp. 635–56. Barratt, N., ‘The Exchequer in the Thirteenth Century’, in English Government in the Thirteenth Century, ed. A. Jobson (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 71–86. Barrel, A.D.M., ‘The Ordinance of Provisors of 1343’, Historical Research 64 (1991), pp. 264–77. Barrow, G.S., Kingship and Unity. Scotland, 1000–1306 (Edinburgh, 2003). Barrow, G.W., Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1965). Baumgarten, P.M., Aus Kanzlei und Kammer. Erörterung zur kurialen Hof- und Verwaltungsgeschichte im XIII., XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1907). Baumgarten, P.M., Von der apostolischen Kanzlei. Untersuchung über die päpstlichen Tabellionen und die Vizekanzler der Heiligen Römischen Kirche im XIII., XIV. und XV. Jahrhundert (Köln, 1908). Bautier, R.H., ‘Les notaires et secrétaires du roi, des origines au milieu du XVIe siècle’, in Les notaires et secrétaires du roi sous les règnes de Louis XI, Chales VIII et Louis XII, I, (1461–1515) (Paris, 1978), pp. ix–xxxix. Bearwood, A., Alien Merchants in England, 1350 to 1370, II (Cambridge, 1931). Beattie, B., ‘The cardinals and diplomacy in the fourteenth century’, in Die Kardinäle des Mittelalters und der Frühen-Renaissance, ed. J.  Dendorfer, R.  Lützelschwab (Firenze, 2013), pp. 167–86. Benham, J., Peace making in the Middle Ages. Principles and Practice (Manchester, 2011). Bennett, N., ‘John Dalderby, bishop of Lincoln’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com. chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/7013?docPos=1. Berthe, P.M., Les procureurs français à la cour pontificale d’Avignon (1309–1376) (Paris, 2014). Beuttel, J.-E., Der Generalprokurator des Deutschen Ordens an der römischen Kurie (Marburg, 1999). Bilotta, M.A., I libri dei papi. La curia, il Laterano e la produzione manoscritta ad uso del papato nel Medioevo (secoli VI-XIII) (Città del Vaticano, 2011). Blet, P., Histoire de la Reprèsentation Diplomatique du Saint Siège des origines à l’aube du XIXe siècle (Città del Vaticano, 1982). Blumenthal, U.R., ‘Papal registers in the twelfth century’, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. P. Linehan (Città del Vaticano, 1998), pp. 137–51. Boaga, E., ‘Il procuratore generale nell'ordine Carmelitano. Origine e sviluppo della figura e del ruolo’, Carmelus, 43 (1996), pp. 42–98. Boase, T.S.R., Boniface VIII (London, 1933). Bock, F., ‘An Unknown Register of the Reign of Edward III’, EHR 45 (1930), pp. 353–72. Bock, F., ‘Some new documents illustrating the early years of the Hundred Years War (1353–1356)’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 15 (1931), pp. 60–99. Bock, F., ‘Die Geheimschrift in der Kanzlei Johanns XXII’, Römische Quartalschrift 42 (1934), pp. 279–303.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

239

Bock, F., ‘Über Registrierung von Sekretbriefen’, QFIAB 28 (1937–1938), pp. 147–234. Bock, F., ‘Über Registrierung von Sekretbriefen. Studien zu den Sekretregistern Benedikts XII.’, QFIAB 29 (1938–1939), pp. 42–88. Bock, F., ‘Studien zur Registrierung der politischen Briefe und der allgemeinen Verwaltungssachen Johanns XXII.’, QFIAB 30 (1940), pp. 137–88. Bock, F., ‘Einführung in das Registerwesen des avignonesischen Papsttums’, QFIAB 31 (1941), pp. 1–107. Bock, F., ‘Gregorio VII e Innocenzo III. Per un confronto dei Registri Vaticani 2 e 4-7/A’, Studi gregoriani 5 (1956), pp. 243–79. Bock, F., ‘Studien zu den Registern Innocenz’ IV.’, Archivalische Zeitschrift 52 (1956), pp. 11–48. Bock, F., ‘Originale und Registereinträge zur Zeit Honorius III.’, Bullettino dell’Archivio paleografico italiano n. ser. II-III (1956–1957), pp. 101–16. Bock, F., ‘Päpstliche Sekretregister und Kammerregister. Überblick und Ergänzung früherer Studien zum Registerwesen des Spätmittelalters’, Archivalische Zeitschrift 59 (1963), pp. 30–58. Bolton, B., ‘Boniface VIII and the Kingdom of England’, in Bonifacio VIII. Atti del XXXIX Congresso storico internazionale (Todi, 13–16 ottobre 2002) (Spoleto, 2003), pp. 329–53. Bombi, B., ‘I procuratori dell’Ordine Teutonico tra il XIII e XIV secolo. Studi sopra un inedito rotolo pergamenaceo del Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz di Berlino’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 44 (2002), pp. 193–297. Bombi, B., ‘Un inedito memoriale dell’Archivio dei procuratori dell’Ordine Teutonico del principio del XIV secolo’, QFIAB 82 (2002), pp. 47–121. Bombi, B., ‘Andrea Sapiti, un procuratore Trecentesco, fra la curia avignonese, Firenze e l’Inghilterra’, MEFR 115/1 (2003), pp. 897–929. Bombi, B., ‘Der Geschäftsgang der Suppliken im ersten Viertel des 14. Jahrhunderts. Einige Beispiele anhand des Registers des Kurienprokurators Andrea Sapiti’, Archiv für Diplomatik 51 (2005), pp. 253–83. Bombi, B., ‘Andrea Sapiti, His Origins and His Register as a Curial Proctor’, EHR 500 (2008), pp. 132–48. Bombi, B., ‘Petitioning between England and Avignon in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century’, in Medieval Petitions: Grace and Grievance, ed. W.M.  Ormrod, G.  Dodd, A. Musson (Woodbridge, 2009), pp. 64–81. Bombi, B., ‘The ‘Babylonian Captivity’ of Petracco di ser Parenzo dell’Incisa, father of Francesco Petrarca’, Historical Research 83 (2010), pp. 431–44. Bombi, B., ‘The Roman rolls of Edward II as source of administrative and diplomatic practice in the early fourteenth century’, Historical Research 85 (2012), pp. 597–616. Bombi, B., ‘The “Avignon Captivity” as a means of success. The circle of the Frescobaldi’, in Images and Words in Exile. Avignon and Italy during the First Half of the 14th Century, ed. E. Brilli, L. Fenelli, G. Wolf (Florence, 2015), pp. 271–88. Bombi, B., ‘The English Crown and the Election of Pope John XXII’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 68 (2017), pp. 260–84. Bombi, B., ‘Benedict XII and the Outbreak of the Hundred Years’ War’, in Pope Benedict XII. The guardian of orthodoxy, ed. I. Bueno (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 191–216. Bombi, B., ‘ “Solom le cours de leglise de Rome”. The use of the stilus curie in Anglo-papal correspondence during the first half of the fourteenth century’, in Stilus curiae: Spielregeln der Konflikt- und Verhandlungsfürung am Papsthof des Mittelalters, ed. G. Strack, J. Nowak (Turnhout, 2019), pp. 177–196.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

240

Secondary Sources

Bombi, B., ‘Pragmatic methods of record-keeping? The English chancery diplomatic enrolments between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, Archiv für Diplomatik, forthcoming. Brand, P., ‘Spigurnel, Sir Henry’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/26150 (accessed on 8 March 2017). Bresc, H., ‘La genèse du schisme: les parties cardinalices et leurs ambitions dynastiques’, in Genèse et débuts du Grand Schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1980), pp. 37–53. Bresslau, H., Manuale di diplomatica per la Germania e l’Italia, trans. A.M.Voci-Roth (Roma, 1998). Broek van den, G., Procuratore generale, in Dizionario degli Istituti di perfezione, VII (Roma, 1983), pp. 879–83. Brown, A.L., ‘The Privy Seal Clerks in the Early Fifteenth Century’, in The Study of Medieval Records. Essays in honour of K. Major, ed. D.A. Bullough, R.L. Storey (Oxford, 1971), pp. 260–81. Brown, E.A.R., ‘The Political Repercussions of Family Ties in the Early Fourteenth Century: The Marriage of Edward II of England and Isabelle of France’, Speculum 63 (1988), pp. 573–95. Brown, E.A.R., ‘The Marriage of Edward II of England and Isabelle of France: A Postscript’, Speculum 64 (1989), pp. 373–9. Brown, M., The wars of Scotland, 1214–1371 (Edinburgh, 2004). Brown, M., ‘Aristocratic Politics and the Crisis of Scottish Kingship, 1286–96’, The Scottish Historical Review 90 (2011), pp. 1–26. Brundage, J.A., The Medieval origins of the legal profession (Chigaco, IL, 2008). Buck, M., ‘The reforms of the exchequer 1316–1326’, EHR 98 (1983), pp. 241–60. Buck, M., Politics, Finance and the Church in the Reign of Edward II. Walter Stapeldon treasurer of England (Cambridge, 1983). Burns, C., ‘Sources of British and Irish History in the Instrumenta Miscellanea of the Vatican Archives’, AHP 9 (1971), pp. 71–141. Caciorgna, M.T., ‘Scritture e ufficiali pontifici nella Campagna e Marittima del primo Trecento’, in Offices, écrit et papauté (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle), ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2007), pp. 47–71. Camargo, M., ‘Special delivery. Were medieval letter writers trained in performance?’, in Rhetoric Beyond Words. Delight and Persuasion in the Arts of the Middle Ages, ed. M. Carruthers (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 173–89. Cancian, P., ‘L’Archivio Malabaila conservato nel castello di Canale’, Bollettino storicobibliografico subalpino 95 (1997), pp. 593–638. Canteaut, O., ‘Enregistrer, pour quoi faire? Éclairages croisés sur les pratiques d’enregistrement de la monarchie française et de la papauté d’Avignon (1316–1334)’, in L’autorité de l’écrit au Moyen Age (Orient-Occident), XXXIXe Congrès de la SHMESP (Le Caire, 30 avril–5 mai 2008) (Paris, 2009), pp. 299–316. Canteaut, O., ‘Du notaire au clerc du secret: le personnel de la chancellerie des derniers Capétiens directs dans les rouages du pouvoir’, in Chancelleries et chanceliers des princes à la fin du Moyen Age, ed. G. Castelnuovo, P. Mattéoni (Chambéry, 2011), pp. 231–85. Carpenter, D.A., ‘The English Royal Chancery in the thirteenth century’, in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace Français, espace Anglais, ed. K. Fianu, D.J. Guth (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997), pp. 25–53. Castelnuovo, G., ‘Les officiers princiers et le pouvoir de l’écrit. Pour une histoire documentaire de la principauté savoyarde (XIIIe–XVe siècle)’, in Offices, écrit et papauté (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle), ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2007), pp. 17–46.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

241

Chabod, F., ‘Y a-t-il un état de la Renaissance?’, in Actes du colloque de la Renaissance (Paris, 1958), pp. 57–74. Chaplais, P., ‘The Making of the Treaty of Paris (1259) and the Royal Style’, EHR 67 (1952), pp. 235–53. Chaplais, P., ‘Privy Seal Drafts, Rolls and Registers (Edward I–Edward II)’, EHR 73 (1958), pp. 270–3. Chaplais, P., ‘English Diplomatic Documents to the End of Edward III’s Reign’, in The Study of Medieval Records. Essays in honour of K. Major, ed. D.A. Bullogh, R.L. Storey (Oxford, 1971), pp. 23–56. Chaplais, P., English Royal Documents. King John—Henry VI, 1199–1461 (Oxford, 1971). Chaplais, P., ‘Master John de Branketre and the office of notary in Chancery, 1355–1375’, Journal of the Society of Archivists 4 (1971), pp. 169–99. Chaplais, P., Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981). Chaplais, P., ‘The chancery of Guyenne, 1289–1453’, in P.  Chaplais, Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration (London, 1981), pp. 61–96. Chaplais, P., Piers Gaveston. Edward II’s adoptive brother (Oxford, 1994). Chaplais, P., English Diplomatic Practice in the Middle Ages (London—New York, 2003). Cheney, C.R., English Bishops’ Chanceries, 1100–1250 (Manchester, 1950). Cheney, C.R., From Becket to Langton: English Church Government, 1170–1213 (Manchester, 1956). Cheney, C.R., Hubert Walter (Cambridge, 1967). Cheney, C.R., Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford, 1972). Cheney, C.R., Pope Innocent III and England (Stuttgart, 1976). Cheney, C.R., Episcopal Visitation of Monasteries in the 13th Century (Manchester, 1983). Cheney, C.R. and Jones, M., A Handbook of Dates For Students of British History. Revised Edition (Cambridge, 2000). Chester Jordan, W., ‘Anti-corruption campaigns in thirteenth-century Europe’, Journal of Medieval History 35 (2009), pp. 204–19. Chiaudano, M., ‘Note sui mercanti astigiani: I Malabaila’, Bollettino storico-bibliografico subalpino 41 (1939), pp. 213–28. Cirier, A., ‘Diplomazia e retorica comunale: la comunicazione attraverso lo spionaggio politico nell’Italia medievale (secc. XII–XIII)’, in Comunicazione e propaganda nei secoli XII e XIII, ed. R. Castano, F. Latella, T. Sorrenti (Roma, 2005), pp. 199–216. Cirier, A., ‘La face cachée du pouvoir. L’espionnage au service d’ètats en construction en Italie à la fin du Moyen Age (XIIIe–fin XIVe siècle)’, in L’envers du décor. Espionnage, complot, trahison, vergeance et violence en pays bourguignon et liégeois, ed. J.M. Cauchies, A. Marchandisse (Neuchatel, 2008), pp. 7–28. Clanchy, M., From memory to written record. England 1066–1307 (London, 1979). Clark, A.C., The Cursus in Mediaeval and Vulgar Latin (Oxford, 1910). Coleman, J., Public Reading and the Reading Public in Late Medieval England and France (Cambridge, 1996). Constantinou, C.M., On the Way to Diplomacy (London, 1996). Contamine, P., La guerre de Cent ans (Paris, 1968). Crump, C.G., ‘Ex quod expressa mentio’, in Essays in History presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. H.W.C. Davis (Oxford, 1927), pp. 30–45. Curry, A., The Hundred Years’ War, 1337–1453 (Oxford, 2002). Cuttino, G.P., English Diplomatic Administration, 1259–1339 (Oxford, 1940). Cuttino, G.P., ‘Henry of Canterbury’, EHR 57 (1942), pp. 298–311.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

242

Secondary Sources

Cuttino, G.P., ‘King’s clerks and the community of the realm’, Speculum 29 (1954), pp. 395–409. Cuttino, G.P., ‘Historical Revision: the Causes of the Hundred Years War’, Speculum 31 (1956), pp. 463–77. D’Avray, D., The Preaching of the Friars. Sermons diffused from Paris before 1300 (Oxford, 1985). D’Avray, D., Medieval Religious Rationalities. A Weberian Analysis (Cambridge, 2010). D’Avray, D., Rationalities in History. A Weberian Essay in Comparison (Cambridge, 2010). D’Avray, D., ‘Review of S.  Zanke, Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa. Das politische Papsttum im Spiegel der kurialen Register (1316-1334) (Leiden – Boston 2013)’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 66 (2015), pp. 867–8. D’Avray, D.L., Papacy, Monarchy and Marriage, 860–1600 (Cambridge, 2015). Dall’‘ars dictaminis’ al ‘preumanesimo’? Per un profilo letterario del secolo XIII, ed. F. Delle Donne, F. Santi (Firenze, 2013). Davidsohn, R., ‘Tre orazioni di Lapo di Castiglionchio, ambasciatore fiorentino, a papa Urbano V e alla curia in Avignone’, Archivio Storico Italiano 20 (1897), pp. 225–46. C.S.L., ‘Pierre Chaplais: a personal memory’, in England and her neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. M. Jones, M. Vale (London—Ronceverte, 1989), pp. xiii–xix. Davies, J.C., The baronial opposition to Edward II. Its character and policy. (Cambridge, 1918). De Vivo, F., ‘Archives of Speech. Recording Diplomatic Negotiation in Late Medieval and Early Modern Italy’, European History Quarterly 46 (2016), pp. 519–44. Deeley, A., ‘Papal Provision and Royal Rights of Patronage in the Early Fourteenth Century’, EHR 43 (1928), pp. 497–527. Del Punta, I., ‘Tuscan merchants-bankers and moneyers and their relations with the Roman Curia in the 13th and early 14th centuries’, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 64 (2010), pp. 39–53. Delachenal, R., Histoire de Charles V, V (Paris, 1909–1931). Delle Donne, F., ‘Tommaso di Capua e la cancelleria papale: tra normativa e comunicazione politica’, in Dall’‘ars dictaminis’ al ‘preumanesimo’? Per un profilo letterario del secolo XIII, ed. F. Delle Donne, F. Santi (Firenze, 2013), pp. 43–61. Denholm-Young, N., Collected Papers. Cultural, textual and biographical essays on Medieval topics (Cardiff, 1969). Denholm-Young, N., ‘Richard de Bury (1287–1345) and the Liber epistolaris’, in N. Denholm-Young, Collected Papers. Cultural, textual and biographical essays on Medieval topics (Cardiff, 1969), pp. 1–41. Denholm-Young, N., ‘The cursus in England’, in N.  Denholm-Young, Collected Papers. Cultural, textual and biographical essays on Medieval topics (Cardiff, 1969), pp. 42–74. Denholm-Young, N., ‘Who wrote Fleta?’, in N. Denholm-Young, Collected Papers. Cultural, textual and biographical essays on Medieval topics (Cardiff, 1969), pp. 187–98. Denifle, H., ‘Die päpstlichen Registerbände des 13. Jhs. und das Inventar derselben vom J. 1339’, Archiv für Literatur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters 2 (1886), pp. 1–106. Denton, J.H., ‘Pope Clement V’s early career as a royal clerk’, EHR 83 (1968), pp. 303–14. Denton, J.H., Robert Winchelsey and the Crown, 1294–1313 (Cambridge, 1980). Déprez, E., Les ambassades anglaises pendant la Guerre de Cent Ans: Catalogue Chronologique (1327–1450) (Paris, 1900). Déprez, E., Les préliminaires de la Guerre de Cent Ans. La papauté, la France et l’Angleterre (1328–1342) (Paris, 1902).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

