History of Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140-1234: From Gratian to the
Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, ed. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington
(History of Medieval Canon Law; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University
of America Press, 2008) 318-366.
The History of Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140-1234: From Gratian to the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, ed. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington (History of Medieval Canon Law; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008) 318-366.
Conciliar Law 1123-1215: The Legislation of the
Four Lateran Councils
Anne J. Duggan
When a bishop declared at the beginning of Third Lateran Council in 1177 that only the Roman Church could issue decrees of universal character, he was proclaiming a principle which had inspired reforming popes since Leo IX. The resumption of regular Roman councils, usually held in the Lateran during Lent, had been a crucial element both in the progress of the >Gregorian= reform movement and in the assertion of papal leadership of the church. At the same time, the schisms and crises of the papal‑imperial controversy (c.1075-1122) forced the popes to travel extensively outside the papal states, holding councils and reiterating reforming decrees wherever they went. The >Investiture= dispute thus brought the papacy into direct contact with trans‑Alpine Europe. Popes and their legates presided at large councils, which reiterated the main messages of the reformers, condemned local abuses, and proclaimed papal primacy. The Church thus became accustomed to such plenary gatherings, which became increasingly more representative of the whole Latin Church merely of the Church in Rome, or the papal estates, or even Italy.
Of the three so‑called >general= councils held at the Lateran in the twelfth century, only the third, Alexander III=s Lateran Council of 1179, can be regarded as fully ecumenical according to the standards of the time. During the thirteenth century, Alexander III=s council and Innocent III=s Lateran Council of 1215 were designated as Lateran I and Lateran II in the legislation of local councils in England and France, and it was only in late medieval sources that the Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139 came to be designated Lateran I and Lateran II, while those of 1179 and 1215 were duly re‑numbered Lateran III and Lateran IV. The Greek Church did not recognize the ecumenical status of any council later than the Second Council of Nicaea (786-787), which came to be regarded as the seventh and last general council of the undivided Church, and the dogmatic debates between Latin and Greek theologians at the Council of Ferrara‑Florence‑Rome in 1439 were based on the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils recognized by both sides.
In fact, the so‑called Lateran Councils I and II were indistinguishable in form and legislation from the many papal councils from the 1090s onwards, which were the most characteristic feature of the ecclesiastical reform movement of the period. Urban II=s councils of Piacenza (1095), Clermont (November, 1095), Nîmes (July, 1096), Bari (October, 1098), and Rome (April, 1099), Gelasius II=s council at Toulouse (May, 1119), and Eugenius III=s council of Reims (March, 1148) were all similar in character and legislation and not significantly different in authority, attendance, or reception. It was only in retrospect that Lateran I and Lateran II were differentiated from the other papal councils of the period and associated with the more legally sophisticated and influential Lateran council of 1179. All three Lateran councils, however, belong to the same tradition and illustrate the increasingly effective exercise of legislative authority by the papacy. They continued and enlarged upon the reforming tradition of the papal synods of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries in regarding clerical discipline and freedom from lay authority, while consciously placing themselves in the venerable tradition of the early councils, sometimes citing the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon by name. Calixtus II, especially, emphasized the antiquity of the sources for his legislation in 1123 by alluding to the >canones apostolorum= and by appealing to the authority of the ancient fathers in such phrases as >Sacrorum patrum exampla sequentes=, >sicut sanctis canonibus constitutum est=, >Sanctorum patrum canonibus consona sentientes=, >Sanctorum etiam patrum vestigiis inhaerentes=, >Paternarum traditionum exemplis commoniti=, etc. Both Innocent II and Alexander III referred to the authority of >the canons= or >the sacred canons=.
Simultaneously however, the popes referred to the more recent tradition of papal legislation, naming the pseudo >Pope Stephen= as well as Gregory VII, Urban II, Paschal II, Innocent II, and Eugenius III, and emphasizing their apostolic authority in such phrases as >auctoritate sedis apostolicaeYprobibemus=, >apostolica auctoritate praecipimus=, >auctoritate apostolica praecipimus=, >sancti Spiritus auctoritate confirmamus= (Calixtus II); >apostolica auctoritate decernimusYapostolica auctoritate interdicimus=, >apostolica auctoritate prohibemus=, >auctoritate Dei et beatorum Petri et PauliYinterdicimus= (Innocent II); >commissa nobis auctoritate curemus=, >beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli auctoritate confisi= (Alexander III). In all three councils, the language of the canons alternates between papal commands in the first person pluralC>prohibemus=, >interdicimus=, >irritas esse iudicamus=, >statuimus=, >censemus=, >concedimus=, >statuimus=, >praecipimus=, >inhibemus=, etc.. and impersonal decreesC>careat dignitate=, >deponatur=, >arceatur=, >careat=, >excommunicationi subiaceat=, etc.; and a growing sense of legislative authority is implied in the formulation of the decrees. Where Calixtus II issued short commands, Alexander III proclaimed basic principles, sometimes cited scriptural authority, and laid down carefully composed legal definitions. The twenty‑two decrees of Lateran I occupy five pages of Alberigo=s edition, the thirty canons of Lateran II fill seven, the twenty‑seven canons of Lateran III comprise fifteen pages. Alexander=s canons are thus, on average, more than twice as long as those of his predecessors, and reveal a greater sophistication in form and language, reflecting the significant legal development which had taken place in the four decades following Lateran II and the publication of the last recension of Gratian=s Decretum (ca. 1140-1144).
All three councils were great ecclesiastical gatherings (each one in fact larger than its predecessor). Whereas Lateran I was attended by some two hundred bishops and abbots and Lateran II by more than one hundred bishops and an unrecorded number of abbots, Lateran III included about three hundred bishops and an unknown number of abbots and their attendants, and some lay princes were present in person or by proxy. The councils afforded opportunities for individuals or groups to raise personal, local or group issues. At the First Lateran, for example, the archbishop‑elect of Bremen sought restoration of his metropolitan jurisdiction over the Scandinavian Church. Conrad of Constance was canonized at Lateran I, and Sturmi of Fulda at Lateran II. Bishops raised questions about the subordination of monasteries; and the problems of heterodoxy and heresy were discussed at Lateran II (>Petrohusians=, the followers of Peter of Bruys: c.2) and Lateran III (Cathars, etc., c.27). These councils reflect increasing ecclesiastical centralization under the authority of the papacy, but more significantly they suggest a growing centripetalism C a tendency to turn to the center for support and authority C paralleling the growth of the papacy=s appellate jurisdiction. They also represent a growing commitment to legal and institutional unity and uniformity within the Latin Church.
The reform movement had emphasized the authority of ancient law, which in turn had spurred the creation of collections of law designed to serve the interests of the reformers. The Collection in 74 Titles, for example, was taken to Germany by papal legates, and there copied and circulated. Councils, reform, and the revival of canon law and of papal and episcopal authority were closely interconnected, since an essential foundation of the reform movement was the re‑assertion and re‑definition of the disciplinary authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy culminating in the papacy; and papal and legatine councils demonstrated the primacy of the popes. Even the protocol, which placed the pope on an elevated dais, surrounded by his curia and the cardinals, emphasized the pope=s supremacy.
Our knowledge of conciliar procedure is incomplete. For neither Lateran I nor Lateran II is there a reliable contemporary report of the whole process, but it is likely that the procedure recorded for the papal council of Reims in 1119 was followed. After six formal sessions, the canons were dictated by John of Crema, written down by John, a monk of the Benedictine monastery of Saint‑Ouen of Rouen, then formally promulgated through solemn recitation by the >bibliothecarius= of the Roman Church, Cardinal Chrysogonus. The promulgation of the canons was followed by the excommunication of enemies in a dramatic ceremony in which 427 tapers were lit and extinguished. Finally, Pope Calixtus II issued indulgences and bestowed his blessing. From the time of the Third Lateran Council, however, there survives an Ordo Romanus for the holding of councils, which prescribed the liturgical aspects of the occasion and three solemn sessions, culminating with the publication of the decrees in the manner of Reims 1119.
From the surviving reports of various interested parties, it is clear that complex questions of jurisdiction and orthodoxy were not generally debated by the full council but assigned to special commissions of experts (>periti=). At Lateran I, for example, the dispute about Corsica was deputed to a commission of twelve archbishops and twelve bishops; at Lateran III, the election of Bertold of Bremen was submitted to the adjudication of two cardinals, and two representatives of the Vaudois sect were examined by a commission presided over by a bishop.
It is supposed that by the time of Lateran IV the papal chancery was sufficiently organized to make possible the rapid multiplication of texts of the decrees, but there is no reliable information about the procedure adopted for the dissemination of the decrees of either Lateran IV or the first three Lateran councils. The evidence we have is conflicting. On the one hand, the survival of copies of Lateran decrees in local archives and chronicles implies that texts were taken away by the participants. Twelve canons from the >alpha= recension of the decrees of Lateran I (omitting 11-12 and 15-17) were inserted into Symeon of Durham=s Historia regum, for example; Gerhoh of Reichersberg knew the legislation of Lateran II, and four English chronicles recorded the full legislation of Lateran III. On the other hand, the many discrepancies in the textual tradition of the legislation suggest that the participants may have constructed their own records. The confusion in the texts of Lateran I could be explained in this way. For Lateran II and III, the differences may be explained, at least in part, by the wider dissemination of the texts and the possibility that more than one archetype was made available for copying.
The First Lateran Council
The chief reason for the summons of the First Lateran Council of 1123 was the formal ratification of the settlement of the Investiture dispute, which had been reached at Worms in the preceding September (1122), but many current issues were raised by interested partiesCthe claims of Bremen‑Hamburg to metropolitan authority over Scandinavia; those of Ravenna to jurisdiction over Ferrara; the jurisdictional dispute between the bishops of Siena and Arezzo and between the monasteries of Saint‑Macaire and Sainte‑Croix in Bordeaux; the contest between Pisa and Genoa for ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the island of Corsica; and the canonization of Conrad of Constance.
While these aspects of the council=s business are well recorded in contemporary chronicles, the legislation has been less securely transmitted. Alberigo identified two recensions, >alpha= and >beta=, the one with seventeen canons, the other with twenty‑two, and there are additional discrepancies and confusions. Various systems of enumeration occur in the learned literature; for simplicity, the number and order of the Alberigo edition have been followed here. In its general canons, the council carried forward the >Gregorian= attack on simony, clerical marriage and concubinage, and secular exploitation in all its forms. >Following the example of the holy fathers=, the simoniacal acquisition of ecclesiastical office or promotion is prohibited, on pain of deposition (c.1); only those canonically elected may be consecrated as bishops, on pain of deposition (c.3); citing the authority of the Council of Nicaea (325), marriage or concubinage is forbidden to all clergy in the subdiaconate and above (cc.7, 21); and minimum grades are established for ecclesiastical office: only priests may be appointed provost, archpriest or dean; only deacons may be appointed archdeacon (c.6).
Four canons deal with various forms of lay abuse of ecclesiastical persons or property: denouncing lay exploitation of the Church=s goods as a form of sacrilege (c.8), forbidding lay fortification or control of churches (c.12, ad fin.) and lay acquisition of tithes, without episcopal permission (c.18), and threatening with anathema anyone who attacks or despoils churches or monasteries, or injures their personnel, or attacks or robs those who come to churches and monasteries to pray (c.20).
At the same time, six canons sought to reverse the disintegration of episcopal authority which had occurred through the growth of private patronage and monastic exemption: the excommunicates of one bishop may not be received into communion by other bishops or abbots (c.2); the cure of souls or prebends may not be assigned by any lesser prelate without the approval of the bishop, since the sacred canons lay down that the cure of souls and the dispensing of ecclesiastical affairs should remain in the bishop=s power (c.4); parish priests may be appointed only by bishops, and they may not receive tithes or churches from laymen without the bishop=s permission (c.18); monks must be properly subject to their bishop: they may not celebrate public masses or visit, anoint or hear the confessions of the sick, and the priests who minister in their churches must be instituted by the bishop, to whom they are responsible for the cure of souls (c.16); neither monks nor abbots may lease churches or the property of bishops (c.19); and all alienation of ecclesiastical property is forbidden (c.22). Most of the canons deal with strictly ecclesiastical affairs; but two concern matters of wider social importance. Consanguineous marriages are condemned and those who contract them are branded with infamy (c.9), and the Truce of God is given general application (c.15).
In addition to disciplinary questions affecting the whole church, the council dealt with matters of local or temporary import. The ordinations of Maurice Bourdin (anti‑pope >Gregory VIII=) and the bishops consecrated by him were nullified (c.5); Pope Urban II=s protection for crusaders was renewed, with penalties for those who had taken the Cross but failed to fulfil their vows (c.10); and five canons concerned malefactors in Rome and the papal states. Automatic excommunications were promulgated against laity who removed offerings from Roman churches (naming St Peter=s, St John Lateran, S. Maria Rotunda, St Nicholas of Bari, St Giles: c. 12 at the beginning), the makers and users of false coin 8. 13), the brigands who attacked pilgrims to the holy places in Rome or merchants (c.14), anyone who attempted to hold the city of Benevento by military might (c.17); and, using the significant formulation, >with the advice of our brethren and of the whole Curia and with the approval and agreement of the Prefect=, Calixtus abrogated the >wicked custom=, whereby the property of deceased >Porticani= was disposed of against their wishes and without the approval of their heirs (c.11).
With these seven exceptions, the canons were all in the reform tradition and seven repeat, echo, or give greater prominence to earlier legislation (and an eighth refers to a decision of Pope Urban II). The targets are simony, clerical concubinage, appointment of unsuitable ecclesiastics, and lay abuse of ecclesiastical persons, offices, or incomes, and the principal antidote is the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline through formal restatement of the law and reinforcement of episcopal responsibility and authority.
Within a very few years, the statutes of local councils in England, Normandy, France, and Spain began to echo the conciliar legislation. For most of these councils, little except their place and date has been recorded, not always accurately, but enough survives to demonstrate the wide dissemination of the Lateran=s decrees. Seven of its canons were echoed in Cardinal John of Crema=s legatine legislation at Westminster in 1125; five in William of Corbeil=s, also at Westminster, in 1127; two in Cardinal Alberic of Ostia=s Westminster Council in 1138; and five occur in Raymond of Toledo=s council at Palencia in 1129. But it is clear from even a brief comparison of the conciliar texts, that the local legislators interwove general with particular concerns, intermingled Lateran material with their own local sources, and adapted legislation to their own circumstances. The texts of the decrees were not regarded as inviolate: their prescriptions were summarized, abbreviated, and adapted to the structure of the local codes.
More importantly for the development of the learned law, fourteen of the twenty‑two canons were received into Gratian=s Decretum, in whole or in part, and thus found their way into the work which became the basis, not only for the academic study of canon law in Bologna and elsewhere, but also for the application of that same law throughout the ecclesiastical courts of Europe. In this way, Lateran I made a permanent contribution to ecclesiastical law on simony, episcopal appointment, episcopal control over benefices, the requirements for ecclesiastical office, lay power in church affairs, consanguinity, monastic competence, clerical immunity, clerical concubinage, and the alienation of church property. Omitted were three whose contents were covered by alternative texts and five which could be deemed of local or temporary application.