243

Di Capua, F., Il ritmo prosaico nelle lettere dei papi e nei documenti della cancelleria romana dal IV al XIV secolo III (Roma, 1946). Dibben, L.B., ‘Chancellor and Keeper of the seal under Henry III’, EHR 27 (1912), pp. 39–51. Dini, B., ‘I mercanti-banchieri e la sede apostolica (XIII-prima metà del XIV secolo)’, in Gli spazi economici della chiesa nell’occidente mediterraneo (secoli XII–metà XIV) (Pistoia, 1999), pp. 42–62. Dood, G., Justice and Grace. Private Petitioning and the English Parliament in the Late Middle Ages (Oxford, 2007). Dykmans, M., ‘Le cardinal Annibal de Ceccano (vers 1282–1350). Étude biographique et testament du 17 juin 1348’, Bullettin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome 43 (1973), pp. 145–344. Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace Français, espace Anglais, ed. K. Fianu, D.J. Guth (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997). Edwards, K., ‘The Political Importance of the English Bishops during the Reign of Edward II’, EHR 59 (1944), pp. 311–47. Elster, C., ‘Liturgical textiles as papal donations in Late Medieval Italy’, in Dressing the part: textiles as propaganda in the Middle Ages, ed. K.  Dimitrova, M.  Goehring (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 65–79. England and her neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. M. Jones, M. Vale (London—Ronceverte, 1989). English Government in the Thirteenth Century, ed. A. Jobson (Woodbridge, 2004). Ernst, F., ‘Über Gesandtschaftswesen und Diplomatie an der Wende vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 33 (1950), pp. 64–95. Evans, D.L., ‘Preface’, in Treaty Rolls: Treaty Rolls, ed. P. Chaplais, I: 1234–1325 (London, 1955), p. v. Favier, J., La guerre de cent ans, 1337–1453 (Paris, 1980). Favier, J., Les papes d’Avignon (Poitiers, 2006). Felten, F.J., ‘Auseinandersetzungen um die Finanzierung eines Kreuzzuges im Pontifikat Johannes’ XXII. (1316–1334)’, in L’hostie et le denier. Les finances ecclésiastiques du haut Moyen Age à l’époque moderne, ed. M.  Pacaut, O.  Fatio, M.  Granjean (Genève, 1991), pp. 79–99. Ferguson, J., English Diplomacy, 1422–61 (Oxford, 1972). Figueira, R.C., ‘The classification of Medieval Papal Legates in the Liber Extra’, AHP 21 (1983), pp. 211–28. Figueira, R.C., ‘Papal Reserved Powers and the Limitations on Legatine Authority’, in Popes, Teachers and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, ed. J.R. Sweeney, S. Chodorow (Ithaca, NY—London, 1989), pp. 191–211. Finances, Pouvoir et Mémoire. Mélanges offerts à Jean Favier, ed. J. Kerhervé, A. Rigaudière (Paris, 1999). Forstreuter, K., Die Berichte der Generalprokuratoren des Deutschen Ordens an der Kurie. Die Geschichte der Generalprokuratoren von den Anfängen bis 1403 (Göttingen, 1961). Fraser, C.M., A History of Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham, 1283–1311 (Oxford, 1957). Frenz, T., I documenti pontifici nel Medioevo e nell’Età moderna (Città del Vaticano, 1998). Fryde, E.B., ‘Loans to the English Crown 1328–31’, EHR 70 (1955), pp. 198–211. Fryde, E.B., ‘Italian maritime trade with England c. 1270–c. 1530’, in Les grandes escales 32 (1974), pp. 291–337. Fryde, N., ‘Antonio Pessagno of Genoa. King’s merchant of Edward II of England’, in Studi in memoria di Federigo Melis, II (Napoli, 1978), pp. 159–78.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

244

Secondary Sources

Fryde, N., The tyranny and fall of Edward II, 1321–1326 (Cambridge, 1979). Galbraith, V.H., ‘The Tower as an Exchequer Record Office’, in Essays in Medieval History presented to T.F. Tout, ed. A.J. Little, F.M. Powicke (Manchester, 1925), pp. 231–47. Galbraith, V.H., Studies in the Public Records (London, 1948). Gardner, J., ‘Il patrocinio curiale e l’introduzione del gotico: 1260–1305’ in Il Gotico europeo in Italia, ed. V. Pace, M. Bagnoli (Napoli, 1994), pp. 85–8. Gardner, J., ‘Papal Exactions, Royal gifts and Fashionable Cardinals: The Curial Clientele for Opus Anglicanum’, c. 1300–1370’, in The Age of Opus Anglicanum: A Symposium, ed. M. Michael (Turnhout, 2016), pp. 23–35. Gardner, J., ‘Opus Anglicanum and its Medieval Patrons’, in English Medieval Embroidery. Opus Anglicanum, ed. C. Browne, G. Davies, M.A. Michael (New Haven, CT—London, 2017), pp. 49–59. Gardoni, G., ‘Notai e scritture vescovili a Mantova fra XII e XIV secolo. Una ricerca in corso’, in Chiese e notai (secoli XII–XV) (Verona, 2004), pp. 51–85. Gasnault, P., ‘Contribution à l’histoire des registres de lettres secretes d’Innocent VI’, Annali della scuola speciale per archivisti e bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 12 (1972), pp. 77–97. Gasnault, P., ‘L’élaboration des lettres secrètes des papes d’Avignon: chambre et chancellerie’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Roma, 1990), pp. 209–22. Gauvard, C., ‘Conclusion’, in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace Français, espace Anglais, ed. K. Fianu, D.J. Guth (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997), pp. 333–42. Gavrilovitch, M., Étude sur le Traité de Paris de 1259 (Paris, 1899). Genequand, P., ‘Les rémunérations composites à la cour pontificale au début du Grand Schisme d’Occident’, in Offices, écrit et papauté (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle), ed. A.  Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2007), pp. 449–95. Gilles, H., ‘Juristes languadociens au service de la papauté’, in La papauté d’Avignon et le Languedoc, 1316–1342 (Toulouse, 1991). Giusti, M., Studi sui registri di bolle papali (Città del Vaticano, 1968). Giusti, M., Inventario dei Registri Vaticani (Città del Vaticano, 1981). Given-Wilson, C., ‘Edward III’s Prisoners of War: The Battle of Poitiers and Its Context’, EHR 116 (2001), pp. 802–33. Göller, E., Mitteilungen und Untersuchungen über das päpstliche Register- und Kanzleiwesen im 14. Jahrhundert (Roma, 1904). Göller, E., ‘Aus der Kanzlei der Päpste und ihrer Legaten’, QFIAB 10 (1907) pp. 301–24. Göller, E., ‘Die Grundlagen des päpstlichen Benefizialwesens und die Praxis der Stellenbesetzung zur Zeit des großen Schismas’, in Repertorium Germanicum, I: Clemens’ VII von Avignon, 1378–1394 (Berlin, 1916), pp. 43*–98*. Goody, J., The logic of writing and the organization of society (Cambridge, 1986). Graham, R., ‘Sidelights on the rectors and parishioners of Reculver from the register of archbishop Winchelsey’, Archaelogia Cantiana 57 (1944), pp. 1–12. ‘Grandson, Otto’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37827?docPos=1 (accessed on 1 November 2017). Graves, E.B., ‘The legal significance of the Statute of Praemunire of 1353’, in Anniversary Essays in Medieval History Presented to Charles Homer Haskins, ed. C.H. Taylor, J.L. La Monte (Boston, MA—New York, 1929), pp. 57–80. Gray, J.W., ‘The Ius Praesentandi in England from the Constitutions of Clarendon to Bracton’, EHR 265 (1952), pp. 481–509. Green, J., ‘Praeclarum et Magnificum Antiquitatis Monumentum: The Earliest Surviving Pipe Roll’, Historical Research 55 (1982), pp. 1–17.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

245

Grévin, B., Rhétorique du pouvoir médiéval. Les Lettres de Pierre de la Vigne et la formation du langage politique Européen (XIIIe–XVe siècle) (Roma, 2008). Grévin, B., ‘La musica del dictamen. A proposito della percezione dell’ars dictaminis come tecnica musicale nell’Italia del Duecento (c. 1200–c. 1330)’, in The Languages of Political Society. Western Europe, 14th–17th Centuries, ed. A.  Gamberini, J.P.  Genet, A.  Zorzi (Roma, 2011), pp. 209–27. Grévin, B., ‘ “Costellazioni epistolari e reti di dictatores”: la diffusione dello stilus altus “siciliano” nell’Europa della fine del Duecento (1266–1290), in Dall’‘ars dictaminis’ al ‘preumanesimo’? Per un profilo letterario del secolo XIII, ed. F.  Delle Donne, F.  Santi (Firenze, 2013), pp. 101–16. Griffiths, R., ‘Bureaucracy and the English State in the Later Middle Ages’, in Prosopographie et genèse de l’état moderne (Paris, 1986), pp. 53–66. Guillemain, B., La politique bénéficiale du pape Benoit XII, 1334–1342 (Paris, 1952). Guillemain, B., La cour pontificale d’Avignon, 1309–1376. Étude d’une société (Paris, 1966). Guillemain, B., ‘Le pape Benoit XII (1334-1342) et l’élargissement du monde’, in Cristianità ed Europa. Miscellanea di Studi in onore di Luigi Prosdocimi, ed. C.  Alzati, I (Roma—Freiburg—Wien, 1994), pp. 653–60. Guillemain, B., I papi di Avignone. Arte, cultura, organizzazione, carità: la Chiesa al passaggio dal medioevo al mondo moderno (Cinisello Balsamo, 2003). Guth, D.J., ‘Introduction: formulary and literacy as keys to unlocking Late-Medieval law’, in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace Français, espace Anglais, ed. K. Fianu, D.J. Guth (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997), pp. 1–12. Guyotjeannin, O., ‘Les méthodes de travail des archivistes du roi de France (XIIIe–début XVIe siècle), Archiv für Diplomatik 42 (1996), pp. 295–377. Guyotjeannin, O., ‘L’écriture des actes à la chancellerie royale française (XIVe–XVe siècles)’, in Le statut du scripteur au Moyen Âge, ed. M.C. Hubert, E. Poulle, M.H. Smith (Paris, 2000), pp. 97–110. Guyotjeannin, O., ‘Écrire en chancellerie’, in Auctor et auctoritas. Invention et conformisme dans l’écriture médiévale, ed. M. Zimmermann (Paris, 2001), pp. 17–35. Hageneder, O., ‘Quellenkritisches zu den Originalregistern Innocenz’ III.’, MIÖG 68 (1960), pp. 128–39. Hageneder, O., ‘Die päpstlichen Register des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts’, Annali della scuola speciale per Archivisti e Bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 12 (1973), pp. 45–76. Hageneder, O., ‘Probleme des päpstlichen Kirchenregiments im hohen Mittelalter (Ex certa scientia, non obstante, Registerführung)’, in Lectiones eruditorum extraneorum in facultate philosophica Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis factae 4 (1995), pp. 49–77. Hageneder, O., ‘Die Rechtskraft spätmittelalterlicher Papst- und Herrscherurkunden “ex certa scientia”, “non obstantibus” und “propter importunitatem petentium” ’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen. Studien zu ihrer formalen und rechtlichen Kohärenz vom 11. bis 15. Jahrhundert, ed. P. Herde, H. Jakobs (Cologne—Weimar—Wien, 1999), pp. 401–29. Hageneder, O., ‘Päpstliche Reskripttechnik: Kanonistische Lehre und kuriale Praxis’, in Stagnation oder Fortbildung? Aspekte des allgemeinen Kirchenrechts im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, ed. M. Bertram (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 181–96. Haines, R.M., ‘Walter Langton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield’, in ODNB: http:// www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/16046?docPos=1 (accessed on 29 November 2018). Haines, R.M., The Church and Politics in fourteenth-century England: the Career of Adam Orleton, c.1275–1345 (Cambridge, 1978).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

246

Secondary Sources

Haines, R.M., Archbishop John Stratford: Political Revolutionary and Champion of the Liberties of the English Church, ca. 1275/80–1348 (Toronto, 1986). Haines, R.M., King Edward II. His Life, His Reign, and Its Aftermath, 1284–1330 (Montreal, 2003). Haines, R.M., ‘Bateman, William’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent. ac.uk/view/article/1672?docPos=15 (accessed on 8 December 2015). Haines, R.M., ‘Offord, John’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/27333?docPos=1 (accessed on 13 October 2015). Haines, R.M., ‘Offord, John’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/20571?docPos=2 (accessed on 8 December 2015). Hampe, K., ‘Aus verlorenen Registerbänden der Päpste Innozenz III. und Innozenz IV.’, MIÖG 23 (1902), pp. 545–67. Hampe, K., ‘Aus verlorenen Registerbänden der Päpste Innozenz III. und Innozenz IV.’, MIÖG 24 (1903), pp. 198–237. Haskins, L. and Kantorowicz, E.H., ‘A Diplomatic Mission of Francis Accursius and His Oration before Pope Nicholas III’, EHR 58 (1943) pp. 424–47. Haye, T., ‘Die lateinische Sprache als Medium mündlicher Diplomatie’, in Gesandtschaftsund Botenwesen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa, ed. R.C.  Schwinges, K.  Wriedt (Ostfildern, 2003), pp. 15–32. Hayez, A.M., ‘La rétribution des officiers et familiers des papes au XIVe siècle’, in Offices, écrit et papauté (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle), ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2007), pp. 427–48. Heath, P., Church and Realm, 1272–1461. Conflict and collaboration in an age of crises (London, 1988). Heckel von, R., ‘Das päpstliche und sicilische Registerwesen’, Archiv für Urkundenforschung 1 (1908), pp. 371–511. Heckel von, R., ‘Das Aufkommen der ständigen Prokuratoren an der päpstlichen Kurie im 13. Jahrhundert’, in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, II (Roma, 1924), pp. 290–321. Hennigan, M.A., Peace efforts of the popes during the first part of the Hundred Years’ War: case study of Innocent VI (PhD, Pennsylvania State University, 1977). Herde, P., Beiträge zum päpstlichen Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen im 13. Jahrhundert (Kallmünz, 1961). Herde, P., Audientia litterarum contradictarum. Untersuchungen über die päpstlichen Justizbriefe und die päpstliche Delegationsgerichtsbarkeit vom 13. bis zum Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts, II (Tübingen, 1970). Highfield, J.R.L., The Relations between the Church and the English Crown, 1349–1378— from the Death of Archbishop Stratford to the Outbreak of the Great Schism, (PhD, Oxford, 1951). Highfield, J.R.L., ‘The Statute of Provisors of 1351’, History 39 (1954), pp. 331–2. Hill, M.C., ‘Jack Faukes, King's Messenger, and His Journey to Avignon in 1343’, EHR 57 (1942), pp. 19–30. Hill, M.C., ‘King's Messengers and Administrative Developments in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, EHR 61 (1946), pp. 315–28. Hill, M.C., The King’s Messagers, 1199–1377. A Contribution to the History of the Royal Household (London, 1961). Hitzbleck, K., Exekutoren. Die außerordentliche Kollatur von Benefizien im Pontifikat Johannes’ XXII. (Tübingen, 2009). Hofmeister, P., ‘Die Generalprokuratoren der Ordensleute beim Hl. Stuhl’, in Im Dienste des Rechtes in Kirche und Staat. Festschrift zum 70. Geburstag von Franz Arnold, ed. W. M. Plöchl, I. Gampl (Wien, 1963), pp. 235–60.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

247

Hotz, B., ‘Von Dekretale zur Kanzleiregel: Prärogativen beim Benefizienerwerb im 14. Jahrhundert’, in Stagnation oder Fortbildung? Aspekte des allgemeinen Kirchenrechts im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, ed. M. Bertram (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 197–219. Hotz, B., ‘ “Libri cancellarie” spätmittelalterlicher Päpste’, in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. P.  Erdö, S.A.  Szuromi (Città del Vaticano, 2010), p. 397–418. Housley, N., The Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 1305–1378 (Oxford, 1986). Hughes, D., Antonio Pessagno, merchant of Genoa (PhD, Yale, 1968). Hughes, J., ‘Thoresby, John’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/27333?docPos=1 (accessed on 13 October 2015). Hunt, E.S., ‘A new look at the dealings of the Bardi and the Peruzzi with Edward III’, Journal of Economic History 50 (1990), pp. 149–62. Images and Words in Exile. Avignon and Italy during the first half of the 14th century, ed. E. Brilli, L. Fenelli, G. Wolf (Firenze, 2015). Jamme, A., ‘Du journal de caisse au monument comptable. Les fonctions changeantes de l’enregistrement dans le Patrimoine de Saint-Pierre (fin XIIIe–XIVe siècle)’, MEFR 118/2 (2006), pp. 247–68. Jamme, A., ‘De la banque à la chambre? Naissance et mutations d’une culture comptable dans les provinces papales entre XIIIe et XVe siècle’, in Offices, écrit et papauté (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle), ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2007), pp. 97–251. Jamme, A., ‘Formes et enjeux d’une mémoire de l’autorité: l’État pontifical et sa construction scripturaire aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, in L’autorité de l’écrit au Moyen Age (Orient-Occident), XXXIXe Congrès de la SHMESP (Le Caire, 30 avril–5 mai 2008) (Paris, 2009), pp. 341–60. Jamme, A. and Poncet, O., ‘Offices et papauté. Une question ouverte’, in Offices et papauté (XIVe–XVIIe siècle). Charges, hommes, destins, ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2005), pp. 1–7. Jamme, A. and Poncet, O., ‘L’écriture, la mémoire et l’argent. Un autre regard sur les officiers et offices pontificaux (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle)’, in Offices, écrit et papauté (XIIIe–XVIIe siècle), ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2007), pp. 1–13. Janson, T., Prose Rhythm in Medieval Latin from the 9th to the 13th Century (Stockholm, 1975). Jeay, C., ‘L’autographie comme épiphanie du pouvoir. Écrits et signatures autographes des rois de France dans la seconde moitié du XIVe siècle’, in ‘Manu propria’. Vom eigenhändigen Schreiben der Mächtigen (13.–15. Jahrhundert), ed. C. Feller, C. Lackner (Wien, 2016), pp. 197–217. Jenkins, H., Papal efforts for peace under Benedict XII (1334–1342) (Philadelphia, PA, 1933). Jobson, A., ‘Introduction’, in English Government in the Thirteenth Century, ed. A. Jobson (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 1–15. Jugie, P., ‘L’activité diplomatique du cardinal Gui de Boulogne en France au milieu du XIVe siècle’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 145 (1987), pp. 99–127. Jugie, P., ‘Cardinaux et chancelleries pendant la papauté d’Avignon. Une voie vers les honneurs?’, in Offices et papauté (XIVe–XVIIe siècle). Charges, Hommes, Destins, ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2005), pp. 651–739. Jugie, P., ‘Les mentions hors teneur dans les minutes de lettres secrètes et curiales du pape Innocent VI (1352–1362): un chantier en course’, in Les mentions de chancellerie. Entre technique administrative et savoir de gouvernement (Paris, 23–24 Septembre 2013), forthcoming. Kamp, H., Friedensstifter und Vermittler im Mittelalter (Darmstadt, 2001).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

248

Secondary Sources

Karn, N., ‘Nigel, Bishop of Ely, and the Restoration of the Exchequer after the ‘Anarchy’ of King Stephen’s Reign’, Historical Research 80 (2007), pp. 299–314. Katterbach, B., Specimina supplicationum ex registris vaticanis (Roma, 1927). Kempf, F., ‘Zu den Originalregistern Innocenz’ III.’, QFIAB 36 (1956), pp. 86–137. Kerscher, G., ‘Das mallorquinische Zeremoniell am päpstlichen Hof. Comederunt cum papa rex maioricarum’, in Zeremoniell als höfische Ästhetik in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. J.J. Berns, T. Rahn (Tübingen, 1995), pp. 125–49. Kiesewetter, A., ‘La cancelleria angioina’, in L’État Angevin: pouvoir, culture et société entre XIIIe et XIVe siècle (Roma, 1998), pp. 361–415. Kingsford, C.L., ‘John de Bestede and his missions for Edward I’, in Essays in History presented to Reginald Lane Poole, ed. H.W. Davis (Oxford, 1927), pp. 332–59. Kintzinger, M., ‘Voyages et messangeries. Diplomatie in Frankreich zwischen Familiarität und Funktion’, in Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zum geistlichen und weltlichen Gesandtschaftswesen vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Zey, C. Märtl (Zürich, 2008), pp. 191–230. Kittell, E.E., From Ad Hoc to Routine. A Case study in Medieval Bureaucracy (Philadelphia, PA, 1991). Kuriale Briefkultur im späteren Mittelalter. Gestaltung—Überlieferung—Rezeption, ed. T. Broser, A. Fischer, M. Thumser (Köln—Weimar—Wien, 2015). Kyer, C.I., ‘Legatus and Nuntius as Used to Denote Papal Envoys: 1245-1378’, Mediaeval Studies 40 (1978), pp. 473–7. Kypta, U., Die Autonomie der Routine. Wie im 12. Jahrhundert das englische Schatzamt entstand (Göttingen, 2014). Lalou, E., Les comptes sur tablettes de cire de la chambre aux deniers de Philippe III le Hardi et de Philippe IV le Bel (1282–1309) (Paris, 1994). Lalou, E., ‘Enguerran de Marigny et l’évolution du métier de la Chambre du roi’, in Finances, Pouvoirs et Mémoire. Mélanges offerts à Jean Favier, ed. J. Kerhervé, A. Rigaudière (Paris, 1999), pp. 269–78. Larson, A., ‘The payment of fourteenth-century English envoys’, EHR 54 (1939), pp. 403–14. Lazzarini, I., ‘Argument and Emotion in Italian Diplomacy in the Early Fifteenth Century: the Case of Rinaldo degli Albrizzi (Florence, 1399–1430)’, in The Languages of Political Society. Western Europe, 14th–17th Centuries, ed. A.  Gamberini, J.P.  Genet, A.  Zorzi (Roma, 2011), pp. 339–66. Lazzarini, I., Communication and Conflict. Italian diplomacy in the Early Renaissance, 1350–1520 (Oxford, 2015). Le Patourel, J., Review of ‘Treaty Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, I: 1234–1325, ed. P. Chaplais (London, 1955)’, EHR 73 (1958), pp. 667–70. Le Patourel, J., ‘The Treaty of Brétigny, 1360’, TRHS 10 (1960), pp. 19–39. Le Patourel, J., ‘The Origins of the Hundred Years War’, in The Hundred Years War, ed. K. Fowler (London, 1971), pp. 28–50. Lefebvre, Ch., ‘Style et pratique de la curie romaine’, in Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique (Paris, 1935–1965), VII, col. 1092–3. Linehan, P., ‘Proctors Representing Spanish Interests at the Papal Court, 1216–1303’, AHP 17 (1979), pp. 69–123. Linehan, P., ‘The English mission of cardinal Petrus Hispanus, the Chronicle of Walter Guisborough, and news from Castile at Carlisle (1307)’, EHR 117 (2002), pp. 605–21. Lot, F., La France des origines à la Guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 1942).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

249

Lucas, H.S., ‘The machinery of diplomatic intercourse’, in The English Government at Work, 1327–1336, ed. J.F. Willard, W.A. Morris (Cambridge, MA, 1940), pp. 300–31. Lunt, W.E., Financial Relations of the Papacy with England, II (Cambridge, MA, 1939–1962). Lützelschwab, R., Flectat Cardinales ad velle suum? Clemens VI. und sein Kardinalskolleg. Ein Beitrag zur kurialen Politik in der Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 2008). Lützelschwab, R., ‘Papst und Kardinale – zwischen Konsens und Konflikt’, in Geschichte des Kardinalats im Mittelalter, ed. R. Lützelschwab, J. Dendorfer (Stuttgart, 2011), pp. 264–80. Maddicott, J., ‘The Origins of the Hundred Years War’, History Today 36 (1986), pp. 31–8. Maddicott, J.R., Thomas of Lancaster, 1307–1322. A Study in the Reign of Edward II (Oxford, 1970). Maitland, F., ‘Execrabilis in the Common Pleas’, in Roman Canon Law in England (London, 1898), pp. 148–57. Maleczek, W., ‘Die päpstliche Legaten im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert’, in Gesandschafts- und Botenwesen im spätmittelalterlichen Europa, ed. R.C.  Schwinges, K.  Wriedt (Stuttgart, 2003), pp. 33–86. Maleczek, W., ‘Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zusammenfassung’, in Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zum geistlichen und weltlichen Gesandtschaftswesen vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Zey, C. Märtl, (Zürich, 2008), pp. 331–53. Maleczek, W., ‘Die Kardinale von 1143 bis 1216. Exklusive Papstwähler und erste Agenten der päpstlichen plenitudo potestatis’, in Geschichte des Kardinalats im Mittelalter, ed. R. Lützelschwab, J. Dendorfer (Stuttgart, 2011), pp. 95–154. Maleczek, W., ‘Autographen von Kardinälen des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts’, in ‘Manu propria’. Vom eigenhändigen Schreiben der Mächtigen (13.–15. Jahrhundert), ed. C.  Feller, C. Lackner (Wien, 2016), pp. 69–148. ‘Manu propria’. Vom eigenhändigen Schreiben der Mächtigen (13.–15. Jahrhundert), ed. C. Feller, C. Lackner (Wien, 2016). Mattingly, G., ‘The first resident embassies: medieval Italian origins of modern diplomacy’, Speculum 12 (1937), pp. 423–39. Mattingly, G., Renaissance Diplomacy (New York, 1955). Maubach, J., Die Kardinäle und ihre Politik um die Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts (Bonn, 1902). Maxson, B.J., The Humanist World of Renaissance Florence (Cambridge, 2014). Maxwell-Lyte, H.C., List of Chancery Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office (List and indexes, xxvii, Dublin, 1908). Maxwell-Lyte, H.C., Historical notes on the use of the Great Seal of England (London, 1926). Mayali, L., ‘Procureurs et représentation en droit canonique médiéval’, MEFR 114 (2002), pp. 41–58. McHardy, A., ‘The Great Bardney Abbey Scandal, 1303–1318’, in Fourteenth Century England, ed. W.M.  Ormord, VIII (Woodbridge, 2012), pp. 31–45. McKisack, M., The Fourteenth Century, 1307–1399 (Oxford, 1959). Medieval Petitions: Grace and Grievance, ed. W.M.  Ormrod, G.  Dodd, A.  Musson, (Woodbridge, 2009). Meduna, B., Studien zum Formular der päpstlichen Justizbriefe von Alexander III. bis Innocenz III. (1159–1216): die non obstantibus Formeln (Wien, 1989). Menache, S., ‘The Failure of John XXII’s Policy Toward France and England: Reasons and Outcomes, 1316–1334’, Church History 55 (1986), pp. 423–37. Menache, S., Clement V (Cambridge, 1998).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

250

Secondary Sources

Meyer, A., ‘Die geplante neue Edition der spätmittelalterlichen päpstlichen Kanzleiregeln’, in Stagnation oder Fortbildung? Aspekte des allgemeinen Kirchenrechts im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, ed. M. Bertram (Tübingen, 2005), pp. 117–31. Meyer, A., ‘Eine Verordnung gegen die Korruption an der päpstlichen Kurie aus der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts’, in Kurie und Region. Festschrift für B. Schwarz zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. B. Flug, M. Matheus, A. Rehberg (Stuttgartm 2005), pp. 169–73. Mills, M.H., ‘Adventus Vicecomitum and the Financial Crisis of Henry III’s reign, 1250–1272’, EHR 36 (1921), pp. 614–27. Moeglin, J.M. and Péquignot, S., Diplomatie et « relations internationales » au Moyen Age (IXe–XVe siècle) (Paris, 2017). Mollat, G., Lettres communes de Jean XXII (1316–1334). La collation de bénéfices ecclésiastiques à l’époque des Papes d’Avignon (1305–1334) (Paris, 1921). Mollat, G., Les papes d’Avignon, 1305–1378 (Paris, 1949). Mollat, G., ‘Innocent VI et les tentatives de paix entre la France et l’Angleterre (1353–1355)’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 10 (1909), pp. 729–43. Mollat, G., ‘La Saint-Siège et la France sous le pontificat de Clément VI (1342–1352)’, Revue d’histoire ecclèsiastique 55 (1960), pp. 5–24. Montuori, F. and Senatore, F., ‘Discorsi riportati alla corte di re Ferrante d’Aragona’, in  Discorsi alla prova, ed. G.  Abbamonte, L.  Milletti, L.  Spina (Napoli, 2009), pp. 519–77. Moos von, P., ‘Die italienische “ars arengandi” des 13. Jahrhunderts als Schule der Kommunikation’, in Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit. Bedigungen, Typen, Publikum, Sprache, ed. H.  Brunner, N.R.  Wolf (Wiesbaden, 1993), pp. 67–90. Morel, O., La Grande Chancellerie Royale (1328–1400) (Paris, 1900). Morgan, N., ‘L’Opus Anglicanum nel tesoro pontificio’, in Il Gotico europeo in Italia, ed. V. Pace, M. Bagnoli (Napoli, 1994), pp. 299–309. Mortimer, I., The greatest traitor. The life of Sir Roger Mortimer, ruler of England, 1327–1330 (London, 2003). Müller, W.P., ‘The Price of Papal Pardon. New Fifteenth-Century Evidence’, in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A. Meyer, C. Rendtel, M. Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen, 2004), pp. 457–81. New Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford, 2018): http://www.oxforddnb.com. chain.kent.ac.uk Nicolau, M.G., L’origine du “cursus” rythmique et les débuts de l’accent d’intensité en Latin (Paris, 1930). Nüske, G.F., ‘Untersuchungen über das Personal der päpstlichen Kanzlei 1254-1304’, Archiv für Diplomatik 20 (1974), pp. 39–240; 21 (1975), pp. 249–431. Offices, écrit et papauté (XIIIe-XVIIe siècle), ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2007). Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle). Charges, Hommes, Destins, ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2005). Opitz, G., ‘Die Sekretäre Franciscus de Sancto Maximo und Johannes de Sancto Martino. Bemerkungen zur Frühzeit des päpstlischen Sekretariats’, QFIAB 30 (1940), pp. 186–206. Opitz, G., ‘Die Sekretärsexpedition unter Urban V. und Gregor XI.’, QFIAB 33 (1944) pp. 157–98. Ormrod, W.M., ‘State-Building and State Finance in the Reign of Edward I’, in England in the Thirteenth Century, Proceedings of the 1989 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. W.M. Ormrod (Stamford, 1991), pp. 15–35.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

251

Ormrod, W.M., ‘The English Royal Secretariat in the fourteenth century’, in Écrit et pouvoir dans les chancelleries médiévales: espace Français, espace Anglais, ed. K. Fianu, D.J. Guth (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1997), pp. 55–85. Ormrod, W.M., Edward III (Third edition, Stroud, 2005). Ormrod, W.M., ‘Murmur, clamour and noise: voicing complaint and remedy in petitions to the English crown, c.1300–c.1460’, in Medieval Petitions: Grace and Grievance, ed. W.M. Ormrod, G. Dodd, A. Musson, (Woodbridge, 2009), pp. 135–55. Ormrod, W.M., Edward III (New Haven, CT—London, 2011). Palmieri, S., La cancelleria del Regno di Sicilia in età angioina (Napoli, 2006). Pantin, W.A., The English Church in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1955). Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen. Studien zu ihrer formalen und rechtlichen Kohärenz vom 11. bis 15. Jahrhundert, ed. P. Herde, H. Jakobs (Cologne—Weimar— Wien, 1999). Paravicini Bagliani, A., La cour des papes, au XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1995). Paravicini Bagliani, A., Il Trono di Pietro. L’universalità del papato da Alessandro III a Bonifacio VIII (Roma, 1996). Pásztor, E., ‘Contributo alla storia dei registri pontifici del secolo XIII’, Bullettino dell’Archivio Paleografico Italiano 1 (1962), pp. 37–83. Pásztor, E., ‘Studi e problemi relativi ai registri di Innocenzo III’, Annali della scuola speciale per archivisti e bibliotecari dell’Università di Roma 2 (1962), pp. 287–304. Pásztor, E., ‘Per la storia dei registri pontifici nel Duecento’, AHP 6 (1968), pp. 71–112. Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A. Meyer, C. Rendtel, M. Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen, 2004). Peralba, S., ‘La reception de la procedure Romano-canonique d’après le Stilus curie parlamenti de l’avocat Guillaume Dubreuil, vers 1331’, in Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. M. Bellomo, O. Condorellli, (Città del Vaticano, 2006), pp. 625–48. Perroy, E., The Hundred Years War (London, 1959). Phillips, S., Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke 1307–1324. Baronial Politics in the Reign of Edward II (Oxford, 1972). Phillips, S., The Medieval Expansion of Europe (Oxford, 1998). Phillips, S., Edward II (New Haven, CT—London, 2010). Pini, A.I., ‘La “burocrazia” comunale della Toscana del Trecento’, in La Toscana nel secolo XIV. Caratteri di una civiltà regionale, ed. S. Gensini (Pisa, 1988), pp. 215–40. Piola Caselli, F., ‘La contabilità camerale nel periodo avignonese’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Roma, 1990), pp. 411–37. Plöger, K., ‘Die Entführung des Fieschi zu Avignon (1340): Zur Entwicklung der diplomatischen Immunität in der Frühphase des Hundertjährigen Krieges’, Francia 30/1 (2003), pp. 73–105. Plöger, K., ‘Englische Gesandte und Festkultur am Papsthof in Avignon’, in Höfische Feste im Spätmittelalter, ed. G. Fouquet, G. Zellinger (Kiel, 2003), pp. 105–11. Plöger, K., England and the Avignon Popes: the Practice of Diplomacy in Late Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2005). Pollastri, S., ‘Jacques Dueze à la cour des Angevins de Naples’, in Jean XXII et le Midi (Tolouse, 2012), pp. 83–100. Pommerol, M.J., ‘La bibliothèque de Boniface VIII’, in Libri, lettori e biblioteche dell’Italia medievale (secoli IX–XV). Fonti, testi, utilizzazione del libro, ed. G. Lombardi, D. Nebbiai dalla Guarda (Roma, 2000), pp. 487–505.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