It is significant, however, that Gratian attributed none of these canons to a council. Except where he wrongly attributed four canons to Urban II (cc.18-20 and 22), his normal mode of citation is >Item Calixtus papa=. The rulings are thus attributed to the pope and not to the council. Nevertheless, Gratian showed far more respect for the integrity of the individual texts. He sometimes merged two canons into one, but did not significantly disturb the verbal integrity of his source.
Second Lateran Council (1139)
Just as the First Lateran Council was called to ratify the Concord of Worms and restore the authority of the papacy over a re‑united Church, the Second Council of the Lateran was called to celebrate the ending of the eight‑year schism between Anacletus II and Innocent II. This had been a >Roman= schism, in that the dispute between the rival claimants to the papal office was principally a dispute between rival noble families within the city (Frangipani vs. Pierleoni), but it had occurred at a critical moment, since the papal leadership of the reform was imperilled by the existence of two opposing claimants to the chair of St Peter. Nevertheless, Innocent II had progressively secured the support of the Latin Church and, indeed, carried forward the reforms with councils at Clermont (1130), Reims (1131), and Pisa (1135), and in personal interviews with Louis VI of France, Henry I of England, and Lothair III of Germany. Attended by one hundred bishops, among whom was the Latin patriarch of Antioch, and an estimated four hundred abbots and lesser prelates, the council issued 30 decrees, largely repeating the legislation of Innocent=s own councils of Clermont, Reims, and Pisa, together with that of earlier councils. One decree merely repeats the prohibitions of Lateran I against consanguineous marriages (c.17). But although much of its legislation reiterated the principal themes of the reform, it did so with greater precision. Lateran I had prohibited the reception of excommunicates; Lateran II reinforced the prohibition by imposing the same sentence on those who knowingly communicate with excommunicates (c.3). Three canons concern various forms of illicit traffic in sacred things, but whereas the First Lateran had issued a general condemnation of simony, whose essence is repeated in Lateran II (c.1: anyone receiving orders through simony is to be deposed), the Second Lateran details whole categories of office and spiritual ministry which are included in the prohibition, and adds infamy to the penalty of deprivation: anyone receiving ecclesiastical preferment of any kind (prebends, priories, deaneries, etc.) for payment is to be deposed and disgraced; any trafficking in sacred things (chrism, holy oil, consecration of altars, etc.) is to involve both buyer and seller in the penalties of >infamia= (c.2); no money can be taken for chrism, holy oil, or burial (c.24).
On the question of clerical morality and discipline, Lateran II is likewise more explicit: not only is marriage forbidden to clerics in the subdiaconate and above (c.6), but lay people are forbidden to hear the Masses of incontinent clergy (c.7), the inheritance of ecclesiastical office is forbidden (c.16), and sons of priests are not to serve churches, unless they have first lived in monasteries or houses of canons (c.21: Presbyterorum filios); and clerks must maintain the tonsure and wear appropriate ecclesiastical dress (c.4). In repeating Lateran I=s prescriptions about the appropriate sacerdotal grade for archdeacons and deans, Lateran II added that such offices were not to be conferred on unordained youths, and any refusing to receive the appropriate ordination were to be deprived of their offices (c.10, at the end). The misdeeds of religious or self‑styled religious are similarly condemned in specific terms: following popes Gregory VII, Urban II, and Paschal II, professed nuns are forbidden to marry (c.8), monks and canons may not study secular law or medicine for money (c.9), men and women religious may not use the same choir (c.27), women who call themselves nuns but do not live according to the Rule of St Benedict, St Basil, or St Augustine are condemned (c.26). On the other hand, the rights of religious to participate in episcopal elections is confirmed (c.28).
Equally, the attack on lay abuse of ecclesiastical institutions was continued: on the authority of Chalcedon (451, c.22), the seizure of the goods of deceased clerics was forbidden (c.5); lay persons may not have ecclesiastical tithes; lay owners of churches must restore them to the bishop=s power, on pain of excommunication (c.10); ecclesiastical offices may not be received from laymen; laymen may not dispose of ecclesiastical goods (c.25); and false penitents, who feign repentance but do not give up the sin, are condemned (c.22).
Reflecting the continuing disorder and violence in many parts of Christendom, the Council reiterated with greater emphasis and precision Lateran I=s embrace of the Peace movement, confirming the >Truce of God=Ccessation of military action during the sacred seasons of Christmas and Easter (from the beginning of Advent until the octave of the Epiphany [13 January] and from Quinquagesima Sunday until the Octave of Easter) and also every week‑end throughout the rest of the year, from sunset on Wednesday until sunrise on Monday (c.12), and proclaiming the general security of priests, clerks, monks, pilgrims, merchants, and rustics (c.11). But the extremely important decree Si quis suadente declared that anyone who laid hands on clerks or monks was automatically excommunicated for the sacrilege and could be absolved only by the Roman pontiff (c.15). The condemnations of tournaments (c.14), of >the murderous art of crossbowmen and archers= (c.29), of arsonists, and those who lay waste the country‑side (c.18), are part of the same commitment to peace and security. The ultimate sanction of denial of Christian burial is applied against those who die in tournaments or in the commission of arson; and one year=s service in Jerusalem or Spain is proposed as an appropriate penance for arson (cc.14, 18). Bishops who relax the arson law are to be deprived of episcopal office for a year (c.19), and, in consultation with archbishops and bishops, kings and princes are permitted to act against such persons (c.20). In a similar and highly significant manner, the council condemned those (heretics) who impugn the sacraments and ordered them to be coerced by >potestates exteros= (c.23). Also significant for the future, was the strong condemnation of usury, which carried not only the penalty of >infamia= but also denial of Christian burial for the unrepentant (c.13), and the language used to nullify the ordinations of Pierleone (the anti‑pope Anacletus II) >and other schismatics and heretics= (c.30). It was as a >schismatic and a heretic= that Benedict XIII was deposed by the Council of Constance in 1417!
What is evident is the greater length and detail of these canons in comparison with those of the First Lateran Council, and the emphasis on consequences and penalties: those who do not enforce the law are to suffer; certain actions carry not only automatic excommunication but denial of Christian burial (participation in tournaments, usury, arson); and they embrace a wider social program: condemning usury, arson and devastation, tournaments, and the use of deadly weapons (bows and crossbows). In many ways, this was an extension of the Truce of God movementCattempting to protect certain categories of vulnerable non‑combatants from violence at all times: clergy, travellers, and country‑people.
Ordericus Vitalis considered the council of small value, and Gerhoh von Reichersberg lamented the non‑implementation in German lands of c.10 on the lay misuse of tithes and c.28 on episcopal elections, but its canons influenced synodal legislation at Saintes in 1140, and Eugenius III=s council at Reims in 1148. Eighteen of its thirty canons were received into Gratian=s Decretum, in whole or in part, and c.29 was received into the Decretales of 1234, where it is ascribed to Innocent III. Lateran II thus contributed significantly to the development of the law on simony, clerical life and behavior, violence to clerks (Si quis suadente: c.15), the non‑hereditability of benefices (Presbyterorum filios: c.21), arson and devastation, >false religious=, and the association of male and female religious in liturgical services. The legislation against tournaments and deadly weapons was largely ignored.
Gratian=s treatment of the canons of the second Lateran is similar to his treatment of those of the first. Only twice does he refer to a council as the source of the decrees (cc.18-19-20 and c.28), but even then he does not name the precise location. Canons 18-20 (combined in one citation) are identified as a general decree issued by Innocent II in the universal council (>Innocentius II in uniuersali concilio generaliter constituit=), and canon 28 is described as a decree of Pope Innocent issued in the general synod held in Rome (>in generali synodo Innocentii Papae Romae habita constitutum est=)Cas Cheney pointed out, they were >seldom ascribed to a council and never to a Lateran council.= Apart from his single mis‑attribution to Urban II (c.21) the remainder of his citations are >Innocentius papa= (cc.2, 7-8, 15) or >Innocentius II= (cc.4-6, 10, 12, 22, 26-27) or >Innocentius Papa II= (c.16). The legal compiler preferred the authority of the person who issued the ruling to the forum in which it was issued.
Third Lateran Council (1179)
Summoned in letters dated 21 September 1178, the Third Lateran Council assembled on 5 March and ended on 19 March 1179. The Acta of the council, drawn up by William of Tyre, have not survived, nor has the official text of the canons been established, but contemporary chronicles contain ample accounts both of the proceedings and of the legislation. No fewer than four English chronicles contain full texts of the canons, and Ralph de Diceto, dean of St Paul=s in London, cited two canons from >the many memorable decrees= issued by the council.
Like its two predecessors, Lateran III met in the aftermath of schism and papal‑imperial disputes. Since 1159 the papacy of Alexander III had been disturbed by an imperially supported schism of three successive anti‑popes (Victor IV, 1159-1164; Paschal III, 1164-1168; Calixtus III, 1168-1178) and the Emperor Frederick I=s attempts to impose imperial control on the North Italian cities. Alexander successfully negotiated the perils of the times. Despite the risks of the schism, he significantly advanced the legal and judicial role of the papacy, responding to appeals and issuing many hundreds appellate decisions on cases brought to Rome from all the regions of the Latin Church outside German lands. The Third Lateran was thus a demonstration of the restored unity of the Latin Church and a recognition of papal leadership within it; but it was also a culmination of the reform program pursued in papal and legatine councils for more than a century. The opening address, given by the bishop of Assisi, reads like a panegyric to the eminent dignity of the Roman church, this >city of the sun=, >the first and principal churchYover which presides this great pontiff and supreme patriarch=, and proclaims its paramount legislative authority, >Only the Roman Church has the power to summon a general council, to make new laws, and to abrogate old ones=.
The twenty‑seven decrees issued in the council concern four principal aspects of Church life: the election and appointment of clerics (cc.1, 3, 5, 8), clerical life and behavior (cc.11-16, 18), condemnation of abuses (cc.4, 6-7, 9-10, 17, 19), and sanctions against various social ills (cc.20, 23, 25) and illicit dealings with Jews, Saracens, heretics, and mercenaries (cc.22, 24-27).
Election and appointment
The four canons on ecclesiastical elections and appointments were to be of permanent importance. Licet de vitanda (c.1) laid down the principle that a two thirds majority of the cardinals was required for a valid papal election, while accepting that the choice of the >maior et sanior pars= should be accepted in other episcopal elections. Licet de vitanda has remained the basic electoral law of the papacy, with minor modifications, until the present day. Cum in sacris (c.3) established the basic requirements for admission to ecclesiastical office: >aetatis maturitas et morum gravitas et scientia litterarum= (mature age, sound character, and literacy), and defined the age requirement as thirty for a bishop and twenty‑five for any office involving pastoral responsibility (the cure of souls). In addition, bishops must be of legitimate birth, and all appointees must, within the canonical period, receive the appropriate clerical order for the office they have receivedCpriesthood for deans and the diaconate for archdeacons. Episcopus si aliquem (c.5) required bishops who ordained priests or deacons >sine certo titulo=, without a specific benefice or sufficient private income, to maintain them at their own expense. And Nulla ecclesiastica ministeria (c.8) forbade the practice of promising benefices before the death of the incumbent; bishops (or chapters) must appoint new candidates within six months, or lose the right of appointment (creating the principle of devolution).
Five of the seven canons concerning clerical life and behavior reinforced the reforming regulations of the previous century: suspect women were to be removed from clerics= houses on pain of loss of benefice, clerical and lay homosexuality was condemned, clergy were forbidden to frequent nunneries (c.11), clergy might not engage in secular business (c.12), churches must be served by clerics who can reside in them (c.13); the accumulation of benefices (c.14, beginning), alienation of ecclesiastical property and venal appointment of rural deans were prohibited (c.15), but canons 16, 18 and 22 broke important new ground. Cum in cunctis (c.16) gave conciliar support to the principle of majority rule in ecclesiastical communities, so that decisions made by the >maior et sanior pars= should not be obstructed by small cliques or bad local custom. Quoniam ecclesia Dei (c.18) ordered the assignment of a prebend in every cathedral church to maintain a Master to teach clergy and poor scholars without payment, and the re‑establishment of such arrangements wherever they had existed in collegiate or monastic churches in earlier times. The license to teach should be bestowed freely, and no suitable teacher should be denied. And an important canon, Cum dicat Apostolus (c.23), allowed communities of lepers to have their own churches and priests, tithe free, as long as the rights of the parish church were not infringed.
Equally realistic was the approach to abuse. Instead of merely outlawing simony, three canons dealt with specific malpractice, regulating the rights of bishops, archdeacons, legates, and others to receive hospitality from their subjects, and imposing reasonable limits on the size of their trains (c.4), forbidding fees for the induction of bishops, abbots, and other prelates, or for blessings, burials, or the conferment of the sacraments (c.7), forbidding monasteries to exact payment for entry into the religious life (c.10). At the same time, Cum et plantare (c.9) condemned the abuses of privilege which undermined episcopal authority, by Templars, Hospitallers and other privileged orders, and reiterated the rule that diocesan clergy could be nominated and removed only with the consent of the bishop. The same concern for the appointment of suitable pastors is evident in Quoniam in quibusdam (c.17), which condemned abuse of churches by lay patrons, and in two wide‑ranging decrees, Quia in tantum (c.14) and Non minus (c.19), further forms of lay abuse are condemned. Lay appointment of clergy, the imposition of secular taxes and imposts, lay possession of tithes, and the compulsion of clerks to appear before lay courts are all forbidden on pain of excommunication, while the transfer of tithes from one layman to another is forbidden on pain of denial of Christian burial (c.14); and the imposition of secular liabilities on churches is forbidden, on pain of excommunication (c.19). The abuse of power by ecclesiastical prelates is condemned in Reprehensibilis valde (c.6), which forbids excommunication or suspension without proper warning and orders due respect to be given to appellants, who must nevertheless prosecute their appeals or suffer financial penalties.
The fourth segment of the legislation, concerning broader questions of social and political life, opens with an almost verbatim recapitulation of four decrees which had already been promulgated in Lateran II, forbidding jousts (c.20), confirming the Truce of God (c.21), renewing ecclesiastical protection for priests, monks, clergy, lay brothers (>conversi=), pilgrims, merchants, and peasants (c.22), and a general condemnation of usury, punishable by excommunication and denial of Christian burial (c.25). The remaining three canons deal with relations with Jews, Saracens, and heretics. Ita quorundam (c.24) forbids the selling of arms or supplies to the Saracens, or Christian service in Saracen galleys, and condemns all acts of piracy or the maltreatment of victims of shipwreck; Iudei sive Saraceni (c.26) forbids Jews and Saracens to employ Christian servants. The very important last canon, Sicut ait beatus Leo (c.27), declared that all heretics (Cathars, Paterines, >Publicans=) and their
defenders and all who receive them are anathema. It forbade any support or aid to be given to them on pain of denial of Christian burial and dissolved all bonds of loyalty, homage and obedience owed to them. The canon also ordered secular powers to take punitive action against them and bestowed ecclesiastical protection on those who take such action under the bishop=s direction to expel the heretics. This canon was the precedent for the decree Ad abolendam, issued with the support of Emperor Frederick I at Verona in 1184, which established the principle of episcopal investigation of heretics. Lucius III declared all heretics anathema, commanded bishops to investigate and condemn them, and authorized the secular authorities to punish those who persisted in their heresy, both clerical (after degradation) and lay. This latter decree itself evidence of the threat to orthodox religion posed by organized heresy, marks the first stage in the creation of the episcopal Inquisition. Canon 27 also condemned to equal execration mercenaries and their employers and supporters.