252

Secondary Sources

Pommerol, M.J. and Monfrin, J., La bibliothèque pontificale à Avignon et à Peniscola pendant le Grand Schisme d’Occident et sa dispersion, I (Roma, 1991). Poncet, O., ‘Les traces documentaires des nominations d’officiers pontificaux (fin XIIIe – XVIIe)’, in Offices et papauté (XIVe–XVIIe siècle): Charges, hommes, destins, ed. A. Jamme, O. Poncet (Roma, 2005), pp. 93–123. Poole, R.L., The Papal Chancery (Cambridge, 1915). Prestwick, M., Edward I (London, 1988). Prestwich, M., ‘The Ordinances of 1311 and the politics of the early fourteenth century’, in Politics and crisis in fourteenth-century England, ed. J Taylor, W.R. Childs (Gloucester, 1990), pp. 1–18. Prestwich, M., ‘Gilbert de Middleton and the attack on the cardinals, 1317’, in Warriors and Churchmen in the High Middle Ages, ed. T. Reuter (London, 1992), pp. 179–94. Queller, D.E., The office of ambassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ, 1967). Rabikauskas, P., Diplomatica Pontificia (Roma, 1972). Rabikauskas, P., ‘La parte sostenuta dalla cancelleria nelle concessioni papali delle grazie’, in Aux origines de l’État moderne. La fontionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Roma, 1990), pp. 223–36. Racanelli, P.N., ‘La Gerarchia Agostiniana: I Procuratori Generali dell’Ordine (1216– 1931)’, Bollettino Storico Agostiniano, 10 (1934), pp. 109–14. Ramsay, J.H., A History of the Revenues of the Kings of England, 1066–1399, II (Oxford, 1925). Reitemeier, A., Außenpolitik im Spätmittelalter. Die diplomatischen Beziehungen zwischen dem Reich und England, 1377–1422 (Paderborn, 1999). Reitemeier, A., ‘Das Gesandtschaftswesen im spätmittelalterlichen England’, in Aus der Frühzeit europäischer Diplomatie. Zum geistlichen und weltlichen Gesandtschaftswesen vom 12. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Zey, C. Märtl (Zürich, 2008), pp. 231–55. Rennie, K., The Foundations of Medieval Papal Legation (Basingstoke, 2014). Renouard, Y., ‘Une expédition de céréales des Pouilles en Arménie par les Bardi pour le compte de Benoît XII’, Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’École française de Rome 53 (1936), 287–329. Renouard, Y., Les relations des papes d’Avignon et des compagnies commerciales et bancaires de 1316 à 1378 (Paris, 1941). Renouard, Y., Les hommes d’affaires Italiens du Moyen Age (Paris, 1949). Renouard, Y., La papauté à Avignon (Paris, 1954); English translation The Avignon papacy (London, 1970). Renouard, Y., ‘I Frescobaldi in Guyenne (1307–1312)’, Archivio storico Italiano 122 (1964), pp. 459–70. Renouard, Y., ‘Comment les papes d’Avignon expédiaient leur courrier’, in Études d’histoire médiévale, II (Paris, 1968), pp. 739–64. Renouard, Y., Études d’histoire médiéval, II (Paris, 1968). Renouard, Y., ‘Les minutes d’Innocent VI aux Archives du Vatican’, in Études d’histoire médiévale, II (Paris, 1968), pp. 833–45. Renouard, Y., ‘Les papes et le conflit franco-anglais en Aquitaine de 1259 à 1337’, in Études d’histoire médiévale, II (Paris, 1968), pp. 911–34. Renouard, Y., ‘Les relations d’Édouard II et Clément V d’après les Roles Gascons’, in Études d’histoire médiévale, II (Paris, 1968), pp. 935–57. Röhrkasten, J., ‘Johannes XXII. und England’, in Papst Johannes XXII.. Konzepte und Verfahren seines Pontifikats, ed. H.J.  Schmidt, M.  Rohde (Berlin—Boston, 2014), pp. 395–424.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

253

Ross, M.D., The papal chapel, 1288–1304: a study in institutional and cultural exchange (PhD, University College London, 2013). Rossi, M.C., ‘I notai di curia e la nascita di una burocrazia vescovile. Il caso veronese’, in Vescovi medievali, ed. G.G. Merlo, M.C. Rossi (Milano, 2003), pp. 73–164. Samaran, Ch. and Mollat, G., La fiscalité pontificale en France au XIV e siècle (période d’Avignon et Grand Schisme d’Occident) (Paris, 1905). Sapori, A., La crisi delle compagnie mercantili dei Bardi e dei Peruzzi (Firenze, 1926). Sapori, A., La compagnia dei Frescobaldi in Inghilterra (Firenze, 1947). Sayers, J., ‘Centre and localities: aspects of papal administration in England in the later thirteenth century’, in Authority and Power. Studies on Medieval Law and Government Presented to W. Ullmann, ed. P. Linehan, B. Tierney (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 115–26. Sayers, J., Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227) (Cambridge, 1984). Sayers, J., ‘The influence of papal documents on English documents before 1305’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen. Studien zu ihrer formalen und rechtlichen Kohärenz vom 11. bis 15. Jahrhundert, ed. P. Herde, H. Jakobs (Cologne—Weimar— Wien, 1999), pp. 161–99. Schimmelpfennig, B., ‘Die Funktion des Papstpalastes und der kurialen Gesellschaft im päpstlichen Zeremoniell vor und während des Gossen Schismas’, in Genèse et débuts du Grand Schisme d’Occident (Paris, 1980), pp. 317–28. Schimmelpfennig, B., ‘Ad maiorem papae gloriam. La fonction des pièces dans le palais des Papes d’Avignon’, in Architecture et vie sociale. L’organisation intérieure des grandes demeures à la fin du Moyen Age et à la Reinaissance, ed. J. Guillaume (Tours, 1994), pp. 25–46. Schimmelpfennig, B., ‘Der Palast als Stadtersatz. Funktionale und zeremonielle Bedeutung der Papstpaläste in Avignon und im Vatikan’, in Zeremoniell und Raum, ed. W. Paravicini (Sigmaringen, 1997), pp. 239–56. Schmidt, T., ‘Das päpstliche Kursorenkollegium und seine Statuten von 1306.’, Deutsches Archiv 50 (1994), pp. 581–601. Schmutz, R., ‘Medieval Papal Representatives: Legates, Nuncios, and Judges-Delegate’, Studia Gratiana 15 (1972), pp. 441–63. Schulz, H.C., ‘Thomas Hoccleve, Scribe’, Speculum 12 (1937), pp. 71–81. Schwarz, B., ‘Im Auftrag des Papstes. Die päpstlichen Kursoren von ca. 1200 bis ca. 1470’, in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A. Meyer, C. Rendtel, M. Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen, 2004), pp. 49–71. Schwarz, B., Die Organisation kurialer Schreiberkollegien von ihrer Entstehung bis zur Mitte des 15. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1972). Schwedler, G., ‘Diplomatische Geschenke unter Königen im Spätmittelalter. Freundschaft und Gebentausch zwischen politischer Praxis un der schriftlichen Norm der Fürstenspiegelliteratur’, in Geschenke erhalten die Freundschaft. Gebentausch und Netzwerkpflege im europäischen Mittelalter, ed. M. Grünbart (Berlin, 2011), pp. 145–85. Senatore, F., ‘Un mundo de carta’. Forme e strutture della diplomazia sforzesca (Napoli, 1998). Sharpe, R., ‘Pierre Chaplais, 1920–2006’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the British Academy 11 (2012), pp. 115–50. Shepard, L., Courting Power. Persuasion and Politics in the Early Thirteenth Century (New York—London, 1999). Sohn, A., ‘Les procureurs à la curie romaine. Pour une enquête internationale’, MEFR 114/1 (2002), pp. 371–89.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

254

Secondary Sources

Sohn, A., Deutsche Prokuratoren an der römischen Kurie in der Frührenaissance (1431–1474) (Köln—Wien, 1997). Southern, R., The Making of the Middle Ages (New Haven, CT, 1953). Stacey, R.C., Politics, Policy, and Finance under Henry III, 1216–1245 (Oxford, 1987). Stagnation oder Fortbildung? Aspekte des allgemeinen Kirchenrechts im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, ed. M. Bertram (Tübingen, 2005). Stelzer, W., ‘Aus der päpstlichen Kanzlei des 13. Jahrhunderts. Magister Johannes de Sancto Germano, Kurienprokurator und päpstlicher Notar’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 11 (1969), pp. 210–21. Stelzer, W., ‘Niederaltaicher Prokuratorien. Zur Geschichte der Impetrationsvollmachten für die päpstliche Kurie im 13. Jahrhundert’, MIÖG 77 (1969), pp. 291–313. Stelzer, W., ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kurienprokuratoren im 13. Jahrhundert’, AHP 8 (1970), pp. 113–38. Stelzer, W., ‘Über Vermerke der beiden Audientiae auf Papsturkunden in der zweiten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts’, MIÖG 78 (1970), pp. 308–22. Summerson, H., ‘Benstede, Sir John’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent. ac.uk/view/article/2148 (accessed on 8 March 2017). Sumption, J., Trial by Fire. The Hundred Years War, II (London, 1999). Suppliques et requêtes. Le gouvernement par la grace en Occident (XIIe–XVe siècle), ed. H. Millet (Roma, 2003). Tangl, M., Die päpstlichen Kanzleiordnungen von 1200–1500 (Innsbruck, 1894). Templeman, G., ‘Edward III and the beginnings of the Hundred Years War’, TRHS 5 (1952), pp. 69–88. The English Government at Work, 1327–1336, ed. J.F. Willard, W.A. Morris, I (Cambridge, MA, 1940). The English Government at work, 1327–1336, ed. W.A. Morris, J.R. Strayer, II (Cambridge, MA, 1947). The Languages of Political Society. Western Europe, 14th–17th Centuries, ed. A. Gamberini, J.P. Genet, A. Zorzi (Roma, 2011). The Heads of Religious Houses: England and Wales, ed. D.M. Smith, II (Cambridge, 2001). The Study of Medieval Records: Essays in Honour of K. Major, ed. D.A. Bullough, R.L. Storey (Oxford, 1971). Theis, V., ‘De Jacques Duèse à Jean XXII: la construction d’un entourage pontifical’, in Jean XXII et le Midi (Tolouse, 2012), pp. 103–30. Thomas, H., ‘Französische Spionage im Reich Ludwigs des Bayern’, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 5 (1978), pp. 1–21. Tipping, H.A. and M.C. Buck, ‘Ralph de Baldock, bishop of London’, in ODNB: http:// www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/view/article/1154?docPos=1. Toubert, P.‚ ‘Scrinium et palatium. La formation de la bureaucratie romano-pontificale aux VIIIe–IXe siècles’, in Roma nell’Alto Medioevo, I (Spoleto, 2001), pp. 57–117. Tout, T.F., The place of the reign of Edward II in English history (Manchester, 1914). Tout, T.F., Chapters in administrative history, VI (Manchester, 1920). Tout, T.F., France and England: their relations in the Middle Ages and now (Manchester, 1922). Trabut-Cussac, J.P., L’administration anglaise en Gascogne sous Henry III et Édouard I de 1254 à 1307 (Paris—Genève, 1972). Trueman, J.H., ‘The Privy Seal and the English Ordinances of 1311’, Speculum 31 (1956), pp. 611–25.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

255

Untergehrer, W., Die päpstlichen nuntii und legati im Reich (1447–1484). Zu Personal und Organisation des kurialen Gesandtenwesens (PhD, Munich, 2012). Vale, M., ‘Nobility, Bureaucracy and the ‘State’ in English Gascony, 1250–1340: A Prosopographical Approach’, in Prosopographie et genèse de l’état moderne (Paris, 1986), pp. 304–12. Vale, M., ‘England, France and the Origins of the Hundred Years War’, in England and her neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. M.  Jones, M.  Vale (London—Ronceverte, 1989), pp. 199–216. Vale, M., The Angevin legacy and the Hundred Years War, 1250–1340 (Oxford, 1990). Vale, M., ‘With mine own hand. The use of the autograph by English rulers in the later Middle Ages, c. 1350-c. 1480’, in ‘Manu propria’. Vom eigenhändigen Schreiben der Mächtigen (13.–15. Jahrhundert), ed. C. Feller, C. Lackner (Wien, 2016), pp. 185–95. Vendittelli, M., ‘Mercanti romani del primo Duecento “in urbe potentes” ’, in Rome aux XIIIe et XIV e siècles. Cinq études réunies par Étienne Hubert (Roma, 1993), pp. 87–135. Vendittelli, M., ‘In partibus Anglie’. Cittadini romani alla corte inglese nel Duecento: la vicenda di Pietro Saraceno (Roma, 2001). Vincent, N., ‘Why 1199? Bureaucracy and Enrolment under John and his Contemporaries’, in English Government in the Thirteenth Century, ed. A. Jobson (Woodbridge, 2004), pp. 17–48. Vincent, N., ‘The Personal Role of the Kings of England in the Production of Royal Letters’, in ‘Manu propria’. Vom eigenhändigen Schreiben der Mächtigen (13.–15. Jahrhundert), ed. C. Feller, C. Lackner (Wien, 2016), pp. 171–84. Waley, D., ‘Opinions of the Avignon papacy: a historiographical sketch’, in Storiografia e storia. Studi in onore di Eugenio Duprè Theseider (Roma, 1974), pp. 175–88. Watts, J., The Making of Polities. Europe, 1300–1500 (Cambridge, 2009). Waugh, S.L., ‘Kilsby, William’, in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/50146 (accessed on 13 October 2015). Waugh, S.L., ‘Winwick, John’ in ODNB: http://www.oxforddnb.com.chain.kent.ac.uk/ view/article/50141 (accessed on 4 October 2017). Waugh, W.T., ‘The Great Statute of Praemunire, 1353’, EHR 37 (1922), pp. 173–205. Weakland, J.E., ‘John XXII before his pontificate, 1244–1316: Jacques Duèse and his family’, AHP 10 (1972), pp. 161–85. Weber, M., Economy and Society. An outline of interpretive sociology, ed. G. Roth, C. Wittich, III (New York, 1968). Weigl, H., ‘Ein Prokurator um sechs Gulden und ein Buch für die Zukunft. Taverninus von Novara, Bischof Konrad III. von Freising und das bischöfliche “Notizbuch”’, MIÖG 112 (2004), pp. 238–71. Weiß, S., Die Versorgung des päpstlichen Hofes in Avignon mit Lebensmitteln (1316–1378): Studien zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte eines mittelalterlichen Hofes (Berlin, 2002). Weiß, S., ‘Das Papsttum und seine Geheimdiplomatie’, in Geheimdienste in der Weltgeschichte. Spionage und verdeckte Aktionen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, ed. W. Krieger (Munich, 2003), pp. 86–96. Weiß, S., Rechnungswesen und Buchhaltung des Avignoneser Papsttums (1316–1378). Eine Quellenkunde (Hannover 2003). Whitwell, R.J., ‘Italian bankers and the English Crown’, TRHS 17 (1903), pp. 175–233. Wilkinson, B., The Chancery under Edward III (Manchester, 1929). Wilkinson, B., Studies in the Constitutional History of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Manchester, 1937).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

256

Secondary Sources

Wilkinson, B., ‘The chancery’, in The English Government at work, 1327–1336, ed. J.F. Willard, W.A. Morris, I (Cambridge, MA, 1940), pp. 162–205. Willershausen, A., Die Päpste von Avignon und der Hundert-Jährige Krieg. Spätmittelalterliche Diplomatie und Kuriale Verhandlungsnormen (1337–1378) (Berlin, 2014). Wolff, P., ‘Un problème d’origines: la Guerre de Cent Ans’, in Éventail de l’histoire vivante. Hommage à L. Fèbvre, II (Paris, 1953), pp. 141–8. Wright, J.R., The Church and the English Crown, 1305–34 (Toronto, 1980). Yoshitake, K., ‘The Exchequer in the Reign of Stephen’, EHR 103 (1988), pp. 950–9. Young, A., Robert the Bruce’s Rivals: The Comyns 1212–1314 (East Linton, 1997). Zacour, N.P., Talleyrand: the Cardinal of Périgord (1301–1364) (Philadelphia, PA, 1960). Zanke, S., Johannes XXII., Avignon und Europa. Das politische Papsttum im Spiegel der kurialen Register (1316–1334) (Leiden—Boston, MA, 2013). Zanke, S., ‘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. E. Brilli, L. Fenelli, G. Wolf (Firenze, 2015), pp. 457–74. Zey, C., ‘Die Augen des Papstes. Zu Eigenschaften und Vollmachten päpstlicher Legaten’, in Römisches Zentrum und kirchliche Peripherie. Das universale Papsttum als Bezugspunkt der Kirchen von den Reformpäpsten bis zu Innozenz III., ed. J.  Johrendt, H.  Müller (Berlin—New York, 2008), pp. 77–108. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘Proctors acting for English petitioners in the chancery of the Avignon popes (1305–1378)’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35 (1984), pp. 15–29. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘Some early letters of Pope Clement V (1305–14) in the Public Record Office’, Archiv für Diplomatik 33 (1987), pp. 323–35. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘The letters of Avignon popes (1305–78): a source for the study of AngloPapal relations and of English ecclesiastical history’, in England and her neighbours, 1066–1453. Essays in honour of Pierre Chaplais, ed. M.  Jones, M.  Vale (London— Ronceverte, 1989), pp. 259–76. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘The political and administrative correspondence of the Avignon popes, 1305–1378: a contribution to papal diplomatic’, in Aux origines de l’État Moderne. Le fonctionnement administratif de la papauté d’Avignon (Roma, 1990), pp. 371–84. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘The Office of notary in the papal chancery in the mid-fourteenth century’, in Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte, II (Stuttgart, 1998), pp. 665–83. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘The papal chancery and English documents in the 14th and early 15th centuries’, in Papsturkunde und europäisches Urkundenwesen. Studien zu ihrer formalen und rechtlichen Kohärenz vom 11. bis 15. Jahrhundert, ed. P. Herde, H. Jakobs (Cologne— Weimar—Wien, 1999), pp. 201–17. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘The Avignon Papacy’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, ed. M. Jones, VI (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 653–73. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘The personal role of the pope in the production of papal letters in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, in Vom Nutzen des Schreibens. Soziales Gedächtnis, Herrschaft und Besitz im Mittelalter, ed. W. Pohl, P. Herold (Wien, 2002), pp. 225–36. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘Innocent III and the reform of the papal chancery’, in Innocenzo III. Urbs et Orbis, ed. A. Sommerlechner, I (Roma, 2003), pp. 84–101. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘The origins of the registration of petitions in the papal chancery in the first half of the fourteenth century’, in Suppliques et requêtes. Le gouvernement par la grace en Occident (XIIe–XIV e siècle), ed. H. Millet (Roma, 2003), pp. 177–91. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘Inextricabilis curie labyrinthus. The Presentation of Petitions to the Pope in the Chancery and the Penitentiary during the Fourteenth and First Half of the Fifteenth Century’, in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburstag, ed. A. Meyer, C. Rendtel, M. Wittmer-Butsch (Tübingen, 2004), pp. 393–410.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi



Secondary Sources

257

Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘Petitioners, popes, proctors: the development of curial institutions, c.  1150–1250’, in Pensiero e sperimentazioni istituzionali nella ‘Societas Christiana’ (1046–1250), ed. G. Andenna (Milano, 2007), pp. 265–93. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘Changes in the Registration of Papal Letters under the Avignon Popes (1305–1378)’, in Kuriale Briefkultur im späteren Mittelalter. Gestaltung—Überlieferung— Rezeption, ed. T.  Broser, A.  Fischer, M.  Thumser (Köln—Weimar—Wien, 2015), pp. 237–62. Zutshi, P.N.R., ‘The Papal Chancery. Avignon and beyond’, in The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan, J. Nelson, M. Costambeys (London—New York, 2018), pp. 637–49.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Index Account see Registers Ad pedum et oris oscula 58–9 Adam Lymbergh, constable of Bordeaux  161–2 Adam Murimuth  108, 109n.32, 165n.64, 189–90 Adam Osgodby, keeper of the rolls of chancery  44–5, 138–9, 148–9 Adam Orleton, bishop of Hereford  108–10, 166n.70, 168–71, 180–1 Adam son of Adam Swayny of Butterwick, called Lindsey, notary  140n.43 Adam Swayny of Butterwick see Adam son of Adam Swayny of Butterwick Adhémar Robert, cardinal of Santa Anastasia  82–3, 97–8 Agen, Agenais  5–6, 154–5, 157–8, 175–6 Airmyn Richard, keeper of the privy seal  174 William, clerk of chancery, keeper of the rolls of chancery, keeper of the great seal, bishop of Norwich  44–5, 165n.64, 169–70, 174 Alban J.R. 87–9 Albano, cardinal see Talleyrand de Périgord Albert of Morra see Pope, Gregory VIII Albret see Amanieu Alemannia see Rolls Alexander IV see Pope Alexander, archbishop of Dublin  161–3, 165–6, 168n.81, 169–70 Alfonso X see Castile Alfonso XI see Castile Allmand C.  47–8, 87–9, 112–13, 205–6 Amanieu d’Albret  136–7, 148–9, 157–8 American 183–4 Amerigo Frescobaldi see Frescobaldi Amiens see Froissart, Treaty Andrea Sapiti see Sapiti Andrew Offord see Offord Androin de la Roche, abbot of Saint-Seine and Cluny  124–8, 205–6, 214–16, 218–22, 218n.63 Angevin  5–6, 159–60 (see also Chancery) Charles I of Anjou  159–60 Charles II of Anjou, King of Naples, King of Sicily  38–9, 51–2, 159–60 Geoffrey, count  5–6 Anjou see Angevin Annals of Burton Abbey  59–60 Annals of London 138–9 Annibaldo da Ceccano, cardinal of Tusculum  82–3, 98–100, 111n.44, 117–19, 122–4, 126n.118 Anonymus Cantuariensis 215–16

Anthony Bek, bishop of Durham  145 Anthony Pessagno  80, 108 Antonio Malabaila see Malabaila Apostolic see Papacy Aquitaine, Duchy  5–6, 60–1, 77–9, 97–8, 100, 108, 112–13, 134–5, 154–8, 161–3, 175–9, 188, 198–9, 207 Aragon, Aragonese  62n.47, 87–9, 91–2, 133, 166–8, 175–6, 179n.136 James II, king of Aragon  54–5, 133, 168n.80, 179n.136 Archives Nationales, Paris  208–12 Arezzo 79 Arcarius see Papacy Armagnac 157–8 Armenia  147n.77, 186 Gregory de Segnelie  186 Arnaldus Fabrii see Fabrii Arnaud d’Aux, bishop of Poitiers, and cardinal of Porto  80–2, 119–20, 148–9 Arnaud de Canteloup, cardinal of San Marcello  80–2, 84–5 Arnaud Duèse see Duèse Arnaud de Falgères, cardinal of Santa Sabina 80–2 Arnaud de Molières  216–18 Arnaud Novel, cardinal of Santa Prisca  80–2, 119–20 Arnaud Pellagrue, cardinal of Santa Maria in Porticu  57n.20, 80–2 Arnold de Sancto Michaele  120–1 Arras, conference  59n.34 Ars arengandi 56–60 Ars dictaminis, dictamen  32–5, 51–3, 56–7, 59–60, 64, 68–71, 75 Ars notarie 34–5 Ars predicandi 57–60 Artois  162–3 (see also Robert of Artois) Arundel, earl  111n.44 Astorgia see Peter, bishop Audientia litterarum contradictarum, Audientia publica, Audientia sacri palacii see Papacy Aurality  62–4, 66 Austria 209–10 Autrand F. 205–6 Auvillars see Bertrand de Got Avignon, Avignonese  27–8, 51–2, 54–7, 72–80, 83–4, 85n.46, 86–7, 88n.63, 89–101, 107–14, 117–27, 133–5, 161–2, 168n.80, 170–1, 184–7, 188n.30, 189–94, 213n.42, 216–18 (see also First Avignon Conference, Papacy, Registers) Tour des Saints-Anges  28

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

260 Index Avignon papacy see Papacy Aymer of Valence, earl of Pembroke  56n.16, 80, 108–10, 119–20 Baldock Ralph Baldock, bishop of London  135–6, 140n.43 Robert, keeper of the privy seal and chancellor  44–5, 164–5, 169–70 Baldwin J.F. 111–12 Balliol see Scotland Bankers, banking companies see Papacy Bannockburn 86–7 Bar 175–6 Bardi  80, 108, 113n.55 Nicolaus, magister in curia 80n.23 Barraclough G.  1–2, 34–5, 68–9 Barrel A.D.M. 98–100 Barbiche B.  4–5, 18, 36n.16 Bardney 150–1 Barons’ Revolt  21–2 Barratt N. 21–2 Barroso see Pedro Gomez Bartholomew of Badlesmere  108–10 Bartholomew Burghersh see Burghersh Bartholomew of Ferentino  136–8, 141, 152 Bath and Wells, diocese  95–6, 164–5 (see also John de Dronkensford) Bayonne 154–5 Beattie B.R. 119n.83 Beaumont Henry  166–8, 177–9 Lewis, bishop of Durham 120n.88 Beauvais 166–8 Benedict XI see Pope Benedict XII see Pope Benefices  1–3, 2n.7, 12, 18–19, 23–4, 26–30, 32–4, 39–40, 42–3, 45–7, 49–50, 53, 62–4, 66, 72–5, 85–9, 91–3, 95–102, 108n.31, 114–16, 119–20, 122–4, 129, 145–7, 149–52, 156–7, 168–9, 179–80, 191, 193, 197–9, 205–6 Benham J. 124n.113 Bérenger Frédol the younger, cardinal of Santi Nereo and Achilleo  93–5 Bernard Jourdain d’Isle see L’Isle Jourdain Bernard de Meung  51–2 Bernard Pellegrini see Pellegrini Bernard Sistre  197n.78 Bernardus de Ponte  54–5 Berthe P.M.  79n.18, 90n.71 Berto Frescobaldi see Frescobaldi Bertrand de Bordes, cardinal of Santi Giovanni and Paolo  80–2 Bertrand de Déaux, cardinal of San Marco, San Sabina  82–3, 111n.44

Bertrand de Got, viscount of Lomagne et Auvillars 77–8 Bertrand de Got see Clement V Bertrand of Montfavès, cardinal of Santa Maria in Aquiro  80–3, 93–7, 114n.60, 122–4, 188–90, 197n.78 Bertrandus, bishop of Sénez  124–5 Bianchi see Florence Bibliothèque National de France, Paris  208–9 Black Death  214–15 Black Prince see England, Prince of Blanche de Valois see Valois Bliss W.H.  6–7, 163n.53 Bock F.  37–8, 209–11 Bohemia John of Luxembourg, king of Bohemia  86–7, 121, 218–19 Wenceslas of Bohemia  87n.55 Bologna  34–5, 57n.20 Boniface VIII see Pope Bordeaux  60–1, 80, 134–8, 154–5, 166–8, 219 (see also Adam Lymbergh, Peter Aimeri, Treaty) Boso, cardinal of Santi Cosma and Damiano  24 Bouchard VI, count of Vendome  219 Brabant  175–6, 190–1 Bresc H. 83 Brétigny  127–8, 205–7, 209n.21, 214–15, 214n.46, 219–22 (see also Treaty, Brétigny-Calais) Brindisi see John, archbishop Brittany  54–5, 124, 192, 209–10 (see also John III, duke) British 18 Bruce see Scotland Buck M. 22–3 Budos see Raimond Guilhem Bureaucracy (bureaucratic, bureaucratization)  1–4, 11–12, 14–16, 18–19, 21–4, 39–43, 46, 66, 76, 91–3, 102, 138, 141–2, 145–6, 151, 154, 159–60, 181, 183, 195–6, 217n.59 Burghersh Bartholomew, elder  111n.44 Henry, bishop of Lincoln  108–10, 114n.60, 164–5, 168–9, 188–90 Burgundy  62–4, 175–6 Burton Abbey see Annals Butterwick see Adam Swayny Byzantine 16 Cahors 157–8 Calais  112–13, 124–5, 127–8, 205–12, 214–15, 220–3 (see also Rolls; Treaty, Brétigny-Calais; Truce) Callixtus II see Pope Cambrésis  190–1, 198–9 Cambridge University Library 210–11 Campsores see Papacy

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Index 261 Canteaut O. 19 Canterbury  137n.16, 142–6, 149 (see also Henry; Hubert Walter;Robert Winchelsey; Simon Islip; Simon Langham; Stratford, John; Thomas Bradwardine; Walter Reynolds) Capetian see France Capua see John, archbishop; Thomas of Capua Carlisle  149, 168–9 Carlo Fieschi see Fieschi Carmelites 145 Carpenter D.  15–16, 21–2, 41–2 Carpentras 86–7 Cartae antiquae see Rolls Castile, Castilian  25n.71, 90n.70, 122–4, 166–8, 175–6, 180–1, 202–3 Alfonso X, king  51–2 Alfonso XI, king  192 Eleanor 175n.111 Catalonian see Peter Seres Cencius see Pope, Honorius III Chamber  1n.1 (see also England, Papacy, Registers) Chamberlain see Papacy Champagne 25n.71 Chancery  15–16, 20, 28–33, 39–40, 49–50, 173–4 (see also London, Chancery Lane; The National Archives, Chancery Miscellanea) Angevin  159–60, 173 English  14, 16, 21–3, 40–50, 57n.20, 61–2, 64–6, 68–75, 85–6, 102, 112–13, 136–7, 141–2, 145–9, 176–7, 179–81, 185, 194–203, 207–14 (see also Hubert Walter; John Salmon; John Sandale; Rolls, Keeper of the rolls of chancery; Richard of Bury; Baldock, Robert; Robert Burnell; Walter Reynolds) Inn  47n.80 Household (1323)  48–9 French  16, 43–4, 159–60, 202–3, 209n.19 (see also Petrus Helye) Guyenne 42n.44 Papal (cancellaria)  16–18, 25, 33–40, 49–50, 62–4, 67–8, 72–6, 102, 104–6, 114–15, 117–19, 159–61, 202–3, 216–18 (see also Registers) Formularium notariorum curie  67–8 Libri cancellerie  18, 35–6 Channel  150–1, 189–90, 198–9, 214 Chapel see Papacy Chaplais P.  4–7, 46–7, 56–7, 62n.47, 68–70, 103–4, 106, 138, 148–9, 155–6, 176, 185, 196–7, 211–12 Charente 154–5 Charles I of Anjou see Angevin Charles II of Anjou see Angevin Charles IV see Empire; France, King

Charles V see France, King Charles VI see France, King Charles, Dauphin see France, Charles V Charles of Navarre see Navarre Charles de Valois see Valois Charter see Letters, Rolls Cheney C.R.  1–2, 46–7, 68–9, 138–40 Chester Jordan W.  91–3 Chichester see Philip Martel, Rotherfield Church Fathers  64 Cicero 64 Cilician Armenia see Armenia Clanchy M.  1–2, 14–15, 56n.15, 62–4, 66 Clement IV see Pope Clement V see Pope Clement VI see Pope Clercs du secré see France Clericis laicos see Boniface VIII Close see Letters, Rolls Cluny  24 (see also Androin de la Roche) Coleman J.  62–4, 66n.68 Cologne 114n.60 Colonna Giacomo, cardinal of Santa Maria in Via lata 134–5 Giovanni, cardinal of Sant’Angelo  82–3 Peter, cardinal of Sant’Eustachio  134–5 Common see Letters, Registers Composicio pacis 206–7 Comtat Venaissin  25–6 Comyn John, lord of Badenoch  142–4 William 142–4 Confirmatio Cartarum (1297) see England, King, Edward I Consistory see Papacy Cornwall  112–13, 148–9, 192 (see also Piers Gaveston) Coulon A. 163n.53 Coventry and Lichfield  95–6 (see also Walter Langton) Crécy  124, 214–15, 218–19 Crusade  108, 113–14, 136–7, 147, 147n.77, 151–2, 156–7, 161–2, 164n.57, 183–90, 215n.48, 219 Cum clausula c’est assavoir see Letters Curial see Letters, registers Curry A. 186 Cursus Romane curie see stilus curie Cuttino G.P.  4, 32–3, 46–9, 68–9, 103–4, 107, 111–12, 142, 145–6, 173–6, 181 Dalmacius de Pontonibus  54–5 Dalmeny see Geoffrey of Mowbray David Bruce see Scotland David II see Scotland David Wooler  211–12 Davidsohn R. 58–9 Davies J.C.  44–5, 176n.118 D’Avray D.  1–2, 12–13, 30–1, 102, 170–1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