The first two Lateran councils occurred in time to be received into Gratian=s Decretum, and thus become part of the learned law studied in the schools and applied in ecclesiastical courts throughout Christendom. The timing of the Third Lateran Council was equally fortunate. The intervening forty years had seen the creation of the decretal‑based ius novum and the formation of a learned legal culture common to the whole Church. As early as the 1150s, new legal definitions from papal decretals were being inserted into copies of the Decretum; from the 1160s, collections of the new law, including the decrees of recent councils, were being assembled by judges delegate and their circles in England. Individual decrees of the Council of Reims (1148), for example, are found in six collections from the period; the decrees of Alexander III=s Council of Tours (1163) are found in seven English collections, and the decrees of Richard of Canterbury=s legatine council of Westminster (1175) were included in Belverensis. The canons of Lateran III were immediately received into decretal collections and widely disseminated. Alberigo lists twenty‑two collections which contain the whole text, and he concluded that the decrees of this council were disseminated through the whole Latin Church and exerted a great influence on its courts and affairs. Not surprisingly, all 27 canons were received into the Liber Extra, the formal collection of law made by Raymond of Peñafort for Pope Gregory IX in 1234 and promulgated by him for use >in iudiciis et in scholis.=
At the same time, many of its decrees were echoed and amplified in diocesan and provincial councils throughout the West: at Rouen in 1190, at Montpellier in 1195, at Westminster in 1200, and in the conciliar activities of reformers like Odo de Sully in Paris (H 1209) and Stephen Langton in Canterbury (1213 -1214), as well as in the work of papal legates Robert de Courçon, Paris, 1213; Rouen, February 1214; Bordeaux, June 1214, and Peter of Benevento, Montpellier, January 1215. Even more significantly, the council=s legislation restricting ecclesiastical retinues and procurations (c.4), restricting vacancies to six months, after which the right of appointment would devolve on the next ecclesiastical superior (c.8), forbidding religious to receive tithes or churches from lay hands without the bishop=s permission (c.9), forbidding plurality of >beneficia curata= (c.13), ordering the appointment of schoolmasters (c.18), and forbidding the imposition of lay imposts and taxes on churches (c.19), was explicitly cited in five decrees of Lateran IV (1215), and its influence can be detected in a further sixteen. The Fourth Lateran=s decrees on heresy (c.3), clerical incontinence (c.14), bloodshed and tournaments (cc.18, 71), devolution in episcopal and monastic churches (cc.23, 29), election by scrutiny or compromise, accepting the >maior vel sanior pars= principle (c.24), the appointment of suitably qualified clergy (c.26), qualifications for ecclesiastical appointment (c.30), lay possession of tithes (c.32), appeals (c.35), clerical immunity from secular taxation (c.46), excommunications (c.47), monastic privileges (c.57), and various forms of simony (cc.63-64), all echo the prescriptions of Lateran III.
Not only did the Third Lateran=s legislation profoundly affect both the canon law and the provincial and diocesan legislation across Europe, its influence can be found in the moral and penitential literature of the time. Echoes of at least fourteen of its canons have been found in pastoral manuals composed in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Peter the Chanter, Alan of Lille, Robert of Flamborough, Peter of Poitiers, Thomas of Chobham, and Raymond of Peñafort include some of its provisions, Peter the Chanter, Alan, and Raymond citing the council or Alexander III by name.
Although there is considerable continuity between the three Lateran councils, the Third Lateran significantly eclipsed its predecessors. Its canons demonstrate a greater juristic maturity in language and construction, with greater precision both in the definition of misconduct and in the sanctions to be applied. Behind the legislation of Lateran III was the legal expertise built up through the pontificate of Alexander III, whose numerous decisions and responses to consultations from bishops and ecclesiastical judges across Europe had laid the basis of the decretal law which would ultimately form the largest single element of the Gregorian Decretales of 1234. The authority with which the council spoke, the clarity of its definitions, and the rapidity with which its legislation was disseminated throughout Latin Christendom assured its place both in the history of the Church and in the history of canon law.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
Summoned by the bull Vineam Domini Sabaoth on 19 April 1213, the Fourth Lateran Council opened in Rome on 11 November 1215. By all measures, it was the largest, most representative, and most influential council assembled under papal leadership before the end of the fourteenth century. It was attended by some four hundred bishops and eight hundred abbots, priors, and representatives of collegiate churches. The first three Lateran councils marked the end of schisms or the resolution of disputes. The fourth, in contrast, marked the culmination of the career of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), one of the most remarkable and successful popes of the Middle Ages, and represented his determination to provide effective mechanisms for reform. At the same time, it marked the culmination of the legislative and legal evolution since Lateran I, combining derivations from the ius antiquum with more recent conciliar and decretal law. Its sources included twenty‑four borrowings from Gratian=s Decretum, eleven from Compilatio prima, three from Compilatio secunda, fourteen from Compilatio tertia, four from Lateran I, six from Lateran II, and at least twelve from Lateran III, as well as twenty‑six from Innocent III=s own decretals. But just as Lateran III surpassed its two predecessors in the wider scope and greater legal maturity of its decrees, so did the scale of Lateran IV in its turn eclipse Lateran III. Conceived in the tradition of the ancient councils of the Church, principally Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451), Lateran IV issued binding legislation whose prescriptions helped to shape the history of the later medieval church until the Council of Trent, and beyond.
The period since the Third Lateran Council had been one of grave difficulty: the Latin Kingdom had been all but overwhelmed in 1187 (battle of Hattin); the Third Crusade had staved off disaster, but had not restored Christian control of the Holy Places in Jerusalem; the Fourth Crusade had diverted its attentions to Zara (modern Zadar, Croatia) and Constantinople; and the Catharist heresy had established itself in Toulouse and Northern Italy. Criticisms of ecclesiastical institutions abounded, and Innocent III recognized that a comprehensive program of reform was required to answer the challenges posed by critics, heterodox and orthodox alike. The council was called, therefore, >to extirpate vices and plant virtues, correct abuses and reform morals, suppress heresies and strengthen faith, pacify discords and strengthen peace, repress oppression and support liberty; to induce Christian princes and peoples to support the Holy Land with the financial aid of clerks and laymen; and many other questions, which would take too long to enumerate= C as the letters of summons expressed it. Among these >other questions=, three major political questions engaged the pope=s attention: the succession to the empire, the revolt against King John in England, and the settlement of the County of Toulouse after the Albigensian crusade. Formal decisions on all three problems were delivered during the final session of the council (30 November). The excommunication of the barons in revolt against King John of England was renewed; Count Raymond VI of Toulouse was deposed for collusion in heresy and Simon de Montfort was instituted as count in his stead; and Otto IV was finally deposed in favor of Frederick of Hohenstaufen, whose election as king of Germany and emperor‑elect was formally confirmed.
Important as these matters were in the general history of the West, Innocent=s principal purpose remained reform. To this end, he ordered prudent persons in every province to conduct a general investigation into abuses which required apostolic correction, with written reports to be submitted to the council; and he enlarged the council membership to include the abbots and general chapters of Cîteaux and Premontré, the Grand Masters of the Temple and the Hospital, and representatives from cathedral and collegiate churches, kings, princes, and free cities. The Fourth Lateran Council was thus the largest and most representative of the medieval councils to that date. In addition to the Roman Province itself, no fewer than eighty ecclesiastical provinces were represented, including Latin prelates from Byzantium and the Holy Land.
The scholarly consensus is that the constitutions were drafted by Innocent III himself. The earliest manuscripts support this view, describing the canons as >the constitutions or decrees of the lord pope Innocent III issued in the general Lateran Council=; and their latest editor, García y García, has commented on the close parallels between the phrasing of some of the constitutions and earlier writings or decisions of Innocent III. Moreover, the pope=s own authority is emphasized in the use of the first person plural C >Irrefragabili constitutione sancimus= (c.7), >statuimus= (c.20), >decreto presenti statuimus= (c.22), >uolumusYinterdicimus= (c.42), >dolemusYuolentes= (c.44), sometimes combined with an expression of conciliar approval or authorityC>sacra uniuersali synodo approbante sancimus= (c.5), >sacri auctoritate concilii prohibemus= (c.43), >Sacro approbante concilio prohibemus= (c.47). But if Innocent III largely devised the decrees, he did so in a context of wide consultation and promulgated them in a forum which represented the whole Church. The council had been in gestation from the beginning of his pontificate; the questions raised reflected contemporary concerns; and there was opportunity for individuals or groups to present their own views both before the council met and during the intervals between its three formal sessions.
At the final solemn session (30 November 1215), seventy‑one constitutions covering a wide range of theological, legal and disciplinary matters were promulgated by papal and conciliar authority. Their contents can be analyzed under fifteen headings.
Faith and heresy
The decrees began with a solemn profession of faith, De fide catholica, designed to define central tenets of Christian doctrine in the light of current debate among theological speculators like Joachim of Fiore and Amaury de Bène, as well as the questions raised by the Cathars and other heretical groups. The Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ were defined in the language of the twelfth‑century Parisian theologian Peter Lombard, whose Quatuor libri sententiarum had become the basic textbook of academic theology, but not without opposition. The nature of Christ=s presence in the Eucharist was similarly defined in scholastic terminology, which gave canonical approbation to the concept of transubstantiation (c.1). These important theological definitions were followed by condemnations of Joachim (for his attack on the Trinitarian teaching of Peter Lombard) and Amaury de Bène (H 1204), who had taught a version of pantheism, as well as un‑named heretics and their secular supporters (c.2). Canon 3 excommunicated and anathematized all heretics who challenged the doctrines just enumerated, and ordered those convicted to be handed over to the secular authorities for punishment; secular rulers are obliged to eradicate heresy from their territories on pain of excommunication; those who take up arms against heretics are to enjoy the privileges accorded to crusaders; and bishops who fail in their duty to oppose heresy and heretics are to be deposed (c.3).
This decree did not establish a formal inquisition, but it provided the precedent upon which Gregory IX was to act in 1231-1233, when he renewed the sentences of excommunication and anathema against heretics and authorized systematic pursuit and punishment. Canon 4 forbade, on pain of deposition, the Greek practice of purging altars on which Latins had celebrated and re‑baptizing persons baptized by Latins. From there, it was a logical progression to proclaiming the hierarchical order of patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (c.5), which led into the important section on ecclesiastical order and discipline.
Order and discipline
Following the lead of Lateran III, Innocent sought not merely to condemn malpractice and abuse, but to create mechanisms and structures which would continue the reform program beyond the time of the council. To this end, Sicut olim (c.6) ordered regular visitations to investigate clerical behavior, and annual provincial and diocesan synods to correct faults and reiterate the Council=s own decrees; Irrefragabili (c.7) authorized bishops to correct their chapters, local custom notwithstanding; Qualiter (c.8) laid down rules for the prudent investigation of faults by prelates generally; Quoniam in plerisque (c.9) authorized the appointment of special clergy to provide pastoral care for populations of different rites and languages; and in a very important decision, In singulis regnis (c.12) extended the Cistercian practice of General Chapters to all religious orders which did not already have them, but substituted triennial for annual gatherings, organized by province or region. The general chapters were to have a function similar to that of provincial and diocesan councils, with powers of visitation and correction. The position of the much debated Ne nimia religionum (c.13), which forbade the creation of new religious orders, suggests that the problem was regarded principally as a matter of ecclesiastical order, and the intention of the decree was to prevent the unregulated proliferation of local religious organizations.
Preachers, teachers, and penitentiaries
A principal aim of the council was the regeneration of the spiritual vigor of the Church, which could not be brought about without investment in education and preaching. Again inspired by Lateran III (c.18), Quia nonnullis ordered the appointment of masters to teach >grammar=, not only in cathedral churches but in all churches capable of supporting them, and the appointment of teachers of theology in all metropolitan churches (c.11), while Inter caetera ordered the appointment of preachers and penitentiaries to assist in the discharge of the episcopal functions of preaching and penance (c.10).
Much of the material in this section was a reinforcement of previous legislation C laying down penalties for incontinent clergy (c.14),148 forbidding drunkenness and gluttony (c.15), ordering clergy to maintain the tonsure and avoid luxurious dress (c.16);149 and ordering prelates to avoid unnecessary feasting and attend services regularly and properly (17). But in renewing the ancient prohibition against ordained clergy participating in >sentences of blood= or duels,150 Sententiam sanguinis (c.18) extended its application to include all forms of involvement in the shedding of blood, judicial and non‑judicial, forbidding clergy to act as scribes or recorders in courts where such sentences were issued, or to command companies of mercenaries or crossbowmen, or to engage in surgery; or even to bless ordeals of hot or cold water or hot iron.151 This last was an extremely important decision which had immediate effect on those jurisdictions which still employed the ordeal as a method of proof in judicial process. The English royal council, for example, directed its judges to adopt other procedures on 26 January 1219, and the judicial ordeal ceased to be a feature of English Common Law.152
This important segment partly echoes the work of contemporary reformers like Odo de Sully, bishop of Paris,153 in ordering the proper maintenance of churches and oratories (c.19), the safe custody of chrism and the Eucharist (c.20),154 and the regular attendance of priests at the sickbeds of the dyingCexpressed as a requirement that physicians urge the very sick to make provision for the health of their souls as well as their bodies (c.22), while the highly important Omnis utriusque sexus (c.21) commanded all Christians to confess their sins to their own priest and receive the Eucharist at least once a year, especially at Easter. The secrets of the confessional must not be revealed, on pain of suspension.155
Appointments and elections
This section, too, can be regarded as reinforcement and clarification of existing legislation.156 Cathedral and regular churches must not be vacant for more than three months, after which the right of appointment devolves on the next ecclesiastical superior (c.23);157 elections should be made by scrutiny or by compromise (c.24);158 elections made through secular abuse are null; those who accept them are debarred from any other ecclesiastical appointment; those who hold them are to be suspended for three years (c.25); those who confirm the appointments of unworthy candidates for ecclesiastical office are penalized by loss of rights and income (c.26); ordinands must be properly instructed (c.27); those who obtain permission to resign must be compelled to do so (c.28); renewing Lateran III=s prescriptions, the accumulation of benefices with cure of souls is forbidden,159 and appointments to benefices must be made within six160 months, failing which the right devolves to the next superior (c.29);161 prelates to appoint suitable persons, on pain of loss of right of appointment (c.30); sons of canons, especially bastards, not to be installed in the same churches as their fathers (c.31); patrons of parish churches to assign sufficient incomes to the priests in charge; and suitable income to be assigned to vicars (c.32); procurations not to be taken without visitation (c.33); and prelates must not burden their subjects with excessive demands (c.34).
The inclusion of so many long and complicated constitutions relating to different aspects of the operation of the system of canonical courts, is testimony to the legal revolution which had taken place since Gratian=s Decretum. A Europe‑wide system of canonical jurisdiction had come into being, and many questions of practice and procedure required authoritative definition. Constitutions 35-48 deal with technical aspects of the law. Defendants must not appeal without good cause before sentence is given; if they do, they are to be charged expenses (c.35); judges may revoke comminatory and interlocutory sentences162 and proceed with the case (c.36); no‑one may be summoned more than two days= journey outside his own diocese without his express agreement; no‑one may impetrate papal letters without the approval of his superior (c.37);163 a full written record of all proceedings must be kept in ecclesiastical courts (c.38); persons receiving property wrongly taken from another can be sued for restitution, the rigor of the civil law notwithstanding (c.39); if, because of the defendant=s contumacy, a plaintiff is assigned possession of something, >causa rei servandae=, and is unable, through violence or trickery, to acquire or maintain possession of it within a year, he is, after a year, to be established as the true possessor, so that the defendant may not benefit from his own wrong‑doing. Laymen may not be appointed arbiters in spiritual matters (c.40); prescriptions are valid only if made in good faith (c.41);164 clergy may not invade secular jurisdiction in the name of ecclesiastical freedom 8. 42); recusation of judges must be supported by evidence, which must be judged by an arbitrator; if proved, the judge may appoint another judge or send the case to a superior (c.48).165
Relations with the secular power
Lay princes had given up investiture with ring and crozier in the early twelfth century, but manifestations of the grossest forms of secular abuse of ecclesiastical persons and property still occurred in all parts of Christendom. In what can be called a codicil to the legislation of the twelfth century, Lateran IV decreed that clerics should not take oaths of fealty to laymen without lawful cause (c.43); that lay princes should not usurp the rights of churches (c.44); that a patron who kills or mutilates a clerk shall be deprived of his office, and his heirs to the fourth generation will be deprived of entry to a college of clergy or prelature in a regular house, except by dispensation (c.45); that clerks must not be obliged to pay taxes on pain of excommunication (c.46).166
Here, too, Lateran IV repeated and extended the decrees of its predecessors: excommunication to be imposed only after warning in the presence of suitable witnesses and for manifest and reasonable cause (c.47); excommunications to be neither imposed nor lifted for payment (c.49).
Among the difficulties associated with determining the validity of Christian marriage, the problems relating to consanguinity and clandestinity had caused great uncertainty in the twelfth century. The prohibition against inter‑marriage between blood relations had been drawn so widely (up to the seventh degree of consanguinity) that it was difficult in practice to observe the canonical rules, especially in small rural communities and among the upper aristocracy. For this reason, in Non debet reprehensibile (c.50), Innocent III formally revoked earlier legislation,167 and reduced the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity to four (thus barring marriages between persons descended from the same great great grand‑parents).168 At the same time, he re-issued the condemnation of clandestine marriages, declaring the children of such unions illegitimate, and ordered that intended marriages should be proclaimed in advance (>banns of marriage=), so that any lawful objections could be raised in advance of the ceremony (c.51).169 The pope also declared that hearsay evidence was not admissible in matrimonial cases (c.52).
Another matter of contention was the obligation of Christians to pay tithes to their parish church. The council condemned those who had their property cultivated by others (non-Christians) in order to avoid tithes (c.53); declared that tithe payments have priority over all other taxes and dues (c.54); ordered Cistercians and other privileged orders to pay tithes on all lands acquired by them in the future, whether cultivated by themselves or not (c.55);170 and prohibited both secular and regular clergy from making any kind of agreement which would deprive the parish priest of his lawful tithe (c.56).
12. Religious Orders
The tensions between monasticism and episcopal authority were as old as monasticism itself. In a series of five constitutions (cc.57-62), Innocent III sought to mediate between the two, while recognizing the valid claims of each. Ut privilegia (c.57) gave precise instructions on the interpretation of the privilege of celebrating religious services during interdict, enjoyed by some orders; and the same privilege was extended to bishops in Quod nunnulis (c.58). Quod quibusdam (c.59) established that a religious may not pledge his faith or accept a loan without the knowledge of his abbot and the majority of the chapter; Accendentibus (c.60) forbade abbots to exercise rights which properly belonged to bishops, such as hearing matrimonial cases, imposing public penances, and granting letters of indulgence; and In Lateraniensi (c.61) reiterated earlier prohibitions against religious receiving tithes from laymen.171
Here, too, Lateran IV reflected earlier legislation:172 no fees are to be exacted for the consecration of bishops, the blessing of abbots or the ordination of clerics (c.63); monks and nuns may not require payment for entry into the religious life (c.64); bishops may not require gifts for instituting clergy or permitting entry to the religious life (c.65); clergy must confer the sacraments freely; may not charge burial fees, but can accept customary offerings (c.66). But concern with another form of trafficking in the sacred underlies the decree Cum ex eo (c.62), which sought to restrain both the exploitation of saints= relics and the excessive bestowal of indulgences. Old relics of saints might not be exhibited outside reliquaries or offered for sale; new relics could not be venerated without papal approval; questors for alms must have written authorization either from the Apostolic See or from a diocesan bishop,173 and may not depart from the text. Moreover, episcopal indulgences may not exceed one year for attendance at the dedication of a church, and forty days for the anniversary.174
Regulations relating to Jews and Moslems
The concern for the integrity of orthodox Christian belief and practice which was manifested in the opening canons of the council recurs in the closing constitution, which imposed restrictions on relations between Christians and non-Christians. Jews may not charge extortionate interest (c.67); Jews and Moslems must wear a distinct form of dress and not mock Christian ceremonies (c.68); Jews may not hold public office (c.69); Jewish converts to Christianity may not return to their former rites (c.70).175
The final action of the council (c.71) was to issue a call for a crusade, to take place in the following year (from June, 1216), offering the benefits of the crusading indulgence to those who contributed to the endeavor, and the Church=s protection to those who went in person, and imposing a three years= tax of one twentieth of ecclesiastical revenues on all clerics in the church, the pope and cardinals promising to pay a tenth.
Almost a century of legal development had occurred since the First Lateran Council of 1123. During that time, the learned law had established itself in the schools and courts of Western Christendom and had been subjected to exhaustive academic scrutiny and debate. It followed that the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, intended to have immediate legal authority, were carefully drafted to provide unambiguous direction. Hence the decrees are very much longer than those of Lateran I and II, and mostly longer even than those of Lateran III. Moreover, a five‑fold pattern, comparable with the five‑fold structure adopted by Bernard of Pavia in the >Leipzig= collection and Compilatio prima (iudex, iudicia, clerus, connubium, crimen), is broadly discernible in the ordering of the decrees,176 and succinct rubrics were provided to facilitate incorporation into collections of law.177
Reception into the main stream of positive law was not long delayed. Almost immediately, the council=s decrees were received into the >ius novum=, first into Compilatio quarta (compiled 1216; officially published 1216-17),178 and then into the Gregorian decretals of 1234.179 In fact, its first two constitutions became the first two >capitula= of the Liber Extra.180 Antonio García y García has demonstrated both the wide diffusion of the Lateran=s legislation181 and the speed with which it was incorporated into the scholarly legal tradition. Johannes Teutonicus, the leading professor of canon law at Bologna, composed an >apparatus= on the decrees within months of the closure of the council;182 his Portuguese colleague, Vincentius Hispanus, composed another at about the same time or very slightly later,183 and further glosses and commentaries were written by Damasus Hungarus (after 1216), and the anonymous authors of the Casus Parisienses and the Casus Fuldenses (both before 1220). Moreover, after their incorporation into Compilatio quarta and the Liber Extra, they were minutely examined in the context of these formally promulgated compendia of canon law.184 Although all the constitutions were glossed, the commentators were principally interested in the strictly legal aspects of the council=s legislation. It is therefore not surprising that the most heavily glossed canons were those concerned with canonical process. The >apparatus= of Johannes Teutonicus, for example, occupies eighty‑four pages, of which just over thirty‑four pagesCmore than a third of the wholeCare devoted to the fourteen constitutions concerned with procedure (cc.35-48), and a similar disproportion is revealed in the works of his contemporaries. Vincentius Hispanus and Damasus Hungarus devoted about a quarter of their discussions to the procedural canons.185
But the Lateran decrees were not merely the province of academic lawyers. Copies of the decrees were carried away from Rome to the four quarters of the Latin world by the four hundred or so bishops and eight hundred abbots, priors, capitular representatives, and others. The contemporary records of the Latin Church bear testimony to their application to a greater or lesser extent throughout the thirteenth century, and beyond, in the different regions of the Latin Church.186 Moreover, Sicut olim (c.6) greatly stimulated187 the convocation of provincial and diocesan councils which promulgated local synodal statutes and reiterated decrees of the general council.188 In stimulating the increasing regularity of diocesan synods, the Fourth Lateran Council helped to create the medium for the dissemination of its own constitutions.
For England, the earliest evidence of the reception of Lateran decrees occurs in the extremely important set of statutes first issued by Bishop Richard Poore for the diocese of Salisbury in 1219 and then re‑issued, with additions, in Durham 1228-1236.189 The decrees are a mélange of recent ecclesiastical legislation, combining canons from the Third and Fourth Lateran Councils with chapters from Bishop Odo de Sully=s synodal statutes for the diocese of Paris (before 1208) and Archbishop Stephen Langton=s provincial statutes for Canterbury (1213-1214).190 The Salisbury compilation was an immediate success. Derivatives, adaptations and expansions were made in many dioceses in the succeeding century, as individual bishops sought in the wake of the Lateran Council to provide authoritative guidance for their administrators and clergy. Its influence can be traced especially in the statutes issued for the dioceses of Canterbury (1222 -1228), Durham (1228-1236), Durham peculiars in York (1241-1249), Salisbury (1238-1244), Exeter (1225-1237), London (1245-1259), and Chichester (1244-1253), and in an undated provincial council in Scotland.191 Only slightly later, in a provincial council held in Osney Abbey (outside Oxford) in April 1222,192 Archbishop Stephen Langton issued sixty statutes on sacramental life and ecclesiastical discipline, which echoed or summarized Lateran constitutions in fifteen cases, alluding to the council by name in seven.193 Moreover, his final statute ordered observance of >the council held at the Lateran by Pope Innocent III of holy memory=, in respect of payment of tithe, and other provisions, and commanded the bishops to promulgate both the Lateran constitutions and his own, as appropriate in their diocesan synods.194 The crucial importance of this council can be judged by its survival in about sixty manuscripts, only seven of which date from the thirteenth century, and from the inclusion of many of its constitutions in the great compendium of English ecclesiastical law composed by William Lyndwood in 1430.195 Not long after Stephen Langton=s council, the statutes (1222-1225) for an unidentified English diocese reveal important borrowings from Lateran IV,196 and the synodal statutes promulgated c. 1224 by Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, began with the declaration that >The statutes of the Second197 Lateran Council shall be observed by everyone in our diocese= (c.1).198 The direct and indirect influence of Lateran legislation can be found in other English diocesan councils throughout the thirteenth century, as at Exeter (1225-1237), Worcester (1229, 1240), Lincoln (1239?), Norwich (1240-1243), Bath and Wells c. 1258), as well as in Cardinal Otto=s legatine decrees issued at London in 1237.199 That the Fourth Lateran Council became and remained general law for the English Church is confirmed by the conclusion to the preamble of the Bath and Wells statutes of 1258 which explicitly acknowledge the authority of the edicts of three councils, the Lateran, Oxford, and London: that is, Lateran IV, Stephen Langton=s Oxford synod (1222), and Cardinal Otto=s London council (1237).200
A comparable process is found in France. In the immediate aftermath of the council, a composite code, combining decrees of Lateran IV with the highly important sacramental and disciplinary decrees of Odo de Sully H1208),201 was issued at Tours (1215-1216),202 and shortly afterwards (1220), Guillaume de Beaumont, bishop of Angers, promulgated a similar compendium of Odo=s statutes and constitutions of the Fourth Lateran Council (which Guillaume attended).203 In this case, the derivations from Lateran IV are usually identified as >From the last Lateran Council=, >From the Lateran Council=, etc., but some are not identified, and three chapters are wrongly attributed to the council.204 The Angers statutes became the archetype of a whole family of diocesan codes in Western France, copies of which were to be kept by every parish priest. They were adopted in Le Mans (1229), Tours (after 1229), Nantes (date unknown), Orléans (1231?), Bayeux (1300?), and Lisieux (date uncertain, but re‑issued and up‑dated in 1321) and influenced the compilations made in the thirteenth century in Autun (1286), Coutances (13th cent.), Clermont‑Ferrand (1268), Langres (13th cent.), Lyon (after 1298), Nîmes (1252),205 Noyon (before 1285), Rouen (before 1235), Saintes (after 1255), and Sisteron (1241)Cand indeed throughout the whole of France until the Council of Trent.206 Meanwhile, a substantial derivation from Lateran IV was promulgated at Rouen in 1224, with the declaration, >by the authority of the sacred general Lateran CouncilYwe desire these especially to be observed, which are known to have been established in that council=.207
In two of the six provinces208 of the German church the ground was prepared to some extent by reform‑minded prelates before 1215. Odo de Sully=s decrees influenced the synodal statutes of Archbishop Siegfried II of Mainz in 1209;209 and statutes were issued for Toul, Liège, and Utrecht in 1192, 1203, and 1209, respectively, while decrees similar to the Utrecht code were promulgated in Cologne and Liège in 1209.210 Twenty‑one bishops and archbishops and perhaps forty or fifty other clerics constituted the >German= contingent at the Lateran council,211 and there is evidence of the immediate promulgation of its constitutions in the provinces of Salzburg (Archbishop Eberhard: 1216),212 Trier (Dietrich II: 1216 and 1238),213 and Mainz (Siegfried II: 1218, 1233, 1239),214 as well as reiteration at diocesan level in Constanz (1216), Hildesheim (1216), Metz (c.1219?), Chur 8. 1219?), Halberstadt (1216-1220), Liège (1217), and Toul (1224).215 For the provinces of Mainz, Salzburg, and Trier, therefore, echoes of Lateran IV reverberate through the synodal legislation of the first generation after 1216; and fairly wide knowledge of the its decrees can be established in monastic and cathedral churches.216.