262 Index Delachenal R.  205–7, 220n.74 Delle Donne F.  51–2 Denholm-Young N.  59–60, 64–6 Denton J.H.  1–2, 134–6, 138–40, 144–5 Déprez E.  156–7, 183–6, 191, 194–5 Derby, earl  111n.44 Despenser Hugh, lord  111n.44 Hugh, Elder see  80n.22, 108–10, 136–7, 148–9 Hugh, Younger  87, 121–2, 155n.4, 161–2, 164n.57, 169–71, 176 Dialogus de Saccario see England, Exchequer Dibben L.B. 41n.43 Dominic 121–2 Dublin see Alexander, archbishop Duèse 157–8 Arnaud  85–6, 90–1, 93–5 Peter 85–6 Duncan Macduff see Macduff Duncan IV Macduff, earl of Fife see Macduff Dunfrid de Staunton  137n.16 Durand, canonist  105n.14 Durham  93–5, 120n.88, 145, 151–2 (see also Anthony Bek; Beaumont, Lewis; Middleton-in-Teesdale; Richard de Hoton) Duchy see Aquitaine Edinburgh University Library  210–11 Edmund Woodstock, earl of Kent  64–6, 89–90, 108–10, 161–3, 165–8 Edward I see England, King Edward II see England, King Edward III see England, King Edward Balliol see Scotland Edward the Confessor see England, King Eleanor of Castile see Castile Elias Grimsby  212n.38 Elias Joneston, keeper of processes  48–9, 58n.23, 113–14, 173–6, 187n.19 Ely  142–4, 170–1 (see also John Hotham; Offord, John; Thomas Lisle) Embrun see Pastor, archbishop Emperor see Empire Empire (imperial, Empire)  51–2, 168n.80, 183–5, 191, 202, 209–10, 218, 221–2 Charles IV  218–20 Frederick II  51–2, 56–8, 64 Imperial Vicar see Edward III Lewis of Bavaria  86–9, 121, 158, 165n.61, 183, 185, 188, 190, 192–4, 197–8, 198n.84 Otto IV of Brunswick  37–8 Philip of Swabia  37–8 England  1, 1n.1, 3n.8, 5–6, 11–16, 19–21, 24, 25n.71, 28–33, 40–2, 50–3, 55–60, 62–6, 68–70, 74–80, 82–3, 85–9, 91–2, 91n.74, 92n.80, 95–101,

107–12, 108n.31, 114–15, 114n.60, 117–29, 117nn.73–4, 133, 135–52, 154–76, 164n.57, 179–84, 184n.4, 186–94, 196–9, 197n.78, 203–23 Absence, seal  195, 199–201 (see also John of St Pol) Chamber  20–1, 28–30, 44–5, 164, 174, 195 Chancery see Chancery, England Exchequer  13–14, 16, 20–6, 28–30, 40–5, 47–50, 90–2, 106, 114–15, 135–9, 173–6, 181, 185, 195–6, 200–2, 211 (see also Walter Stapeldon) Dialogus de Saccario  20–1 Great Seal  40–6, 64–6, 68, 85n.46, 174, 176, 190n.44, 192–5, 199–200, 208–9, 211–12 (see also John Benstede; Airmyn, William) Griffin Seal  45 Hanaper 42–7 Household  14, 19, 21–2, 28–9, 40–50, 50n.93, 62n.47, 106, 108–10, 148–9, 193–4, 200–1, 211 Keeper of processes (custos processuum et memorandorum regis)  48–9, 108–10, 173–6, 179–80, 187n.19, 195–6 (see also Elias Joneston) King Edward I  21–2, 41–4, 48n.85, 51–2, 56–7, 58n.23, 59–62, 84–5, 96–7, 133–52, 167n.72, 175n.111, 196n.73 Confirmatio Cartarum (1297)  135–6 Edward II  6, 22–3, 44–5, 47–8, 56n.16, 61–2, 64–8, 77–8, 80–2, 84–9, 89n.68, 96–7, 106, 108–10, 117, 119–22, 133, 140n.43, 142–4, 146–52, 154–8, 160n.34, 161–72, 174–82, 195–6 Edward III (Prince Edward)  5–6, 14, 22–3, 32–3, 45–50, 45n.66, 51n.96, 54–5, 57–8, 64–8, 70–5, 77–8, 82–3, 85–9, 89n.68, 95–100, 107, 111–14, 122–8, 124n.113, 142, 154–6, 166–70, 174, 177–9, 183–202, 205–11, 212n.38, 213–16, 218–22 Imperial vicar  190, 198 Edward the Confessor  139–40 Henry I  20–1 Henry II  5–6, 20–1, 29, 40–1 Henry III  5–6, 21–2, 41–2, 59–60 Henry IV  69–70 Henry VI  3n.8 John  16, 21, 40–3, 46, 62–4 Richard I  21 Richard II  46n.74 King’s Council  45 King’s Seal  40–1 Notarius regis in sua cancellaria 46, 199–200

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Index 263 Queen Isabella  6, 85–6, 89–90, 121–2, 146–8, 150n.94, 154–8, 162–3, 165–71, 174, 180–2, 219 Philippa 95–6 Praeceptores 46–7 Prince of Black Prince  125–7, 209–10, 214–16, 218–20 Wales  112–13, 192 Privy Seal  22–3, 40–2, 44–5, 48–50, 64–6, 68, 85–6, 108n.31, 142–4, 173–4, 180–1, 195, 196n.73, 198–202, 207–8, 210–14 (see also Airmyn, Richard; Richard of Bury; Baldock, Robert; William Kilsby) Secret Seal  44–5, 85n.46 Secretariat, secretaries  22–3, 29–30, 41–2, 44–5, 50, 174n.106, 199–200, 211–12 Treasury, treasurer  20–1, 40–1, 174 (see also Walter Stapeldon) Wardrobe  20–3, 29–30, 40–2, 44–5, 47–9, 61–2, 91–2, 92n.80, 114–15, 117n.73, 138–9, 141, 151, 173–6, 181, 195–6, 211 (see also Richard of Bury) Esplechin see Truce Étienne Aubert, cardinal of Santi Giovanni and Paolo  82–3, 117–19, 124, 214–15, 222–3 (see also Pope, Innocent VI) Exchequer see England Excommunicamus 92–3 Execrabilis see Pope, John XXII Extravagantes communes 92–3 Exeter  95–6, 170–1 (see also Walter Stapeldon) Exposicio credencie  53–4, 61–2 Europe, European  141–2, 159–60, 173–4, 182–4, 199n.90, 206–7 Fabrii Arnaldus Fabrii  202–4 Pontius Fabrii  202–4 Fastolf Laurence 95–6 Thomas, auditor sacri palacii  90–1, 111–12 (see also audientia sacri palacii) Favier J.  26–7, 134–5 Felten F.J. 187n.23 Ferguson J. 2–3 Ferrara 57n.20 Fieschi Carlo 96–7 Luca, cardinal of Santa Maria in Via Lata  80–2, 96–7, 108–10, 119–20 Nicolino  80, 96–7, 111–14, 190–2 Fife  142–4 (see also Macduff ) Finances  13, 16–18, 21–2, 26–8, 76, 117–19, 146–7

First Avignon Conference  54–5, 62–4, 71–3, 82–3, 97–8, 111n.44, 122–4 Flanders, Flemish  20, 183–5, 188, 190–1, 197–8, 209–10 Flemish see Flanders Fleta 43–4 Florence  25–6, 79 (see also James of Florence) Bianchi 79 Neri 79 Foix  157–8, 161–5 Gaston II  157–8, 161–2 Fontainebleau 89–90 Fontenelles see Valois, Joan Formularium notariorum curie see Chancery, Papal Fortaner de Batz  147–8 France, French  1–2, 5–6, 11–16, 18–20, 25–6, 25n.71, 34–5, 37–8, 37n.20, 41–2, 48–52, 57–8, 62–4, 71n.97, 78–9, 80n.20, 82–3, 86–9, 89n.68, 91–2, 104–8, 111–14, 117–19, 121–8, 133–7, 140–2, 146–52, 154–71, 170n.90, 173–81, 183–95, 197–9, 202–11, 213–23 (see also Chancery, Hundred Years’ War, Parliament, Rolls) Clercs du secré 50 King Charles IV  117, 121–2, 126n.118, 154–5, 157–8, 161–4, 166–70, 176n.115, 177–81, 219–20 Charles V (Charles, Dauphin)  208–10, 216nn.55–6, 218–20, 218n.63 Charles VI  209n.19 John II  71n.97, 112–13, 125–8, 205–6, 208–10, 213, 215–16, 218–22 Louis IX  5–6 Philip III  175n.111 Philip IV (the Fair)  5–6, 147–50, 187n.22 Philip VI  87–9, 112–14, 124–5, 183–92, 186n.17, 191n.45, 202–3 Queen Philippa 219 Sceau du secret 50 Secretaries  37n.20, 202n.103, 217n.58 South  1, 79, 86–7 Francesco Calvo di San Massimo  38–9, 216–18 Francesco Gaetani  150–1 Francesco Petrarca  35–6, 83 Francis Accursius  59–60 François de Conzié  90n.70 François de Mayronis  121–2 Fraser C.M. 145 Frederick II see Empire French see France Frescobaldi 79–80 Amerigo 80 Berto 80 Guglielmo 88n.63

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

264 Index Gailalard de Gazaco 147–9 Galhard de la Mothe, cardinal of Santa Lucia in Silice  71–2, 82–3 Galbraith V.H.  14, 21 Galfrid le Scroop  114n.60 Garcia Arnaldi de Garleux  147–8 Gascony, Gascon  5–6, 23–4, 60–1, 77–8, 80–2, 85–6, 93–5, 107–8, 113–14, 121–2, 124–5, 134–7, 141–2, 154–8, 161–8, 163n.53, 169n.82, 170–1, 170n.90, 175–81, 186–91, 197n.79, 209–10 (see also Calendar, Ralph Basset, John of Havering, Rolls) Gascon Calendar (1322)  110n.38, 175–6 Gasnault P. 216–18 Gaston II see Foix Gaucelm de Jean, cardinal of Santi Marcellino and Pietro  80–3, 111n.44, 119–20 Gauvard C. 15–16 Genoa, Genoese  96–7, 111–12 Geoffrey, count of Anjou see Anjou Geoffrey de Eversley or de Cumeselz 51–2 Geoffrey of Mowbray, lord of Dalmeny  142–4 Gerald Othonis  120–1 Gérard de Daumar, cardinal of Santa Sabina 97–8 Gerard von Wippingen, archdeacon of Richmond 60–1 Germany, German  13–14, 18, 87–9, 121, 188, 190, 193–4, 197–9 Ghibellines 58–9 Giacomo Colonna see Colonna Gilbert of Middleton  120n.88 Gilbert, earl of Gloucester  143n.58 Giovanni Colonna see Colonna Given-Wilson C. 205–6 Glasgow see Robert Wishart Gloucester see Gilbert, earl; Mary de Monthemer Graves E.B. 99n.116 Great Schism see Papacy Gregory VII see Pope Gregory VIII see Pope Gregory IX see Pope Gregory X see Pope Gregory XI see Pope Gregory de Segnelie see Armenia Grévin B.  51–2, 56–60, 68–9 Griffiths R. 23–4 Guala Bicchieri, cardinal of San Martino  67–8 Libellus de formis petitionum secundum cursum Romane curie 67–8 Gualterus, clerk see Sapiti Guelf 58–9 Guérard L.  163n.53 Guglielmo Frescobaldi see Frescobaldi Guido Faba  51–2 Guido of San Germano  189n.32

Guillaume Ami, rector of Lavaur  124–5, 191–2 Guillaume de Laudun, archbishop of Vienne  120–2, 157–8, 164–71, 180–1 Guillaume de Mandagout, cardinal of Palestrina 80–2 Guillaume de Peyre de Godin, cardinal of Santa Sabina 82–3 Guillemain B.  18, 27–8, 77–9, 83, 96–7, 107–8, 117–19, 134–5, 193n.59 Guines  124–7, 209n.21 (see also Treaty) Guth D.J. 15–16 Guy de Boulogne, cardinal bishop of Porto  82–3, 98–100, 118n.79, 125–7, 214–15, 219–20 Guyenne  112–13, 124, 154–5, 157–8, 160–1, 164, 166–8, 169n.82, 188–90, 192, 205–6 (see also Chancery) Hadrian IV see Pope Hainaut, count of  86–7, 121 Haines R.M.  1–2, 189–90, 193–5 Hamburg 67–8 Hanaper see England Hart 145 Hartlepool 145 Hassel 114n.60 Hayez A.M. 27–8 Heath P. 146 Heinrich Bucglant  67–8 Hennigan M.A.C. 205–6 Henry I see England, King Henry II see England, King Henry III see England, King Henry IV see England, King Henry VI see England, King Henry, duke of Lancaster  89–90, 120n.88, 124–7, 214, 218–20 Henry of Beaumont see Beaumont Henry Burghersh see Burghersh Henry of Canterbury  70n.95, 108–10, 189–90 Henry Chaddesden  111n.44 Henry Cliff, keeper of the rolls of chancery  174 Henry Coddington  212n.38 Henry of Grossmont  114–15 Henry de Iddelesworth  189–90 Henry of Knighton  215–16, 223n.87 Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln  136–7 Henry de Percy  148–9 Henry Spigurnel  61–2 Henry of Sully  117, 161–8, 180–1 Herck 114n.60 Hereford  169–71 (see also Adam Orleton) Highfield J.R.L. 96–7 Hildebrand see Pope, Gregory VII Hill M.C. 106 Holland  147n.77, 175–6 Holy Land  108, 113–14, 136–7, 147, 147n.77, 169–70, 186–8, 219

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Index 265 Honoratiores see Weber Honorius III see Pope Honorius IV see Pope Hospitallers 171n.97 Household see Chancery, England, Papacy Hotz B. 18 House of Jewish converts see London Hubert Walter, chancellor, archbishop of Canterbury 16 Hugh, bishop of Orange  120–2, 157–8, 164–71, 180–1 Hugh d’Aimery, bishop of Saint-Paul-de-TroisChateaux  122–4, 186 Hugh of Angouleme  86–7, 120–2, 162–6, 164n.57, 168n.80, 169–71, 180–1 Hugh Despenser see Despenser Hugh Despenser, Elder see Despenser Hugh Despenser, Younger see Despenser Hugh of Evesham  51–2 Hugh de Genève  127–8, 205–6, 214–15, 216n.54, 219–22 Hugh Neville see Neville Hugh Pellegrini see Pellegrini Hungary 126n.118 Hundred Years’ War (Anglo-French conflict)  1, 5–6, 22–3, 32–3, 45, 47–50, 52, 76–8, 82–4, 87–9, 111–12, 117–20, 122–4, 127–30, 155–6, 173–4, 177n.122, 183–6, 190–3, 195–8, 200–6, 219, 222n.85 Huntingdon, earl of  111n.44 Iacopo Stefaneschi, cardinal of San Giorgio  118n.79, 119n.82 Iberian see Spain, Spanish Imperial see Empire Ingeland de Wake  108n.31 Innocent III see Pope Innocent IV see Pope Innocent VI see Pope Innocent VIII see Pope Ireland  148–9, 170n.89, 175–6 Isabella see Queen, England Issue see Rolls Italy, Italian  26–7, 34–5, 51–2, 56n.14, 57–8, 77–9, 114–15, 126n.118, 141, 156–8, 163n.51, 172n.102, 183–4, 215n.48 City-states  87–9, 91–2, 102–3 Northern Italian towns  34–5 Itherius of Concoreto  120–1 Ius commune 69–70 Jacobus de Via, cardinal of San Giovanni and Paolo 80–2 James II, king of Aragon see Aragon James of Florence, archdeacon of Winchester 108–10 James de le Garviagh  142–4 Jamme A.  19, 26–8

Jean Comminges, cardinal of San Vitale, cardinal of Porto  82–3, 111n.44 Jean Fabri de St Martin  218n.62 Jean Froissart  216n.52 Amiens recension  216n.52 Jean de Melun, count of Tancarville  219 Jeay C. 71n.97 Jenkins H.  183–6, 190–1 Joan of Valois see Valois Joan of Penthièvre  192 Joanna de Clare  143n.58 John see England, King John II see France, King John III, duke of Brittany, earl of Richmond  148–9, 165n.61, 166–8, 177–9, 192 John XXII see Pope John of Luxembourg, king of Bohemia see Bohemia John, archbishop of Brindisi  124–5 John, archbishop of Capua  126n.119 John Benstede, keeper of the great seal  41–2, 61–2, 136–7 John de Branketre  112–13, 211–13 John de Briggis  51–2 John Buckingham  211 John Carlton  111–12 John Clarel  59–60 John Comyn see Comyn John Cromwell  108 John Dalderby, bishop of Lincoln  135–6 John Ditton  138–9, 141 John de Dronkensford, bishop of Bath and Wells 164–5 John Eltham  89–90 John de Ferraria 147–9 John of Garland  51–2 John of Grandson  170–1 John Grey  54n.7 John of Havering, seneschal of Gascony  135–7, 147–8 John Hotham, bishop of Ely  44–5, 108–10 John Lenham  77–8 John Lutrell  169n.82 John, count of Montfort see Montfort John Neville see Neville John Offord see Offord John of Pontissara, bishop of Winchester  60–1 John Piers  57–8, 95–6, 113–15, 186–7, 197–8 John Reppes  111–12 John Rylands Library, Manchester  209–10 John of St Pol, keeper of the rolls of chancery, keeper of the seal of absence  199–201, 203–4 John Salmon, bishop of Norwich, chancellor  44–5, 108 John Sandale, chancellor  44–5, 109n.35 John Scarle  212n.38 John Seys  73n.109

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

266 Index John Shoreditch  90–1, 93–5, 93n.85 John Stratford see Stratford John of Sturmy  164 John de Tany  136–7 John Thoresby, canon of Southwell, keeper of the rolls of chancery  111–13, 192–4, 199–201, 203–4 John of Veroli  85–6 John Winwick  211, 213 John Woderove  125–7 John de Wrotham  136–7 Joscelyn of Kirmington  150–1 Jourdain de L’Isle see L’Isle Jourdain Jugie P.  37n.23, 216–18 Kamp H. 184n.2 Keeper of processes see England Keeper of the rolls of chancery see Rolls Kent see Edmund Woodstock, Newchurch, Reculver King’s Council see England King’s Langley  150–1 Kingston-upon-Hull 145 Kittell E.E. 20 Koblenz 190 Kyer C.I. 115–16 Lancaster see Henry, duke; Thomas Languedoc 124–5 Laon see Roland of Asti Lapo da Castiglionchio  58–60 La Réole see Truce La Rochelle  209n.21 Larson A. 114–15 Laurence Fastolf see Fastolf Lavaur see Guillaume Ami, Sicardus Leconfield see Registers Leeds, Augustinian Priory  73 Le Patourel J.  196–7, 205–7 Letters (littera, litterae) Charter  42–3, 46 (see also Rolls) Close (littere clause)  42–3, 46–7, 50, 121n.96, 138, 172–3, 172n.102 (see also Rolls) Common  25, 36–8 (see also Registers) Cum clausula c’est assavoir  207, 214 Curial (littere curiales)  25, 36–9, 106 (see also Registers) Legende 62–4 Papal  151, 164–5, 169n.83, 215–16 Patent  42–3, 46, 172n.102 (see also Rolls) Recommendatorie 64–6 Secret  36–9, 88n.63, 159–60, 172–3, 202–3, 216–19 (see also Registers) Lewis of Bavaria see Empire Lewis of Beaumont, bishop of Durham see Beaumont Libellus de formis petitionum secundum cursum Romane curie see Guala Bicchieri

Liber arancius see Papacy, Chamber Liber censuum ecclesie Romane see Papacy, Chamber Liber epistolaris see Richard of Bury Liber pontificalis 24 Liberate see Rolls Libri cancellaria Chancery, Papal Libri de diversis see Papacy, Chamber Libri manuali see Papacy, Chamber Libri ordinarii see Papacy, Chamber Licencia recessus  53–4, 60–1 Limburg, county  114n.60 Lincoln  96–100, 108–10, 150–1, 164–5, 169–71 (see also Henry Burghersh, Henry de Lacy, John Dalderby, Parliament, William Bateman) Lindsey see Adam son of Adam Swayny of Butterwick L’Isle-Jourdain  157–8, 161–5 Bernard  85–6, 93–5 Jourdain 161–2 Literacy  13–16, 19, 28–9, 32–3, 66, 138, 151 Littera, litterae see Letters (see also Legende, Recommendatorie) Lomagne see Bertrand de Got Lombardy 170n.89 London  20–3, 45, 98–100, 121, 141, 168n.80, 170–1, 195, 198, 215–16 (see also Annals; Parliament; P.R.O; Baldock, Ralph; Richard Woodlock; The National Archives; Treaty) Chancery Lane  44–5, 49–50, 196–7 House of Jewish converts (domus conversorum) 44–5 St Paul’s  98–100 (see also Richard Woodlock) Tower  44–5, 48–9, 138–9 Loughton 98–100 Louis IX see France, King Low Countries  45, 114n.60, 190, 195, 198 Luca Fieschi see Fieschi Lucas H.S.  2–3, 124n.113 Lunt W. 120–4 Lyons  86–7, 133, 135–7, 141 Macduff Duncan 143n.58 Duncan IV, earl of Fife see 84–6, 142–4, 151–2 Maine 5–6 Malabaila 80 Antonio 80n.20 Malestroit see Truce Manchester see John Rylands Library Marsan 157–8 Mary de Monthemer, daughter of the earl of Gloucester  84–5, 142–4 Mattingly G.  2–3, 102–4

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Index 267 Mauléon, castle  147–8 Maxson B.J. 58–9 Maxwell-Lyte H.C. 201n.97 McKisack M. 146 Menache S.  119n.83, 134–5, 145–6, 147n.77, 156n.11 Mercatores see Papacy Metz  216n.56, 218–19, 218n.63 Meung 34–5 Meyer A. 18 Michael de Northburgh see Northburgh Michel du Bec, cardinal of Santo Stefano al Monte Celio  80–2 Middleton-in-Teesdale, Durham  74n.110 Midi see France, South Mills M.H. 21–2 Mollat G.  27–8, 97n.104, 134–5 Moeglin J.M. 4 Mongols 147n.77 Montecassino 34–5 Montfort John 192 Simon Montfort  139–40 Montpezat  154–5, 161–2 (see also Raymond de Montpezat) Montreuil  58n.23, 113–14, 147–8, 186–7, 189–90 Mos curie see stilus curie Moselyn, castle  114n.60 Mowbray see Geoffrey of Mowbray Muslims  147n.77, 186 Napoleone Orsini, cardinal of Sant’Adriano  80–3, 96–7 Narbonne see Sicardus of Lavaur Navarre, Navarrese  209–10, 218–19, 221–2 Charles  216n.55, 219–20 Philip 219 Neri see Florence Netherlands see Low Countries Neville Hugh  54–5, 89–90, 111–12 John 108–10 Ralph 111n.44 Newchurch, Kent  98–100 Nicolino Fieschi see Fieschi Niccolò Albertini da Prato, cardinal of Ostia  79 Niccolò Capocci, cardinal of San Vitale  82–3, 127–8, 189n.32, 205–6, 209–10, 214–16, 216n.55, 218–22 Nicholas III see Pope Nicholas, archbishop of Ravenna  124–5, 124n.109 Nicholas Spaigne  212n.38 Nicholas Trivet  108–10 Nicholas of Tyngewick  145 Nicola de Rocca senior 51–2 Nicolaus Bardi see Bardi Niederwerth 190

Nomenclator see Papacy Normandy, Norman  5–6, 20–1, 40–1, 124–5, 209–10, 219 North Africa  51–2 Northburgh Michael 189–90 Roger, archdeacon of Richmond  64–6, 77–8, 85–6 Norway 91–2 Norwich  121–2, 166–71, 177–9 (see also John Salmon; Airmyn, William; William Bateman) Notarius regis see England Oeconomus see Papacy, Chamber Offord Andrew  111n.44, 189–90 John, archdeacon of Ely  54–5, 89–90, 111–13, 114n.60, 192–4 Robert 189–90 Opitz G. 218n.62 Orange see Hugh, bishop Ordines 24 Ordinance, Ordinances Ordinances (1311)  61–2, 108–10, 119–20 Ordinances (1388–1389)  43–4, 44n.57, 46n.74 Provisors (1343)  74–5, 86–7, 97–8, 98–100, 122–4, 213–14 Walton Ordinances (1338)  22–3, 45, 193–5, 198, 200–2 York Ordinances (1318)  44–5, 48–9 Orleans 34–5 Ormrod M.  15–16, 22–3, 45–9 Ostia, cardinal see Niccolò Albertini da Prato Otto IV of Brunswick see Empire Otto Grandisson  108, 136–9, 141, 148–9, 152 Ovid 58–9 Oxford  51–2, 113–14 (see also Parliament) Palatium see Papacy Palestrina, cardinal see Guillaume de Mandagout, Pierre de Prés Pantin W.A.  1–2, 96–100, 125–7, 146 Papal curia see Papacy Papacy (see also papal, papal curia, Apostolic See)  1, 3, 5–6, 11–13, 16–19, 24–41, 46–72, 74–108, 82n.30, 90n.71, 109n.32, 111–29, 133–52, 154, 156n.11, 157–61, 163, 166–76, 169n.82, 179–88, 191–5, 197–208, 213–16, 216n.56, 218–23 Audientia litterarum contradictarum 33–6 Audientia publica (Rota, audientia sacri palacii)  33–6, 78–9 (see also William Bateman; Fastolf, Thomas)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

268 Index Papacy (cont.) Bankers (banking companies, campsores camere, mercatores camere; mercatores domini pape)  25–9, 80, 106, 114–15 Chamber (camera)  24–9, 33–4, 36–40, 54–5, 76, 93–5, 106, 109n.34, 116–17, 159–61, 164, 166–8, 169n.83, 172–3, 175–6, 179–81, 202–3, 207–8, 216–18 (see also Registers) Liber arancius 25–6 Liber censuum ecclesie Romane 24–6, 29 Libri de diversis 28 Libri manuali 28 Libri ordinarii 28 Oeconomus 24 Chamberlain (camerarius)  24–5, 27–8 Chancery see Chancery, Papal Chapel (capella) 89–90 Consistory  54–5, 59–60, 75, 89–90, 193, 216–18 Great Schism  183 Household  24–5, 27–9, 35–6, 39–41, 79, 86n.48, 93–5, 159, 194–5 Letters see Letters Nomenclator 24 Palatium (Papal palace)  24 Patrimony (Papal State)  26–7, 215n.48 Penitentiary  18, 33–4, 36–7, 73n.109, 78–9 Peter’s Pence  26–7, 220n.74 Primus defensor 24 Referendarius 46–7 Registers see Registers Saccellarius 24 Secretariat (Secretaria)  36–9, 50, 173n.105, 207–8, 216–18 Secretary, secretaries  25, 36–9, 54–5, 173n.105, 202–3, 216–18 Secretarius domesticus 25 Secretarius secretus 25 Taxatores litterarum apostolicarum in bullaria 25 Treasury, treasurer  24–5, 27–8 Paravicini Bagliani A.  24–6 Paris  5–6, 23–4, 51–2, 125–7, 218 (see also Archives Nationales, Bibliothèque National de France, Parliament, Treaty) Parliament (see also Rolls) French 105n.17 Lincoln (1316)  44–5 London (1324)  166–8 Oxford (1258)  41–2 Paris  113–14, 155–6 Stamford (1309)  150–1 York (1318)  44n.59, 113–14 Westminster (1338, 1343)  122–4, 189–90 Pastor, archbishop of Embrun  124–5

Patent see Letters, Rolls Pater Sancte see Richard of Bury Patrimony see Papacy Paul of Monteflore  92–3, 95–6 Paul II see Pope Pax firmata 206–7 Pax inita 206–7 Pedro Gomez de Barroso, cardinal of Santa Prassede  82–3, 100, 111nn.44,60, 122–4, 188–90, 197n.78 Pellegrini Bernard 85n.46 Hugh  98–100, 127–8, 205–6, 214–15, 220–2 Raymond  57–8, 117n.76, 124–8 Pembroke see Aymer of Valence Penitentiary see Papacy Péquignot S.  4 Périgueux 175–6 Perpignan, council  90n.70 Perroy E.  184–8, 205–6, 209–12 Perugia  94n.90, 134–6 Peruzzi 80 Peter’s Pence see Papacy Peter, bishop of Astorgia  124n.109 Peter, bishop of Tarazona  125–7 Peter Aimeri, canon of Saint-Seurin, Bordeaux 60–1 Peter Bourguignon  189n.32 Peter Colonna see Colonna Peter Duèse see Duèse Peter Seres, Catalonian merchant  87–9 Peter of Spain, cardinal of Santa Sabina 149–50 Peter de Via  90–1, 93–5 Peter Villars  202–4 Peter de Vineis  51–2, 57–60, 64, 68–9 Petrus Helye 209n.19 Philip III see France, King Philip IV see France, King Philip VI see France, King Philip Martel, canon of Chichester  144–5 Philip of Navarre  219 see Navarre Philip Sapiti see Sapiti Philippa see England, Queen; France, Queen Philippe de Cahmbarlac  188 Phillips S.  22–3, 147–9, 155–6, 166–8 Philobiblon see Richard of Bury Pierre Assalbit  90n.70 Pierre de la Foret, cardinal of the XII Apostles  127–8, 205–6, 219, 221–2 Pierre de Prés, cardinal bishop of Palestrina  82–3, 93–5, 98–100, 111n.44, 122–4, 126n.118 Pierre Roger de Beaufort, cardinal of Santa Maria Nuova  98–100 (see also Pope, Gregory XI) Piers Gaveston  146–9, 151–2 Piola Caselli F.  28 Pipe see Rolls

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Index 269 Pisa, council  90n.70 Plöger K.  62–4, 77, 89–90, 96n.102, 97–100, 107–8, 111–15, 184–5, 205–6, 222–3 Poissy 166–8 Poitiers  127–8, 205–6, 209–10, 212–16, 218–22 (see also Arnaud d’Aux) Poitou 5–6 Ponthieu 175–6 Pontius Fabrii see Fabrii Pope Alexander IV  37–8, 59–60 Benedict XI  138, 141 Benedict XII  36–9, 72–3, 82–3, 87–9, 96–7, 100, 113–14, 119–24, 124n.113, 173n.105, 183–94, 193n.59, 198–9, 202–4, 216–18, 222n.86 Boniface VIII  25–6, 60–1, 92–3, 134–6, 138, 187n.22, 189–90 Clericis laicos 135–6 Callixtus II  116n.69 Clement IV  139–40 Clement V  6, 38–9, 57n.20, 58n.23, 61–2, 77–82, 84–7, 93–5, 96n.101, 107–8, 119–20, 133–52, 147n.77, 157–8, 159n.27, 173 Clement VI  54–5, 62–4, 74–5, 77–8, 82–3, 86–7, 89–90, 97–100, 107–8, 122–5, 194n.67, 198–9, 205n.1 Gregory VII (Hildebrand)  24 Gregory VIII (Albert of Morra)  64 Gregory IX  25–6, 37–8, 67–8, 140nn.39,43 Gregory X  139n.36 Gregory XI  36–7, 87–9 (see also Pierre Roger de Beaufort) Hadrian IV  24 Honorius III (Cencius)  24 Honorius IV  139–40 Innocent III  16–18, 24–5, 33–4, 37–8, 62–4 Innocent IV  37–8, 92–3, 139n.36, 140nn.37–9,43, 141n.46 Innocent VI  36–7, 57–8, 70–1, 77–8, 80n.20, 82–3, 98–100, 125–8, 173n.105, 205–7, 209–10, 213–23 (see also Étienne Aubert) Innocent VIII  25 John XXII  26–8, 38–9, 62n.47, 64–6, 70–1, 77–82, 85–91, 93–7, 108–10, 114–15, 117, 119–24, 146, 154–73, 164n.57, 180–1, 183–4, 184n.4, 202–3 Execrabilis  96–7, 119–20, 169–70 Nicholas III  37–8, 59–60 Paul II  25 Urban II  24, 38n.25 Urban IV  37–8, 139n.36, 141n.46 Urban V  35–6, 36n.16, 58–9, 70–1, 87–9

Porto, cardinal see Arnaud d’Aux, Guy de Boulogne, Jean Comminges Portugal  147n.77, 175–6 Praeceptores see England Praemunire see Statute Prato see Niccolò Albertini Presentacio litterarum credencie  53–4, 57–9 Prestwich M.  120n.88, 134–5, 142–4 Primus defensor see Papacy P.R.O. see London, Chancery Lane Provence, Provençal  77–8, 86–7, 219 Provisors see Ordinances, Statute Publicatio 206–7 Pyrenees 154–5 Queller D.E.  2–3, 102–6, 138–9, 141–2 Quercy 122–4 Raimond Guilhem de Budos  77–8 Ralph Baldock see Baldock Ralph Basset, seneschal of Gascony  161–2 Ralph Neville see Neville Ratificatio 206–9 Raymond de Farges, cardinal of Santa Maria Nuova, dean of Salisbury  80–3, 82n.32, 100, 193–4 Raymond de Got, cardinal of Santa Maria Nuova  80–2, 84–5, 150–1 Raymond de Montpezat  161–2 Raymond Pellegrini see Pellegrini Raymond de Roux, cardinal of Santa Maria in Cosmedin 165n.63 Raymond Subirani  86–7, 108 Raymond de Valle  54–5 Record-keeping  13–30, 32–4, 37–50, 128, 142, 145–6, 151, 154, 157–61, 164, 169n.83, 173–6, 182–3, 195–6, 202–4, 207–8, 213, 216–18 Reculver, Kent  145 Referendarius see Papacy Reginald Cobham  111n.44 Registers  25, 141, 158n.22, 159–62, 172–6, 181–2, 198, 202–3, 209n.19, 216–19 Account 28 Avignonese  6–7, 37–8, 158 Chamber  158n.22 (see also Papacy, Chamber) Chancery  16–17 (see also Chancery, Papal) Common letters  158n.22, 160n.32, 172n.103, 202–3, 217n.61 (see also Letters) Curial  25, 191 (see also Letters) Leconfield  209–11, 213 Secret letters  38–9, 126n.118, 157–61, 164n.58, 169–76, 179–81, 191, 202–4, 213n.43, 216–22 (see also Letters) Supplications (Registra Supplicationum) 6–7, 72–5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