Evidence for the remaining three provinces is less secure, but early promulgation can be inferred for Cologne (Engelbert: 1220?)217 and Magdeburg (Albrecht: 1220).218 Later in the century, there is firmer evidence for the issue of reforming decrees covering clerical and monastic behavior in Cologne and Magdeburg in 1261.219 Political difficulties impeded action at the provincial level in Bremen‑Hamburg, however, but diocesan publication occurred in Merseburg (1216-1218), Prague (1216), and Naumburg (1217),220 and the papal legate Gregory may have published reforming decrees in Ratzeburg, Schwerin, Lübeck, Olmütz, and Meissen in 1221-1222.221 In 1225, another legate, Cardinal Conrad of Porto, presided at a legatine council at Mainz, which issued decrees for the whole German nation, and ended with a general mandate for the annual promulgation of the constitutions at provincial, episcopal, and other synods.222 In due course they were incorporated into the Mainz synodal book in 1310.223
The story in Spain and Portugal is colored by the local preoccupations of the Spanish episcopate, impoverished by the >reconquista=, distracted by the jurisdictional dispute between Compostela and Toledo, and very much subject to royal control.224 Although twenty‑seven Spanish bishops and a considerable company of lesser ecclesiastics attended the council,225 only Bishop Gerald (Giraldo) of Segovia made an attempt, unsuccessful as it turned out, to apply some of the new constitutions in a synod in 1216.226 Not until the legation of John of Abbeville, cardinal bishop of Sabina, was the full program of the Lateran reforms introduced into Iberia.227 He visited the whole of the Spanish peninsula in 1228-1229, holding councils at Valladolid (1228), Salamanca (1229), Lérida (March, 1229), and elsewhere, the principal purpose of which was the emphatic promulgation of relevant Lateran decrees throughout the four ecclesiastical provinces of the Spanish peninsula.228 Only those from Lérida have survived,229 but it is likely that the legislation at Valladolid and Salamanca was similar in form and extent.230 The very close dependence of the Lérida code on Lateran IV is evident from the arenga, which orders the general observance >of the decrees of the holy general council, which have been for the most part neglected=.231 Twenty‑one of its thirty‑seven statutes reflected Lateran legislation and ten refer to the council in one way or another.232 The whole program was reiterated ten years later by an energetic Catalan reformer, Pedro (Pere) de Albalat, archbishop of Tarragona. His first council (1239) concluded with a general promulgation of the statutes of the general council and of the papal legate;233 and this was supplemented in 1241 by the promulgation at Barcelona of a Summa on the seven sacraments, which owed much to Odo de Sully=s statutes.234 More than a generation later, Rodrigo Gonzálvez at Compostela issued a series of decrees in the Lateran spirit (1289),235 and the legal code published by Alfonso X of Castile received the Lateran legislation through the medium of the Decretales Gregorii noni.236
For Hungary and Poland, the picture is much less clear. No fewer than three archbishops and eight bishops from Hungary and Dalmatia (then under Hungarian rule) attended the council,237 but there is little evidence of reforming activity on their return. At least five Hungarian councils, provincial and legatine, have been recorded in some fashion for the period 1222 to 1276, with varying degrees of accuracy, but no legislation has survived.238 A series of grave crises disrupted the normal exercise of ecclesiastical authority for much of the thirteenth century. The civil wars and political upheavals which followed the death of Béla III in 1196 disturbed the kingdom until 1235; but even worse was to follow. Hungary suffered terrible devastation, first in the Mongol invasion of 1241-1243 and then during the virtual anarchy under Ladislaus IV (1272-1290). Civil upheaval and unrestrained looting and destruction were scarcely conducive to ecclesiastical reform. The first evidence of the introduction of some of the Lateran decrees comes from the legatine council held in Buda in 1279 by the papal legate, Bishop Philip of Fermo.239 In this very important legislation, which combined disciplinary decrees with liturgical and doctrinal instructions on the sacraments and basic Catholic belief,240 direct dependence on the Lateran constitutions can be argued for the decrees against clerical involvement in commerce, gaming, and hunting (c.9 ) and sentences of blood (c.10 ), and in the canon ordering the proper maintenance of chrism, holy oil, and the Eucharist (c.24 ). Moreover, a further four enactments referred specifically to >the council=, meaning the Fourth Lateran Council. The ordinance forbidding both the display of relics outside their shrines and the unlicensed recognition of new relics (c.28 ) invokes its authority (>In Concilio statutum est=); similarly, the decrees prohibiting the storage of private property in churches (c.43 ), instructing physicians to ensure the summons of priests to attend the dying (c.97 [-]), and prohibiting the imposition of fees for burials, weddings, and other sacraments (c.123 [-]), all cite the council (>In Concilio prohibetur=, >Statutum est in concilio=). Verbal dependence on the text of Lateran IV is evident in all seven cases.241 For the rest of the code, however, the derivation is much less certain. The Budan decrees relating to clerical and monastic dress and discipline, as well as restrictions on Jews, reflect Lateran provisions, but without specific or significant verbal echoes, and the influence of other conciliar sources (Avignon 1209, Rouen 1231, Vienna 1267, and even the first council of Esztergom [now dated 1095?]) has been proposed.242
The political situation in Poland was scarcely better, as the disintegration of the kingdom into territorial principalities continued through the thirteenth century, exacerbated by the terror and destruction of the Mongol invasion; and would‑be reformers had a difficult task in the face of powerful secular interests.243 The Polish contingent to the Lateran council included the reformer, Henry Kietlicz, archbishop of Gniezno, and four suffragans.244 On his return, Archbishop Henry issued a general statute against incontinent clergy in 1218245 and appointed two clerks to investigate clerical and episcopal misdemeanors;246 and Archbishop Pelka (Fulk, 1235-58) reiterated similar strictures in councils held in 1233, 1244 and 1257;247 but the intervention of papal legates was required to introduce the Lateran decrees to any significant extent. Jacques Pantaléon, archdeacon of Liège (later Pope Urban IV) held a legatine council in Wroc»aw (for the province of Gniezno) in 1248. In addition to matters of local concern, many of the chapters echoed Lateran constitutions. The decree against lay abuse of ecclesiastical persons and property (c.11 ), and the regulations about tithe-payment (cc.15-17 [5-7]), are local applications of the general law; so, too, the injunction that parish priests should not bless the marriages of persons from another parish (23 ), and the prescriptions on the triple reading of the banns of marriage (c.24 ), the safe custody of baptismal water, eucharist and holy oil (c.27 ), and archdeacons= visitations (c.28 ).248 Eighteen years later (1266-67), another legate, Cardinal Guido of S. Lorenzo in Lucina, visited Scandinavia and the provinces of Bremen, Magdeburg, Salzburg, and Gniezno, publishing decrees for each.249 The Gniezno decrees on lay abuse (cc.2, 5), consanguineous marriages (c.3), plurality (c.4), tithes (c.6), clerical litigation before lay judges (c.7), visitation and procurations (cc.8-9), annual councils (c.11), and association with Jews (cc.10, 12-14) reflect the legislation of the Fourth Lateran Council, but without citation or verbal dependence.250 Of even greater importance, however, was the comprehensive code for Hungary and Poland, discussed above, published at Buda in 1279 by the papal legate Bishop Philip of Fermo. Together with the directives of his two legatine predecessors, Philip=s summary of current legislation formed the basis of the synodal statutes issued six years later (1285) by Archbishop Jacob Swinka of Gniezno and so passed into the law of the Polish church.251
Although the effective application of the decrees varied according to local conditions and customs, decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council passed into the general tradition of local synodal legislation throughout the West more than those of any other medieval council and influenced the compilation of manuals for priestly instruction.252 The clear directives for confession, communion, and marriage, for the proper care of churches and sacred objects, and the rules for elections, the establishment of the majority principle in ecclesiastical corporations, the precise definition of contentious theological questions (the Trinity, the Eucharist, the natures of Christ), the reinforcement of episcopal authority, the clarification of judicial procedure, including the requirement that all ecclesiastical courts must keep a full written record of their proceedings, were all of permanent effect for the rest of the Middle Ages, and beyond.
 C. R. Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215=, Medieval Texts and Studies (Oxford 1973) 206-207.
 Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 203-208.
 Cf. COD 131-156.
 Although not immediately: see Vittorio Peri, >L=ecumenicità di un concilio come processo storico nella vita della Chiesa=, AHC 20 (1988) 216-244, especially 223-238. The subsequent Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) was accepted in the West but not in the East: cf. ibid., 157-159. The full list of eight general councils is given in Gratian, Decretum, D.16 c.8: >Sancta octo universalia concilia, primum NicenumYoctauum quoque Constantinopolitanum usque ad unum apicem immutilata seruare, et pari honore et ueneratione digna habereY=. The Latins= request for the Greek text of the >eighth council= to be read at Florence in October 1438, caused some consternation among the Greek delegates, and the decrees of the first seven alone were made the basis of doctrinal discussions. In defense of its own claim to be the seventh ecumenical council, Nicaea II listed three essential requirements for ecumenicity: presence, in person or by representatives, of the five patriarchs, with participation by the bishop of Rome and unanimity; doctrinal importance of the matters defined; recognition by the whole Church of the council=s position in the series of ecumenical councils: cf. Peri, >L=ecumenicità di un concilio= 220-222. For the Latin reception of decrees of this council, see Jean Gaudemet, >Le deuxième concile de Nicée (787) dans les Collections canoniques occidentales=, AHC 20(1988) 278-288.
 I.e., Nicaea I (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), III (680-681), and Nicaea II (787): Andreas de Santacroce, Acta Latina concilii Florentini (Concilium Florentinum documenta et scriptores 6; Rome 1955) 43-45; Silvestros Syropoulos, Vera historia unionis non verae inter Graecos et Latinos: sive concilii Florentini ed. and trans. by R. Creyghton (Adrian Vlacq: Hagae‑Comitis 1660) 169-171; Les >Mémoires= du grand ecclésiarque de l=Église de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439), ed. V. Laurent (Concilium Florentinum documenta et scriptores 9; Rome 1971) 330-335. Cf. C.‑J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles, trans. by H. Leclerq (11 vols. in 21; Paris 1907-1952) 7.2 pp. 976-977; J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge 1961) 147-151; Ivan N. Ostroumov, The History of the Council of Florence (largely based on Syropoulos), trans. B. Popoff (Boston 1971) 66-72.
 Mansi 20.801-920, 931-42. Mansi=s texts must be used with some caution, however. For the decrees of Piacenza and Clermont, see. F. J. Gossman, Pope Urban II and Canon Law (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 403; Washington, D.C., 1960) 3-11; cf. Robert Somerville, >The French Councils of Pope Urban II: Some Basic Considerations=, AHC 2 (1970), 56-65 (reprinted in Papacy, Councils and Canon Law in the 11th and 12th Centuries [Aldershot 1990] no. 5), which shows that the so‑called council of Limoges dated Dec. 1095 (Mansi 20.919-922) is a figment. For the complex textual traditions of the decrees of the council of Clermont, see idem, The Councils of Urban II, 1: Decreta Claromontensia (AHC, Supplementum 1; Amsterdam 1972).
 Mansi 20.947-952, 961-970.
 Mansi 21.225-228.
 Mansi 21.711-736. Calixtus II=s council held in difficult circumstances at Reims in October 1119 (Mansi 20.234-258), though widely reported, does not belong to the same category: cf. Robert Somerville, >The Councils of Pope Calixtus II: Reims 1119=, Proceedings Salamanca 35-50, reprinted in Papacy, Councils and Canon Law no.12.
 For the reception of Urban II=s conciliar legislation, see Gossman, Pope Urban II and Canon Law especially 103-135.
 Lat. I, c.7
 Lat. II, c.5
 Lat. I, c.8, >secundum apostolorum canones=. This title was given to a sequence of fifty canons in the >collectio canonum= made in Rome by the sixth‑century Dionysius Exiguus (H after 525) and transmitted to northern Europe in the Dionysio‑Hadriana. They were derived from a fourth‑century Greek compilation of 84 (or 85, depending on the system of numeration) so‑called >Apostolic Constitutions=. To his Latin translations of the first 49 (or 50), Dionysius Exiguus added the decrees of the councils of Nicaea (325), Antioch (341), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451), and other early councils, as well as decretals of popes from Siricius (H 399) to Anastasius II (H 498): DDC, iv (1948) 1131-1152, especially 1113-1152. For the Latin text, see Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta iuris antiquissima, ed. C. H. Turner (2 vols. Oxford 1898-1939) 1.1-32; M. Strewe, Die Canonessammlung des Dionysius Exiguus in der ersten Redaktion (Arbeiten der Kirchengeschichte 16; Berlin-Leipzig 1931) 1-10; cf. PL 67.139-148. For the Greek text, see H. T. Bruns, Canones Apostolorum et conciliorum veterum selecti (2 vols. in 1; Berlin 1839; reprinted Turin 1959) 1.1-8.
 Lat. I, cc.1, 4, 12, 16, 20, 21.
 Lat. II, c.26; Lat. III, cc.3, 13, 14, 15.
 Lat. I, c.8, >Praeterea iuxta beatissimi Stephani papae sanctionem=: cf. Pseudo‑Isidore, Decretales pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, ed. Paul Hinschius (Leipzig 1863; reprinted Aalen 1963) 186.
 Lat. I, c.19, Lat. II, c.7 (Gregory VII); Lat. II, c.7 (Urban II); Lat. I, c.10; Lat. II, c.7 (Paschal II); Lat. III, cc.2, 20 (Innocent II); Lat. III, c.20 (Eugenius III).
 Lat. I, cc.1, 10, 12, 15.
 Lat. II, cc.9, 10; cf. c.16.
 Lat. II, c.18.
 Lat. III, cc.11, 27.
 Cf. Lat. I, cc.2, 5, 7, 9, 10; Lat. II, cc.1, 3, 4, 5, etc.; Lat. III, cc.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, etc.
 Lat. I, cc.1, 3, 4; Lat. II, cc.2-5, 9, 12-19; Lat. III, cc.3, 5-6, 8, 10-11, etc.
 For a general discussion of the medieval general councils, see Gérard Fransen, >L=Écclésiologie des Conciles médiévaux=, Le Concile et les conciles ed. B. Bott et al. (Paris 1960) 125-141.
 Raymonde Foreville, >Procédure et débats dans les conciles médiévaux du Latran (1123-1215)=, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 19 (1965) 21-37; (reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen‑Âge (London 1979) no. I) especially 24.
 Foreville, >Procédures et débars= 25.
 Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 26-27.
 Raymonde Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV (Histoire des conciles oecuméniques 6; Éditions de l=Orante: Paris 1965) 56.
 See John Gilchrist, The Collection in 74 Title. A Canon Law Manual of the Gregorian Reform (Medieval Sources in Translation 22; Toronto 1980) 29; cf. idem >The Reception of Pope Gregory VII into the Canon Law (1073-1141) Part II=, ZRG Kan. Abt. 66 (1980) 192-229, at 204-205.
 Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 21-37.
 Foreville, >Procedure et débats= 23.
 Cf. M. Andrieu, Le pontifical romain au Moyen Age, 1: Le pontifical romain au XIIe siècle (ST 86; Città del Vaticano 1938) 1.255-260; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 195-199 (French translation).
 Mansi 21.296-297 (Annales Genuenses, I); cf. Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 30 (with French translation of the conciliar Ordo).
 Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum Commentariis glossatorum ed. Antonio García y García (MIC Series A: Corpus Glossatorum 2; Vatican City 1981) 11.
 Symeonis monachi opera omnia ed. T. Arnold (2 vols. Rolls Series 75; London 1882-1885) 2.278-281.
 See below, n. 39.
 See below, n. 86.
 According to Gerhoh of Reichersberg, who was present at the council, there was vocal opposition to the agreement that the German bishops should be elected in the king=s presence and receive their >regalia= >per sceptrum=: Gerhoh von Reichersberg, Libellus de ordine donorum Sancti Spiritus ed. E. Sackur (MGH Scriptores >Libelli de Lite= 3; Hannover 1897; reprinted Hannover1956) 280.
 Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 51-53, 56. For a full discussion of the council, see ibid. 44-68.
 Alberigo, COD 188-189.
 Alberigo, COD190-94. For the Latin text and English translation, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner, SJ (2 vols Georgetown 1990) 1.190-194; for the Latin text and French translation, see Alberigo and Duval, Les Conciles Oecumeniques 2.1 pp. 416-425; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 175-178. For an older English translation, but with a different order of canons, see H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils (St. Louis-London 1937) 177-194.
 Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida (H 1061) described simony as a form of heresy (following a tradition traceable to Pope Gregory I, 590-604), and went so far as to deny the validity of simoniacal orders or of sacraments conferred by simoniacs (Adversus simoniacos libri III, ed. F. Thaner: (MGH >Libelli de Lite= 1.118, 120-121, 189); Peter Damian (H 1072), who considered simony a >heresy= but not a transgression of faith (Liber gratissimus, ed. L. de Heinemann: (MGH >Libelli de Lite= 1.23), argued for the validity of the sacraments of wicked ministers, while condemning the viciousness of simony: (J. B. Oosterman, Peter Damian=s Doctrine on the Sacerdotal Office: A Canonical Study of the Validity of Orders and the Worthy Exercise of Ordained Ministry (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 90; University Microfilms International, Michigan 1980) especially 12-13, 37-53, 204-205, 301-302. Cf. John Gilchrist, >@Simoniaca Haeresis@ and the Problem of Orders from Leo IX to Gratian=, Proceedings Boston 209-235.
 Cf. Peter Damian=s defence of clerical purity, discussed by Oosterman, Peter Damian=s Doctrine 66-73. For general background, see Roger Gryson, Les origines du célibat ecclésiastique du premier au septième siècle (Gembloux 1970); Roman Cholij, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (Leominster 1988).
 Perhaps an allusion to the second canon of Chalcedon (451), which had outlawed all forms of simony on pain of deposition for ordainer and ordained and anathema for any lay intermediary: cf. Alberigo, COD 87-88.
 Cf. Giles Constable, Monastic Tithes: From their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 10; Cambridge 1964) 145-146.
 Joseph F. Cleary, Canonical Limitations on the Alienation of Church Property (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 100; Washington, D.C. 1936) 23-42.
 Francis X. Wahl, The Matrimonial Impediments of Consanguinity and Affinity (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 90; Washington, D.C. 1934) 9-19; For >infamia=, see n. 68, below.
 This decree was a general application of a >peace movement= which had its origins in late tenth‑century France: see Jean‑Pierre Poly, La Provence et la société féodale, 879-1166 (1976) 191-204; cf. Hartmut Hoffmann, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (Schriften der MGH 20; Stuttgart 1964); H. E. J. Cowdrey, >The Peace and the Truce of God in the Eleventh Century=, Past and Present 46 (1970) 42-67, Thomas N. Bisson, >The Organized Peace in Southern France and Catalonia, ca. 1140-ca. 1233=, American Historical Review 82 (1977) 290-311; idem, >Peace of God, Truce of God=, DMA 9.473-475.
 Residents of the Leonine city, where St Peter=s was situated.
 Cc.1-2, 6-9, and 21 all have precedents in recent councils: c.1 (cf. Toulouse 1119), c.9; c.2 (cf. Melfi 1089, c.15: Mansi 20.724), c.6 (cf. Toulouse 1119, c.2); c.7 (cf. Reims 1119, c.5); cc. 8, 21 (cf. Lateran 1110, cc.1-2: Mansi 21.8); c.9 (cf. Troia 1093, c.20: Mansi 20.789-790). For c.10, cf. Urban II=s address at the council of Clermont 1095 (Mansi 20.823).
 Westminster (1125, 1127, 1129); Rouen (1128); Bourges, Chartres, Clermont, Beauvais, Vienne, Besançon (1125); Nantes (1127); Arras, Troyes (1128); Châlons‑sur‑Marne, Paris (1129); Barcelona (1126), Palencia (1129): Mansi 21.325-388; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 69.
 Councils and Synods, with other Documents relating to the English Church 1.1-2 ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke (Oxford 1981) 1.2 pp. 738-741. Of the 17 canons, nos. 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 16 reflect Lateran legislation: cf. Lateran I cc.1, 8 and 18, 6, 4, 2, 7 and 9.
 Cf. Councils and Synods 1.2 pp. 743-749, cc.1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and Lateran I cc.8, 1, 6, 7, and 4. Brett and Brooke remark (p. 745), >á propos= c.5, that >it is noticeable that c.5 follows the wording of the Lateran council of 1123 more closely than that of Westminster =.
 Cf. Ibid.1.2 pp. 768-779, cc.11 and 13 and Lateran I cc.20, 7 and 18.
 Mansi 21.385-388, cc.5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17; cf. Lateran I cc.7 and 21, 2, 9, 14 and 15, 18, 13.
 Cc. 1, 3-4, 6, 8 (part), 9, 12, 14, 16b (attributed to Calixtus II), 18 (part), 19-20 (attributed to Urban II), 21 (attributed to Calixtus II), 22 (attributed to Urban II), were received into Gratian, Decretum: can 1 = C.1 q.1 c.10; can. 3 = D.63 c.3; can. 4 = C.16 q.7 c.11; can. 6 = D.60 c.2; can. 8 (from >Si quis [ergo]=) = C.16 q.7 c.23; can 9 = C.35 q.2-3 c.2; can. 12 = C.10 q.1 c.14; can. 14 = C.24 q.3 c.23; can. 16b = C.16 q.1 c.10; can. 18 (from Decimas et ecclesias) = C.16 q.7 c.39 (attributed to Urban II); can. 19 = C.16 q.4 c.1 (attributed to Urban II); can. 20 = C.24 q.3 c.24 (attributed to Urban II); can. 21 = D.27 c.8; can. 22 = C.12 q.2 c.37 (attributed to Urban II).
 Until modified by Lateran IV (1215) c.50.
 Canons 2, 7, 15. For can. 2 cf. C.11 q.3 c. 17; for can. 7, cf. D.28 c.2; for can. 15 cf. C.24 q.3 c.24, '1.
 C.5, nullifying the ordinations of Maurice Bourdin; c.10, renewing Crusaders= provoleges c.11 on the Porticani; c.13 on false coining; and c.17 on Benevento.
 Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 73-78; Alberigo, COD 195-6: cf. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1.195-196; Alberigo and Duval, Les Conciles oecumeniques 2.1 pp. 429-430.
 Cf. Robert Somerville, >The Canons of Reims (1131)=, BMCL 5 (1975) 122-130, reprinted in Papacy, Councils and Canon Law no.15.
 Cf. Robert Somerville, >The Council of Pisa, 1135: A Re‑Examination of the Evidence for the Canons=, Speculum 45 (1970) 98-114.
 No formal record survives, but a scholarly consensus exists, based on Baronius, Annales ecclesiasticae 12 (1607) 277-280 and the Roman edition of 1612, Concilia generalia ecclesiae catholicae (4 vols. Rome 1608-1612) 4.21-23. For the decrees, see Alberigo COD 197-203. Cf. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1.197-203 (Latin and English); Alberigo and Duval, Les Conciles oecumeniques 2.1 pp. 432-445 (Latin and French); Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 175-178 (French); Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees 195-213 (English, with commentaries).
 Cc.1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12, 14-20 repeat or amplify decrees of the councils of Clermont 1130 and Reims 1131 (cf. Mansi 21.437-440, cc.1-5, 8-13; ibid., 453-462, cc.1-6, 10-17); cc.1-2, 15 and 30 echo or repeat canons of the council of Pisa 1135 (cf. Mansi 21.487-492, cc.1, 12, 14, and 7).
 Cc.3, 7, 10, 21-25 derive from the councils of the reforming popes: from Gregory VII, Rome (1078) c.10; from Urban II, Melfi (1089) cc.3, 21-22; from Calixtus II, Toulouse (1119) cc.3, 7, 23-25.
 Elizabeth Vodola, Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Berkeley 1986) 27.
 On this application of the Roman civilian penalty, see Vincent A. Tatarczuk, Infamy of Law: A Historical Synopsis and Commentary (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 357; Washington, D.C. 1954) 13-23, 27-32. Also Francesco Migliorino, Fama e infamia: Problemi della società medievale nel pensiero giuridico nei secoli XII e XIII (Catania 1985).
 For a brief history, see Bernard J. Ganter, Clerical Attire (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 361; Washington, D.C. 1955) 4-18.
 Cf. Lat. I, c.15 and. n. 49, above. There was a very similar formulation in the Panoramia (1095) attributed to Ivo of Chartres (PL 161.1343).
 For a discussion of the implications of excommunication >latae sententiae= in connexion with this canon, see Vodola, Excommunication 28-31. See also Richard H. Helmholz, >ASi quis suadente@ (C.17 q.4 c.29): Theory and practice=, Proceedings Cambridge 426-438.
 Cf. Charles A. Kerin, The Privation of Christian Burial: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 136; Washington, D.C. 1941) 14-28. Christian burial was automatically denied to unreconciled excommunicates C this canon reinforced the general rule.
 T. P. McLaughlin, >The Teaching of the Canonists on Usury (XII, XIII, and XIV Centuries)=, Mediaeval Studies 1 (1939) 81-147, 2 (1940) 1-22; Walter Taeuber, >Geld und Kredit im Dekret Gratians und bei den Dekretisten=, SG 2 (1954) 443-464; John T. Noonan, Jr., The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, Mass. 1957); John T. Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages (London 1969); Arwed Blomeyer, >Aus der Konzilienpraxis zum kanonischen Zinsverbot=, ZRG Kan. Abt. 66 (1980) 317-335; R. H. Helmholz, >Usury in the Medieval English Church Courts=, Speculum 61 (1986), 364-380; James A. Brundage, >Usury=, DMA 12.335-339. For >infamia= and denial of Christian burial, see nn. 68 and 72.
 Alberigo, COD 437.
 Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri tredecim: The ecclesiastical history of Orderic Vitalis; edited and translated by Marjorie Chibnall (6 vols. Oxford Medieval Texts; Oxford 1969-1980) Book 13, chapter 39, 6.529-531; cf. Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 204-205.
 Gerhoh von Reichersberg, Liber de nouitatibus huius temporis, ed. E. Sackur (MGH Scriptores >Libelli de Lite= 3; Hannover 1897; reprinted Hannover 1956) 290-291; Dialogus de pontificatu sanctae Romanae ecclesiae, ed. H. Boehmer (MGH Scriptores >Libelli de Lite= 3; Hannover 1897; reprinted Hannover 1956) 3.534.
 Dom Jean Leclercq, >Les décrets de Bernard de Saintes=, Revue du Moyen Age latin 2 (1946)167-170; Odette Pontal, Les statuts synodaux français du XIIIe siècle, 1: Les statuts de Paris et le synodal de l=Ouest (XIIIe siècle) (Collection de documents inédits sur l=histoire de France, Section de philologie et d=histoire jusqu=à 1610, in‑8o, 9; Paris 1971) lv.
 Mansi 21.225-228.
 Whole: cc.2, 4-6, 8, 19-21, 26-28; part: cc.7, 10, 12, 15-16, 18, 22. Can. 2 = Decretum C.1 q.3 c.15; can 4 = C.21 q.4 c.5; can 5 = C.12 q.2 c.47; can 6 = D.28 c.2; can 7 (from >Ut lex=) = C.27 q.1 c.40; can 8 = last sentence of C.27 q.1 c.40; can. 10 (>InnouamusYhonores= and >PrecipimusYsacerdotem=) = D.60 c.3 and C.21 q.2 c.5; can. 12 (from >Precipimus=) = D.90 c.11; can. 15 (>Si quis suadenteYsuscipiat=) = C.17 q.4 c.29; can. 16 (from >auctoritate=) = C.8 q.1 c.7; can. 18 (>PessimamYinterdicimus=. >Si quis igiturYpermaneat=) = C.23 q.8 c.32; can. 19 = penultimate sentence of C.23 q.8 c.32; can 20 = last sentence of C.23 q.8 c.32; can. 21 = D.56 c.1 (ascribed to Urban II); can. 22 (from >[con]fratres=) = D.5 >de poenitentia=; can. 26 = major part of C.18 q.2 c.25; can. 27 = last sentence of C.18 q.2 c.25; can. 28 = D.63 c.35. Gratian referred to c.28 in an earlier recension of his Decretum; the only Lateran II canon that he cited before he produced his vulgate edition.
 Can. 29 = X 5.15.1. The ascription to Innocent III was probably a simple mistake, for Compilatio prima (5.9.1) correctly ascribed it to Innocent II (Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 205).
 Cf. Council of Rouen (1190), c.6: Dom G. Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis provinciae (2 vols. in 1; Rouen; F. Vaultier, 1717) 1.95. For the application of this decree in England, see Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the History of the English Church, 2.1: A.D. 1205-1313, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford 1964) 98-99.
 Philippe Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, trans. Michael Jones (Oxford 1984, reprinted Oxford 1987-1998) 72-73, 274-275.
 Cf. Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 205.
 Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 134-158; Alberigo, COD 205-225. For a French translation of the canons, see Foreville, Latran I, II, III and IV 210-223. See also, Hefele, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1086-1112; Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees 214-235.
 Alberigo, COD 210. In an unpublished Bonn dissertation, Walter Herold examined 36 sources for the canons and concluded that there were 34 different traditions. Stephan Kuttner published Herold=s findings in a short note, >Concerning the Canons of the Third Lateran Council=, Traditio 13 (1957) 505-506. See also, Le troisième concile de Latran (1179): Sa place dans l=histoire, ed. Jean Longère (Paris 1982).
 Gesta regis Henrici secundi Benedicti abbatis, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols. Rolls Series 49; London 1867) 1.222-238; Chronica magistri Rogeri de Houedene, ed. W. Stubbs (4 vols. Rolls Series 51; London 1868-1871) 2.173-189 (1869); The Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols. Rolls Series 73; London 1879-1880) 1.278-292; William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum, ed. R. G. Howlett, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I (4 vols. Rolls Series 82; London 1884-1889) 1-2 (1884-1885) 1. 206-223.
 Radulfi de Diceto decani Lundoniensis opera historica, ed. W. Stubbs (2 vols. Rolls Series 68; London 1876) 1.430. Perhaps reflecting his own interests as dean of a major cathedral, he singled out the condemnations of illicit burials by Templars and Hospitallers (c.9) and the accumulation of benefices (c.13).
 On decretals and decretal collections, see Charles Duggan=s in this volume with extensive bibliography.
 Sermo habitus in lateranensi concilio, sub Alexandro papa III, ed. G. Morin, >Le discours d=ouverture du concile générale de Latran(1179) et l=oeuvre littéraire de maître Rufin, évêque d=Assise=, Atti della Pontificia accademia romana di archeologia (3rd Series, Memorie 2; Rome 1928) 116-120; for a French translation, see Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 200-204, especially 202-203. It was long thought that Rufinus had given this homily at the Council, but Roman Deutinger, >The Decretist Rufinus C A well-known Person?= BMCL 23 (1999) 10-15, has convincingly argued that he did not.
 Cf. G. J. Ebers, Das Devolutionsrecht, vornehmlich nach katholischem Kirchenrecht (Stuttgart 1906; reprinted Amsterdam 1965) 182-188.
 Alberigo, COD reads >seniori= for >saniori= (p. 219, line 30), but >sanior pars= has a long tradition. Cf. Isaac S. Jacob, >The Meaning of ASanior Pars@ in the Rule of St Benedict and its Use in the Decretal Collection of Pope Gregory IX, with a Study of the Electoral Law as Found in the Decretum of Gratian= (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 437; reprinted University Microfilms International, Michigan 1964) 54-92.
 Cf. Gaines Post, >Alexander III, the ALicentia docendi@ and the Rise of the Universities=, Anniversary Essays in Medieval History, by Students of C. H. Haskins (Boston-New York 1929) 255-257.
 Josef Avril, >L=encadrement diocésain et l=organisation paroissiale=, Le troisième concile de Latran 53-74.