270 Index Registers (cont.) Vatican  6–7, 37–8 Reg. Vat. 112  158, 160–70, 172, 180–1 Reg. Vat. 113  160–1, 166–70, 172, 178n.132, 180–1 Reg. Vat. 114  158, 160–1, 170–2 Registrum super negotio Romani imperii 37–8 Registrum super negotio Romani imperii see Registers Reitemeier A. 2–3 Relacio 60–1 Renouard Y.  134–5, 156–7, 217n.61 Responsio 53–4 Richard I see England, King Richard II see England, King Richard Airmyn see Airmyn Richard of Bury, keeper and treasurer of the wardrobe, keeper of the privy seal, chancellor  51–2, 64–6, 68n.82, 90–1, 93–5, 93n.85 Liber epistolaris  64–6, 68n.82 Pater Sancte 70–1 Philobiblon 64–6 Richard Fitzalan  114–15 Richard FitzNigel  20–1 Richard de Chaddesleye  189–90 Richard de Hoton, prior of Durham  145 Richard de Plymstock  86–7, 149–50 Richard of Pofi  51–2 Richard Stratford see Stratford Richard Woodlock, canon of St Paul’s London 108–10 Richmond, archdeaconry  98–100, 165n.63, 168–9 (see also Gerard von Wippingen; Northburgh, Roger) Richmond, earl  121–2 (see also John III) Rigaud d’Assier  118n.78, 120–1 Rinaldo de’ Zambrasi  216–18 Robert of Artois  187–8 Robert Baldock see Baldock Robert Bourchier  194n.65 Robert Bruce see Scotland Robert Burnell, chancellor and keeper of the rolls of chancery  41–4, 43n.53 Robert Cotyngham  138–9 Robert Hareward  111n.44 Robert Offord see Offord Robert Parvyng  199–200 Robert Pickering  136–7 Robert Stratford see Stratford Robert son of William de Wrytele  137n.16 Robert Winchelsey, archbishop of Canterbury  133, 135–6, 139–45, 148–9, 151–2 Robert Wishart, bishop of Glasgow  142–4, 147 Roger Mortimer  6, 85–6, 170–1, 170n.90, 174 Roger of Northburgh see Northburgh Roger le Sauvage  142–4 Roger of Stanford  189–90

Roger Sutton  212n.38 Roger la Warre  136–7 Roger de la Zouche see Zouche, de la Röhrkasten J.  156–7 Roland of Asti, canon of Laon  122–4, 186 Rolls, enrolments  142, 159, 174, 179–82, 193–202, 210–14 Alemannia  159, 176–7, 179–80, 195–202, 197n.76 (see also Empire) Calais  209–13 (see also Brétigny-Calais) Cartae antiquae 42–3 Charter  42–3 (see also Letters) Close  42–3, 179–80 (see also Letters) French (rotuli de Francia)  6–7, 195–202, 197n.76, 209–10, 210n.28, 213 (see also France) Gascon  6–7, 138–9, 159, 179–80, 195–6, 197nn.76,79, 198–9 (see also Gascony) Issue 20–1 Keeper of the rolls of chancery  46–50, 111–12, 199–200 (see also Adam Osgodby; Chancery; Henry Cliff; John of St Pol; John Thoresby; Robert Burnell; Airmyn, William; William Kilsby) Liberate 42–3 Parliament  44–5 (see also Parliament) Patent  42–3, 179–80, 209–10 (see also Letters) Pipe  20–2, 29 Roman  6–7, 64–6, 72–6, 80–2, 84–6, 108–10, 133, 140n.43, 142–9, 151–2, 157, 159, 179–81, 185–7, 193–202, 194n.62, 209–10, 212 (see also Papacy) Treaty  6–7, 70–1, 147n.77, 157, 159, 166n.65, 176–7, 179–80, 185, 194–8 Roman see Rolls Roman Empire  16 Rome  24, 50, 59n.28, 60–1, 138, 183 Rota see Audientia publica Rotherfield, diocese of Chichester  171n.95 Routiers 219 Rymer T. 6–7 Saccellarius see Papacy, Chamber Salisbury  95–7 (see also Raymond de Farges, William Montacute) St Albans Abbey see Thomas de la Mere St Andrews see William Lamberton St Davids  73n.109 St Mary’s, York  74n.110 St Paul’s see London Saint-Paul-de-Trois-Chateaux see Hugh d’Aimery, bishop St Sardos, bastide  5–6, 154–5, 161–3, 175–6 War  5–6, 70–1, 86–90, 97n.104, 117, 120–1, 154–8, 160n.34, 163–5,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Index 271 169–70, 171n.98, 172, 174–7, 179, 182, 222n.85 Saint-Seine see Androin de la Roche Saint-Seurin, Bordeaux see Peter Aimeri Saint-Sever 154–5 Saintes 135–7 San Ciriaco in Terminis, cardinal  168n.79 (see also William Testa) San Giorgio, cardinal see Iacopo Stefaneschi San Marcello, cardinal see Arnaud de Canteloup San Marco, cardinal see Bertrand de Déaux San Martino, cardinal see Guala Bicchieri San Vitale, cardinal see Jean Comminges, Niccolò Capocci Sant’Adriano, cardinal see Napoleone Orsini Sant’Angelo, cardinal see Giovanni Colonna Sant’Eustachio, cardinal see Peter Colonna Santa Anastasia, cardinal see Adhémar Robert Santa Lucia in Silice, cardinal see Galhard de la Mothe Santa Maria in Aquiro, cardinal see Bertrand of Montfavès Santa Maria in Cosmedin, cardinal see Raymond de Roux Santa Maria in Via lata, cardinal see Giacomo Colonna, Luca Fieschi Santa Maria Nuova, cardinal see Pierre Roger de Beaufort, Raymond de Farges, Raymond de Got Santa Maria in Porticu, cardinal see Arnaud Pellagrue Santa Prassede, cardinal see Pedro Gomez de Barroso Santa Prisca, cardinal see Arnaud Novel, Simon d’Archiac Santa Prudenziana, cardinal see William Ruffat Santa Sabina, cardinal see Arnaud de Falgères, Bertrand de Déaux, Gérard de Daumar, Guillaume de Peyre de Godin, Peter of Spain Santa Sabina, cardinal priest see Thomas of Capua, Thomas Jorz Santi Cosma and Damiano, cardinal see Boso, William Ruffat Santi Giovanni and Paolo, cardinal see Bertrand de BordesÉtienne Aubert, Jacobus de Via Santi Marcellino and Pietro, cardinal  168n.79 (see also Gaucelm de Jean) Santi Nereo and Achilleo, cardinal see Bérenger Frédol the younger Santo Stefano al Monte Celio, cardinal see Michel du Bec Sapiti Andrea  67–8, 72–3, 79, 86–7, 90–3, 95–6, 108–12, 115n.66 Gualterus, clerk  109n.34, 115n.66 Philip 95–6 Simon 95–6 Sarlat, abbey  154–5

Sayers J.  1–2, 33–4, 50, 69–70 Scalacronica see Thomas Gray Sceau du secret see France Schäfer K.H.  89n.68 Schwarz B.  18, 34–5, 39–40 Scone, abbey  142–4 Scots  86–7, 108–10, 112–13, 120n.88, 189–90, 192 Scotland, Scottish  61–2, 84–5, 119–20, 133, 135–7, 142–7, 151–2, 156–8, 161–2, 165n.61, 175–6, 185–90, 209–10 Balliol 142–4 Edward 187–8 Bruce 142–4 David  122–4, 186 Robert  61–2, 142–5 David II  187–8 Seal see England, Absence; Great Seal; Griffin Seal; King’s Seal; Privy Seal; Secret Seal; France, Sceau du secret Secret see Letters, Registers, Seal Secretariat, secretaries see England, France, Papacy Seneca 58–9 Sénez see Bertrandus, bishop Shalfleet, Isle of Wight  73n.109 Shared language of diplomacy (shared administrative and performative languages)  30–3, 51, 53, 55–6, 75, 182, 211–12, 214 Sicardus of Lavaur, canon of Narbonne  147 Sicily, Sicilian  175–6 (see also Angevin) Siena 25–6 Simon d’Archiac, cardinal of Santa Prisca  80–2 Simon de Langres  127–8, 216n.54 Simon Islip, archbishop of Canterbury  85–6 Simon Langham abbot of Westminster Abbey  85–6 archbishop of Canterbury  77–8 Simon Montfort see Montfort Simon Sapiti see Sapiti Sluys, battle  190–1 Sore see William Géraud Southern R. 16–17 Southwell see John Thoresby Spain, Spanish  163n.51, 165n.61, 183–4 Stamford  188 (see also Parliament) Stapeldon’s calendar see Walter Stapeldon Statute Provisors (1351)  74–5, 98–100, 125–9, 213–14 Praemunire (1353)  74–5, 98–100, 125–9, 213–14 Stacey R.C. 21–2 Stephen of S. Giorgio  51–2, 57–8, 68–9 Stilus curie  33–6, 39–40, 49–57, 64–8, 71–5, 84, 93

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

272 Index Stilus curie (cont.) Cursus Romane curie  34–5, 51–3, 64–6, 69–71, 75 Stylus supremus  58–9, 64 Stratford 200n.92 John, bishop of Winchester, archbishop of Canterbury  86–7, 90–1, 93–5, 110n.37, 114n.60, 115n.66, 164–70, 174, 180–1, 189–90, 193–4, 199–200 Richard 213n.42 Robert 194n.65 Stubbs W. 1n.1 Suffolk, earl  111n.44 Sumption J.  155–6, 184–6, 205–6, 218–19 Supplications see Registers Stylus supremus see Stilus curie Symon 220n.75 Taddeo da Sessa  51–2 Tarazona see Peter, bishop Taxation  22, 146, 149–50, 193–4 Taxatores litterarum apostolicarum in bullaria see Papacy Talleyrand de Périgord, cardinal of Albano  80n.20, 82–3, 93–5, 98–100, 127–8, 205–6, 209–10, 214–16, 216nn.55–6, 218–22 Tancarville see Jean de Melun, count Templars 134–5 Templeman G. 184–5 The National Archives, London  185–7, 189–90, 196–7, 208–10 Chancery Miscellanea  196–8 Thomas Bradeston  111n.44 Thomas Brayton  212n.38 Thomas de Berkele  58n.23, 136–7 Thomas Bradwardine, archbishop of Canterbury 85–6 Thomas Cantilupe  109n.33, 135–6, 140–1 Thomas of Capua, cardinal priest of Santa Sabina  34–5, 51–2 Thomas de Cherleton  108n.29 Thomas Cobham  136–7 Thomas Fastolf see Fastolf Thomas Gray  220n.74 Scalacronica 220n.74 Thomas Hoccleve  210–11, 212n.40 Thomas Jorz, cardinal priest of Santa Sabina  77–8, 80–2, 136–7, 142–4 Thomas of Lancaster  44–5, 119–20 Thomas Lisle, bishop of Ely  215–16 Thomas de la Mere, abbot of St Albans Abbey 85–6 Thomas de Plumstok  189–90 Thomas Sampson  51–2 Thomas of Southwark  142–4 Toubert P.  16, 24 Toulouse 136–7 Tour des Anges see Avignon

Touraine 5–6 Tournai 190–1 Tournaisis 190–1 Tours 34–5 Tout T.F.  1–2, 14, 20–1, 41–4, 50n.93, 199–200, 211–12 Tower see London Trabut-Cussac J.P. 134–7 Treasury, treasurer see England, Papacy Treaty (see also Rolls) Amiens  41–2, 162–3, 175n.111, 176n.115 Bordeaux  127–8, 205–6 Brétigny-Calais  5–6, 46n.74, 48–9, 82–3, 87–9, 95–6, 111–15, 127–8, 205–7, 209nn.19,21, 211–12, 214–16, 221–4, 221n.79 First Treaty of London  127–8, 205–7, 215–16, 219–20, 222–3 Guines  82–3, 98–100, 111–12, 114–15, 125–7, 207n.10, 209–11, 214–15, 219–20, 222–3 Paris  5–6, 155–6, 173–6 Second Treaty of London  127–8, 205–7, 209–12, 209n.19, 219–20, 222–3 Truce Calais  111–12, 124–5, 214–15 Esplechin  111–13, 124–5, 190–1, 193–5, 198–201, 203n.104, 222–3 La Réole  166–8, 180–1 Malestroit 111–12 Tuscany 34–5 Tusculum, cardinal see Annibaldo da Ceccano Urban II see Pope Urban IV see Pope Urban V see Pope Vale M.  23–4, 155–8 Valenciennes 188 Valois Blanche 87n.55 Charles  154–5, 162–3, 166–8 Joan of Valois, abbess of Fontenelles 191n.45 Vatican see Registers Vendome see Bouchard VI Venice, Venetian  54n.6 Vienne see Guillaume de Laudun Vincent N.  16, 21, 41–3 Vitalis de Villanova  54–5 Wales  136–7, 170–1, 175–6, 189–90 (see also England, Prince of Wales) Walter of Bedewynd  150–1 Walter of Langecestre 74 Walter Langton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield  135–7, 139–40, 144–5 Walter Reynolds, chancellor, archbishop of Canterbury  44–5, 56n.16, 144n.64, 149–50

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 01/07/19, SPi

Index 273 Walter Stapeldon, bishop of Exeter and treasurer of the exchequer  22–3, 48–9, 149–50, 173–6 Stapeldon’s calendar  100n.126, 175–6 Walton see Ordinances Wardrobe see England Warwick, earl  111n.44 Watts J. 183 Weber M.  5, 11–13, 30–3, 91, 102, 154, 182 Honoratiores  2n.7, 102 Weberian theory  3n.10, 76 Weiß S.  28, 89–90, 93–5 Wenceslas of Bohemia see Bohemia Westminster  43–4, 49–50, 61–2, 136–7, 150–1 (see also Parliament) Abbey see Simon Langham Wight, Isle of see Shalf leet William, archbishop of Braga  124–5 William, clerk  85–6 William Airmyn see Airmyn William Bateman (William of Norwich), dean of Lincoln, auditor sacri palacii 86–7, 90–1, 111–13, 124–5, 191–4 (see also audientia sacri palacii) William de Bohun  189–90 William de Briston  108 William Burstall  197n.76 William Burton  213n.42 William of Clynton  188 William Comyn see Comyn William Edington  211–13 William of Gainsborough, bishop of Worcester  58n.23, 136–7, 139–40, 149–50 William Géraud of Sore  144–5, 149 William Kilsby, keeper of the privy seal, keeper of the rolls of chancery  113–14, 193–4, 199–204 William Lamberton, bishop of St Andrews  142–4, 147 William de Lenne  220n.75 William Melton  148–9 William Mirfield  212n.38 William Montacute, earl of Salisbury  114n.60, 188

William of Norwich see William Bateman William Ruffat, cardinal of Santi Cosma and Damiano, Santa Prudenziana  80–2 William Testa, cardinal of San Ciriaco in Terminis  80–2, 96–7, 144–5, 149 William Tickhill  212n.38 William Weston  161–2, 169–70, 180–1 William Whittlesey  125–7 William de Wrytele see Robert son of William de la Zouche see Zouche, de la Winchester  20–1, 109nn.35–6, 121–2, 164–8, 177–9 (see also James of Florence; John of Pontissara; Stratford, John; William of Gainsborough) Wilkinson B.  14, 41n.43, 45–7, 85n.46, 195, 199–200 Willershausen A.  117–19, 127–8, 184–5, 187n.19, 205–6, 222n.85 Worcester see William of Gainsborough, Wulfstan de Bransford Wright R.  1–2, 76–82, 96–7, 100, 107–8, 146, 149–50 Wulfstan de Bransford, bishop-elect of Worcester 85–6 XII Apostles, cardinal see Pierre de la Foret York  92n.83, 96–100, 96n.98, 111–14, 142–4, 150–1, 193–5, 198–202 (see also Ordinances; Parliament; St Mary’s; Zouche, William) Zacour N.P. 205–6 Zanke S.  39n.29, 119–20, 156–61, 163n.53, 167n.76, 170–1 Zanobi da Strada  216–18 Zey C. 116n.69 Zouche, de la Roger 85–6 William, dean of York  113–14, 193–4 Zutshi P.N.R.  1–2, 4–5, 18, 38–41, 50, 104–6, 111–12, 134–8, 140nn.43,45, 146, 158n.22, 172–3, 202–3, 216–18