 The Council of Toledo (646) had limited bishops= retinues to 50 (Mansi 9.838). Cf. A. L. Slafkosky, The Canonical Episcopal Visitation of the Diocese (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 142; Washington, D.C. 1941), especially 24-28; Avril, >L=encadrement diocésain= 55-57.
 Cf. J. H. Lynch, Simoniacal Entry into Religious Life from 1000 to 1260 (Columbus, Ohio 1976) 147-169.
 For a discussion the Third Lateran=s legislation on religious privilege, see Jean Becquet, >Les religieux=, Le troisième concile de Latran 45-51.
 Cc.20-22, 25 = Lat. II, cc.14, 12, 11, 13.
 See n. 49, above for bibliography on the Truce of God..
 See Henri Maisonneuve, Études sur les origines de l=Inquisition (2nd ed. Paris 1960) 94-96, 102-163, et passim (Cathars); 151 n. 2, 155 (Patarines); 114-118 (>Publicani=).
 For the context and application, see Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 126-135.
 Mansi 22.476-478; cf. Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 151-156.
 See Charles Duggan=s essay in this volume on the following. Walther Holtzmann=s opinion that the Third Lateran Council stimulated the making of decretal collections cannot be sustained in the light of this evidence.
 1 Dunelmensis, Fontanensis, 1 Rotomagensis, Florianensis, Cusana, and Oriel.: Studies in the Collections of Twelfth‑Century Decretals, from the papers of the late Walther Holtzmann ed. and trans., C. R. Cheney and Mary G. Cheney (MIC Series B: Corpus Collectionorum 3; Vatican City 1979) 336, s.v. >Remense=.
 On Belverensis see Charles Duggan, Twelfth‑Century Decretal Collections and their Importance in English History (University of London Historical Studies 12; London 1963) 47, 71 n. 2, 155, 161) Dunelmensis (ibid. 79 and n. 1) Fountains (ibid. 80 n. 1), Bridlington (ibid. 90, 93), Claudiana (ibid. 91 n. 3), Cotton and Peterhouse (ibid. 104 n. 4). For the reception of individual canons, see Holtzmann-Cheney, Collections 336-337 s.v. >Turonense=. Seven of its decrees reached the Gregorian Decretales (Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 208).
 Duggan, Twelfth‑Century Decretal Collections 47, 71 n. 2, 72, 73, 159-160. For the reception of individual canons, see Holtzmann-Cheney, Collections 337, s.v. >Westmonasteriense= (1175).
 Alberigo, COD 207-209; cf. Holtzmann-Cheney, Collections 335-336, s.v. >Lateranum III=.
 Alberigo, COD 209: >Pro certo affirmare possumus huius concilii canones per totam latinam ecclesiam divulgatos esse atque in eius curis negotiisque maxime valuisse=; cf. Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 208: >For canonists and administrators the memorable Roman council was that gathered at the Lateran in 1179 by Alexander III.= In addition to legal manuscripts, copies of the decrees are found, for example in a manuscript containing sacred and profane texts in the library of the Augustinian house of Aureil in Limousin (Jean Becquet, >La bibliothèque des chanoines réguliers d=Aureil en Limousin au XIIIe siècle=, Vie canoniale en France aux Xe-XIIe siècles (London 1985) 107-134, especially 122 no. 76: >Decreta innouata in concilio Alexandri pape=.
 With the papal bull Rex pacificus (Friedberg, Decretales 2): >Volentes igitur, ut hac tantum compilatione universi utantur in iudiciis et in scholis, districtius prohibemus, ne quis praesumat aliam facere absque auctoritate sedis apostolicae speciali=. For a translation of the bull see Robert Somerville and Bruce C. Brasington, Prefaces to Canon Law Books in Latin Christianity: Selected Translations, 500-1245 (New Haven-London 1998). For the distribution of the canons, see Friedberg, Decretales xii, s.v. >C. Later. III=.
 Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis 1.94-98: influence of Lateran III is found in: cc.9-10, forbidding clergy from undertaking secular business (cf. Lat. III, c.12); c.12, on visitations and procurations, opens, >Sicut in Lateranensi Concilio cautum est= (cf. Lat. III, c.4;) c.13, on appeals (cf. Lat. III, c.6); c.14, forbidding excommunication without citation and judgment (cf. Lat. III, c.6). Cf. Raymonde Foreville, >The Synod of the Province of Rouen in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries=, Church and Government in the Middle Ages, ed. C. N. L. Brooke et al. (Cambridge 1976) 19-39, especially 38 (reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen‑Âge London 1979 no.8); idem, >La réception des conciles généraux dans l=église et la province de Rouen au XIIIe siècle=, Droit privé et institutions régionales: Études historiques offertes à Jean Yver (Paris 1976) 243-253, especially 244 (reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de l=Église no.9).
 Mansi 22.939-950.
 Councils and Synods 1.2 pp. 1060-7100; Mansi 22.713-722: c.5, restricting the trains of visiting prelates, >Cum inter ea quae statuta sunt a modernis patribus Lateranense concilium= (cf. Lat. III, c.4); c.6, bishops to pay the stipend of any priest or deacon ordained without title, >juxta tenorem Lateranensis concilii= (cf. Lat. III, c.5); c.7, excommunication to be proceeded by canonical process, >Rursus Lateranensis concilii statuta sequentes= (cf. Lat. III, c.6); c.8, sacraments to be bestowed without charge, >Sicut in Lateranensi concilio salubriter a sanctis patribus est provisum= (cf. Lat. III, cc.7, 18, 8); c. 10, forbidding clergy to keep concubines, >Statuta etiam Lateranensis concilii reuerenter amplectentes= (cf. Lat. III, c.11); c.13, provision for lepers, >concilii Lateranensis eciam institucione suffulti= (cf. Lat. III, c.23); c.14 (Mansi c.14, beginning), condemning abuse of privileges by Templars and Hospitallers, >Lateranensis concilii tenore perpensoYeiusdem auctoritate concilii= (cf. Lat. III, c.9); c.15 (Mansi c.14, at the end), condemning simoniacal entry into religious houses (cf. Lat. III, c.10).
 See Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 52-97: c.55, on excommunication (cf. Lat. III, c.6), c.70, prohibiting lay possession of tithes (cf. Lat. III, c.15, at the end).
 Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the History of the English Church, 2, A.D. 1205-1313, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford 1964) 1.2 pp. 57-96: influence of Lateran III is found in: c.101, De eodem [= De regula religionis], (cf. Lat. III, c.10); c.107, De beneficio indigni privando, includes the phrase, >in concilio Lateranensi primo= (cf. Lat. III, c.14).
 Mansi 22.818-854.
 Mansi 22.897-924.
 Mansi 22.935-54; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 241-243.
 Lat. III, c.4 (cf. Lat. IV, c.33 ); c.8 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29), c.9 (cf. Lat. IV, c.61), c.13 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.18 (cf. Lat. IV, c.11); c.19 (cf. Lat. IV, c.46).
 Note the substitution of >vel= for >et=: cf. Alberigo, COD 219, line 30.
 Lat. IV, c.3 (cf. Lat. III, c.27), 14 (cf. Lat. III, c.11), cc.18, 71 (cf. Lat. III, c.20), c. 23 (cf. Lat. III, c.8), c.24 (cf. Lat. III, cc.1, 16), cc.26, 30 (cf. Lat. III, c.3), cc.32, 46 (cf. Lat. III, c. 14), cc.35, 47 (cf. Lat. III, c.6), c.57 (cf. Lat. III, c.9), c.63 (cf. Lat. III, c.7), c.64 (cf. Lat. III, c.10).
 Jean Longère, >L=Influence de Latran III sur quelques ouvrages de théologie morale=, Le troisième concile de Latran 91-103.
 Raymonde Foreville, >La place de Latran III dans l=histoire conciliare du XIIe siècle=, Le Troisieme Concile de Latran 11-17.
 Innocent III, Epistolae 16.30 in PL 216.823-825); Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 245-246, 327-329 (French translation); Alberto Mellone, >Vineam Domini - 10 April 1213: New Efforts and Traditional Topoi - Summoning Lateran IV=, Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. John C. Moore (Aldershot 1999) 63-73, including a new edition of the letter, 72-23.
 For the official list of cardinals, metropolitans, and bishops, see Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 391-395; cf. J. Werner, >Die Teilnehmerliste des Laterankonzils v. J. 1215=, Neues Archiv 31 (1906) 577-93; Hefele, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1722-1733; cf. n. 129, below.
 For a statistical analysis of the sources of Lateran IV, see Antonio García y García, >La Biblia en el concilio 4 lateranense de 1215=, AHC 18 (1986) 91-102, especially 96. He counts only 12 derivations from Lateran III, but six canons of the Third Lateran are cited explicitly: Lat. III, c.4 (cf. Lat. IV, c.33 ); c.8 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29), c.9 (cf. Lat. IV, c.61), c.13 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.18 (cf. Lat. IV, c.11); c.19 (cf. Lat. IV, c.46); and there are echoes of a further ten: Lat. III, c.1 (cf. Lat. IV, 24), c.3 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.26, 30), c.6 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.35, 47), c.7 (cf. Lat. IV, c.63), c.10 (cf. Lat. IV, c.64), c. 11 (cf. Lat. IV, c.14), c.14 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.32, 46), c.16 (cf. Lat. IV, c.24), c.20 (cf. Lat. IV, c.18, 71), c.27 (cf. Lat. IV, c.3); and the influence of Lat III, cc.8 and 9, cited in Lat. IV, c.29 and 81, is also evident in Lat. IV, cc.23 and 57.
 > ... generale concilium juxta priscam sanctorum patrum consuetudinem convocemus= (PL 216.824); cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 327 (French translation); cf. Gérard Fransen, >L=Ecclésiologie des Conciles médiévaux=, Le Concile et les conciles, ed. B. Bott, et al. (Paris 1960) 125-141, at 127-128.
 Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1233-1316; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 227-244. See also Werner Maleczek, >Laterankonzil, IV=, LMA 5 (1990) 1742-1744.
 > ... in quo ad exstirpanda vitia et plantandas virtutes, corrigendos excessus, et reformandos mores, eliminandas haereses, et roborandam fidem, sopiendas discordias, et stabiliendam pacem, comprimendas oppressiones, et libertatem fovendam, inducendos principes et populos Christianos ad succursum et subsidium terrae sanctae tam a clericis quam a laicis impendendum, cum caeteris quae longum esset per singula numerare= (PL 216.824); cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 327-238 (French translation).
 Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 258-272, 406.
 There were 17 prelates from the patriarchate of Constantinople, four from Jerusalem, one from Antioch, and one Maronite, see Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 391-392; cf. n. 123, above. On representation in councils and the Church during the thirteenth century, see Kenneth Pennington, >Representation in Medieval Canon Law=, The Jurist 64 (2004) 361-383.
 Michele Maccarone, >Il IV Concilio Lateranense=, Divinitas 2 (1961) 270-298, especially 284; C. R. Cheney, >A Letter of Innocent III and the Lateran Decree on Cistercian Tithe‑Paying=, Cîteaux: Commentarii Cistercienses 13 (1962) 146-151; Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum Commentariis glossatorum, ed. Antonio García y García (MCI, Series A: Corpus Glossatorum 2; Vatican City 1981) 5-10; idem, >Gobierno de la Iglésia universal en el concilio IV Lateranense=, Iglesia, sociedad y derecho (2 vols. Bibliotheca Salmanticensis 89; Salamanca 1987) 2.123-141, especially 132-135 (reprinted from AHC 1 , 50-68).
 >Constitutiones siue decreta domini Innocentii pape iii. in generali concilio Lateranensi edita=, García y García, Constitutiones 6. Cf. idem, >A New Eyewitness Account of the Fourth Lateran Council=, Iglesia, sociedad y derecho 2.61-121, especially 67: >deinde leguntur constitutiones domini pape...= (reprinted from Traditio 20  115-178).
 Antonio García y García has found 28 derivations from Innocent=s own writings in the Council=s decrees (26 from letters, 2 from De altaris mysterio): García y García, >La Biblia en el concilio 4 lateranense= 96.
 García y García, Constitutiones 8 cites a letter to the archbishop of Cologne, dated 20 Nov. 1202-1213 Jan. 1203 (Potthast, 1767), which mentions the possibility of calling a general council to which the archbishop would be invited.
 Indeed, parallels for many of the decrees can be found in local ecclesiastical legislation: London (Westminster) 1200, Paris 1209, Avignon 1209, Paris 1212, Montpellier 1214, Rouen 1214, etc. Cf. García y García, >Gobierno de la Iglésia universal= 135-141.
 Foreville, >Procédure et débats= 25, 29-34; cf. García y García, Constitutiones 11; idem, >Gobierno de la Iglésia universal=, 125-126.
 For the best edition of the constitutions, based on the 20 most reliable manuscripts, see García y García, Constitutiones 1-118, which corrects the vulgate edition: COD 230-271; cf. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1.230-271 (Latin and English); Alberigo and Duval, Les Conciles oecumeniques 2.1 pp. 494-577 (Latin and French); Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 342-386 (French). For a summary translation of Innocent III=s sermon delivered on 11 November 1215, see ibid., Appendix V, 333-338: from Richard of San Germano, Chronica priora, ed. A. Gaudenzi (Naples 1888) 90-93. See also, Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1316-1398.
 Paul Fournier, Études sur Joachim de Flore et ses doctrines (Paris 1909) 32-37; E. Buonaiuti, Gioacchino da Fiore: I tempi, la vita, il messagio (Rome 1931) 174-175; F. Roberti, Gioacchino da Fiore (Florence 1934) 81-131; Ioachimi abbatis Liber contra Lombardum (Scuola di Gioacchino da Fiore), ed. C. Ottaviano (Rome 1934); E. Bertola, La dottrina trinitaria in Pietro Lombardo (Miscellanea Lombardiana; Novara 1957) 129-135.
 G. C. Capelle, Autour du décret de 1210, 3: Amaury de Bène: Étude sur son panthéisme formel (Bibliothèque thomiste 16, Section historique 14;Paris 1932); cf. Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 166-168.
 Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition commented on the similarity between the dogmatic definitions of c.1 and the professions of faith imposed on Durand de Huesca (>Poor Catholic=) and Bernard Primus (Poor Lombard=).
 Jean Châtillon, >Latran III et l=enseignement christologique de Pierre Lombard=, Le troisième concile de Latran (1179): Sa place dans l=histoire, ed. Jean Longère (Paris 1982) 75-90; cf. Marcia L. Colish, Peter Lombard (Brill=s Studies in Intellectual History 41; Leiden-New York 1994).
 Michele Maccarone, Studi su Innocenzo III (Italia Sacra: Studi e documenti di storia ecclesiastica 17; Padua 1972) 390-396.
 Citing and expanding Lucius III=s decree Ad abolendam, issued at the council of Verona in 1184 (Mansi, 22.476-478); cf. Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 151-156.
 Mansi, 23.73-75; cf. Maisonneuve, Origines de l=Inquisition 245-253. For a general survey of the Inquisition (with bibliography), see DMA 6.483-489 and H.A. Kelly, Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures in the Medieval West (Aldershot 2001).
 Lotte Kéry, >Inquisitio - denunciatio - exceptio: Möglichkeiten der Verfahrenseinleitung im Dekretalenrecht=, ZRG, Kan. Abt. 87 (2001) 226-268 for a discussion of Qualiter.
 Cf. U. Berlière, >Innocent III et la réorganisation des monastères bénédictines=, Revue bénédictine 22 (1920) 22-42, 145-59; Michele Maccarone, >Riforma e sviluppo della vita religiosa con Innocenzo III=, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 16 (1962) 29-72, especially 31-41; idem, >I capitoli istuiti dal IV concilio Lateranense=, Studi su Innocenzo III 246-262.
 For the context and implications of this decree, see Maccarone, >Riforma e sviluppo della vita religiosa= 61-72; idem, >La costitutione ANe nimia religionum@ del IV concilio Lateranense=, Studi su Innocenzo III 307-337.
 For its implementation in Germany, see Papul P. Pixton, >Pope Innocent III and the German Schools: the impact of Canon 11 of the Fourth Lateran Council upon the cathedral and other schools 1216-1272=, Innocenzo III. Urbs et Orbis. Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Roma, 9-15 settembre 1998, ed. Andrea Sommerlechner (2 vols. Rome 2003) 2.101-132, especially 115-132.
148 Cf. Lat I, cc.7, 21; Lat. II, c.6; Lat. III, c.11. For general background, see Roger Gryson, Les origines du célibat ecclésiastique du premier au septième siècle (Gembloux 1970); Roman Choli, Clerical Celibacy in East and West (Leominster 1988); and Clarence Gallagher, Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium: A Comparative Study (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monigraphs, 8; Aldershot 2002) who compares celibacy in the Eastern and Western churches.
149 Cf. Lat. II, c.4 above, at n. 69.
150 Already in Gratian, Decretum C.23 q.8 c.30: >Non debent agitare iudicium sanguinis qui sacramenta Domini tractent=; ibid., C.2 q.5 c.22: >In novo testamento monomachia non recipitur.=
151 J. W. Baldwin, >The Intellectual Preparation for the Canon of 1215 against the Ordeals=, Speculum 36 (1961) 613-636. On the replacement of the ordeal with the Ordo iudiciarius in church courts see Kenneth Pennington, >Due Process, Community, and the Prince in the Evolution of the Ordo iudiciarius=, RIDC 9 (1998) 9‑47
152 Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 49.
153 See below n. 206.
154 Daniel R. Cahill, The Custody of the Blessed Sacrament (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 292; Washington, D.C. 1950) 8-12.
155 Cf. Bertrand Kurtscheid, A History of the Seal of Confession, trans. F. A. Marks (Saint Louis 1927) 115-126; Paul Anciaux, La Théologie du Sacrement de Pénitence au XIIe siècle (Louvain 1949).
156 C.23 (cf. Lat. III, c.8); c.24 (cf. Lat. III, c.1); c.29 (cf. Lat. III, cc.8, 13-14); c.30 (cf. Lat. III, c.3); c.31 (cf. Lat. II, c.21); cc.33-4 (cf. Lat. III, c.4).
157 Ebers, Devolutionsrecht 182-188.
158 Anscar Parsons, Canonical Elections (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 118; Washington, D.C. 1939) 52-64.
159 For a discussion of the tacit obstruction to the full application of this and related canons, see J. W. Gray, >Canon Law in England: Some Reflections on the Stubbs‑Maitland Controversy=, (SCH 3; Leiden 1966) 48-68, especially 54-60.
160 Note the important emendation of the generally received reading of >three= months to >six= months, bringing the canon into line with Lat. III, c.8: cf. García y García, Constitutiones 74, line 13.
161 Ebers, Devolutionsrecht 182-188.
162 An interlocutory sentence was a judgment on a subsidiary issue which had arisen in the course of litigation.
163 Cf. R. von Heckel, >Das Aufkommen der ständigen Prokuratoren an der päpstlichen Kurie im 13. Jahrhundert=, Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle: Scritti di storia e paleografia 2 (ST 38; Rome 1924) 290-321 at 311-133.
164 Cf. N. Vilain, >Prescription et bonne foi du Décret de Gratien (1140) à Jean d=André H1348)=, Traditio 16 (1958) 136-145.
165 Cf. Linda Fowler, >Recusatio iudicis in civilian and canonist thought=, Post scripta: Essays on Medieval Law and the Emergence of the European State in Honor of Gaines Post, eds. Joseph R. Strayer and Donald E. Queller (SG 15; Rome 1972) 719-785.
166 Cf. Lat. III, c.19; Raymonde Foreville, >Répresentation et taxation du clergé au I=VE concile du Latran (1215)=, Études présentés à la Commission internationale pour les Assemblées d=États XXXI (XIIe Congrès international dessciences historiques; Paris-Louvain 1966) 57-74 (reprinted Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen‑Âge [London 1979]) no.3.
167 Cf. Lat. I, c.9; Lat. II, c.17.
168 Francis X. Wahl, The Matrimonial Impediments of Consanguinity and Affinity (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 90; Washington, D.C. 1934) 18-19; Adhélmar Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique (2 vols. 2nd. ed. Paris 1929) 1.371-393; R. H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge Studies in English Legal History; London/New York 1974); cf. idem, in DMA 3.539-540. Innocent=s action was not without precedent. In the 1160s, Alexander III had allowed such marriages on a remote Norwegian island (Greenland?), for example, and also in the Croatian province of Spalato (Split): Decretales Ineditae Saeculi XII, ed. Stanley Chodorow and Charles Duggan, MIC Series B 4 (Vatican City 1982) 149-151 no. 86, at 149; Charles Duggan, >Decretal Letters to Hungary= 23-24 no. 10. Moreover, the reduction of the prohibition to four degrees was powerfully argued by Peter the Chanter in his Verbum abbreviatum: J. W. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle (2 vols. Princeton 1970) 1.336-337.
169 Thus making universal a practice that was already followed in some parts of the church: cf. James B. Roberts, The Banns of Marriage (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies 64; Washington, D.C. 1931) 9-17. See also E. Diebold, >L=application en France du canon 51 du I=VE concile du Latran d=après les anciens statuts synodaux=, L=Anné Canonique 2 (1963) 187-195.
170 Cf. Cheney, >A Letter of Innocent III and the Lateran Decree on Cistercian Tithe‑Paying=; Giles Constable, Monastic Tithes 1-19, 303-309.
171 Cf. Lat. II, c.10; Lat. III, c.9.
172 Cc.63, 65-6 (cf. Lat. III, c.7); c.64 (cf. Lat. III, c.10). Cf. Lynch, Simoniacal Entry 179-195.
173 For which the canon supplies the text of a form letter, Quoniam ua ait Apostolus, which could be used for the purpose.
174 For the interesting suggestion that the precise formulation of this canon owed much to existing English practice and the influence of Cardinal Robert Courson, see N. Vincent, >Some Pardoners= Tales; The Earliest English Indulgences=, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 6th series 12 (2002) 23-58 at 55.
175 Kenneth R. Stow, >Papal and Royal Attitudes Toward Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth century=, Association for Jewish Studies Review 6 (1981) 161-184; John A. Watt, >Jews and Christians in the Gregorian Decretals=, Christianity and Judaism, ed. Diana Wood (SCH 29; Oxford 1992) 93-105. Cf. S. Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIIIth Century (Philadelphia 1933); Essential Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict. From Late Antiquity to the Reformation, ed. Jeremy Cohen (New York 1991) part 2.
176 One manuscript, Florence, Biblioteca Mediceo‑Laurenziana, MS S. Croce IIIsin.6, fols. 254ra-261vb, arranges the canons in five parts, >Prima pars novellarum=, >Secunda pars novellarum=, etc., comprising cc.1-4, 5-22, 23-34, 35-49, 50-71, and the anonymous Casus Parisienses (possibly by Vincentius Hispanus) adopted a similar division (García y García, Constitutiones 17-18).
177 García y García, Constitutiones 119-172.
178 Johannes intserted all but c.42, Sicut volumus, relating to secular jurisdiction, and c.71, Ad liberandam Terram sanctam into his Compilatio Quarta; Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 312-313; Alberigo, COD 229; cf. Stephan Kuttner, >Johannes Teutonicus, das vierte Laterankonzil und die Compilatio Quarta=, Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati (ST 125; Vatican City 1946) 608-634; reprinted in Medieval Councils, Decretals, and Collections of Canon Law (London 1980) no.10; cf. >Retractationes=, 9-11; García y García, Constitutiones 4.
179 All but c.42, Sicut volumus, relating to secular jurisdiction, c.49, on unjust excommunications, and part of c.71, Ad liberandam Terram sanctam were received into the Liber Extra in 1234: Alberigo, COD 229, García y García, Constitutiones 4. For their distribution in the Extra, see Friedberg, Decretales xii, s.v. >Conc. Later. IV=.
180 X 1.1.1-2, >De summa Trinitate et fide catholica=..
181 Sixty‑six manuscripts are still extant, and a further 14 have been lost: see García y García=s chapter in this volume.
182 >Johannis Teutonici apparatus in concilium Lateranense=, ed. García y García, Constitutiones 173-270.
183 >Vincentii Hispani apparatus in concilium quartum Lateranense=, ed. García y García, Constitutiones 271-384. Despite the small number of surviving manuscripts, their geographical spread (Bamberg, Jumièges, Llanthony Secunda, Padua, Signy) suggests wide dissemination.
184 See García y García=s chapter below.
185 Cf. García y García, Constitutiones 187-270, of which pages 223-256 relate to cc.35-48 (Johannes); 287-384, of which pages 331-358 relate to cc.35-48 (Vincentius); 419-458, of which pages 437-447 relate to cc.35-48 (Damasus).
186 C. R. Cheney, English Synodalia of the Thirteenth Century (London 1941; reprinted Oxford 1998); M. Gibbs and J. Lang, Bishops and Reform; 1215-1272, with special reference to the Lateran Council of 1215 (London 1934) 94-179; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 313-315.
187 Although it did not initiate them: see Cheney, English Synodalia 35-36; Pontal, Les statuts synodaux lxxi-lxxvii, 106; Paul B. Pixton, The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1216-1245: Watchmen on the Tower (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 64; Leiden 1995) 7-89; cf. Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 10-82.
188 Alberigo, COD 236 (cf. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 236): >canonicas regulas et maxime quae statuta sunt in hoc generali concilio relegentes=.
189 Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 57, correcting Cheney, English Synodalia 50-51. Richard Poore had attended the Fourth Lateran Council, and he was a friend of Odo de Sully and a pupil of Stephen Langton: ibid., 52, 55-5.
190 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 57-96. Direct influence of Lateran IV is found in c.4, De trinitate credenda which ends, >prout in capitulo concilii continetur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.1); c.8, De fornicatione clericorum, with the phrase >in generali concilio statutum est= (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c. 1, De superbia vitanda in verbo et gestu combines parts of Lat. IV, c.16, Langton, cc.8 and 10, and Lat. III, c.14; c.13, De potatione publica devitanda (cf. Lat. IV, c.15); c.16, De cupiditate clericorum vitanda echoes in part Paris, vii. 4 (Mansi 22.679) and Lat. IV, c.66; c.17, De consuetudine ecclesie laudabili et observanda, with the phrase >sicut in concilio statutum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.66); c.21, Quod nichil exigatur pro baptismate (cf. Paris, iii. 2-3 and Lat. IV, c.20); c.38, Quotiens monendi sunt parochiani ad confitendum et ad communicandum (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.51, De premonitione excommunicationis, opens >Sacro approbante concilio= (cf. Lat. IV, c.47); c.55, De sacramento redemptionis (cf. Lat. IV, c.1); c.66, De munditia vasorum et ornamentorum omnium (cf. Lat. IV, c.19); 72, De fraudulenta pensione non danda, includes the phrase, >sicut in concilio prohibitum est= (cf. Lat. IV, c.32); c.81, De fornicatione et adulteriis, includes the phrase, >secundum statuta concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.7); c.85, De clandestinis matrimoniis, includes the phrase, >secundum statuta concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.51); 90, De gradibus matrimonii, opens >In generali concilio statutum est= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.50-1); 91, De competenti termino contrahendi (cf. Lat. IV, c.51); c.92, De testimonio consanguinitatis in contractu (cf. Lat. IV, c.52); c.98, Ne medici suadeant egris aliquid quod sit in periculo anime, ends >Transgressor huius constitutionis penam in concilio statutam non (evadet)= (cf. Lat. IV, c.22); c.100, De regula religionis (cf. Lat. IV, c.13); 104, De procuratione (visitationis), includes the phrases, >sacri concilii vestigiis inherentes= and >in Laterannsi concilio diffinita=, >secundum statuta concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.33-4); 105, De clericis episcopi suscipiendis, includes the phrase, >in concilio statutum est= (cf. Lat. IV, c.10); c.106, De magistris scolarum (cf. Lat. IV, c.11); c.107, De beneficio indigni privando, includes the phrase, >nuper in generali concilio evidentius fuit expressum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.109, Ne clerici optineant res laicales, opens, >Sacri concilii auctoritate interdicimus= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.43, 45); c.110, De advocatis et feudatoriis, opens, >Sacri nichilominus concilii provisione diffinitum est= (cf. Lat. IV, c.45); c.111, De stipendiis sacerdotum, includes the phrase, >auctoritate concilii precipimus= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.32). Papal mandates against hereditary succession in benefices, received by the archbishop of York and the bishops of Lincoln, Worcester, London, Carlisle, Salisbury, Coventry, 1221-1235: Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 98-99.
191 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 165-167 (Canterbury) 201 (Durham) 435-445 (Durham peculiars in York) 364-387 (Salisbury) 227-237 (Exeter) 632-658 (London) 451-467 (Chichester); cf. Cheney, English Synodalia 62-89.
192 Ibid. 2.1 pp. 100-125. Sixty manuscript copies are known, testifying to the wide dissemination and enduring relevance of Stephen Langton=s provincial code.
193 Ibid. 2.1 pp. 100-125. Direct influence of Lateran IV is found in: c.11 includes the phrase >cum in generali concilio sit preceptum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.17); c.13, prohibiting clergy from involvement in sentences of blood, opens >Auctoritate quoque generalis concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.18); c.14 orders that the appointment of vicars in prebendal churches and in churches belonging to religious houses should be made >secundum formam generalis concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.32, 61); c.24, on the appointment of confessors for the clergy (cf. Lat. IV, c.10); c.27, moderating the trains of archdeacons, refers to the number of packhorses >statutum in concilio generali= (cf. Lat. IV, c.33); c.29. on the duties of an archdeacon, orders archdeacons to see that the eucharist, chrism, and holy oil are securely locked >iuxta formam generalis concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.20); c. 31 prohibits charging for burials, baptisms, marriages or any other sacrament >sicut in generali concilio expressius et diffusius est statutum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.66); c. 33, on clerical dress (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.34, on clerical behavior (cf. Lat. IV, c.15); c.39, forbidding luxurious dress to nuns, women, monks, and canons regular (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.42, forbidding payment for entry into a religious house (cf. Lat. IV, c.64); c.43, forbidding the >farming= of churches (cf. Lat. IV,c.32); c.46, on the Jews (cf. Lat. IV, c.67); c.47, ordering Jews to wear distinctive dress (cf. Lat. IV, c.68); c.33, on payment of tithe and observance of the Lateran constitutions (cf. Lat. IV, cc.53-55).
194 Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 125: >Ut autem omnia fine bono concludantur, Lateranense concilium sub sancte recordationis papa Innocentio iii celebratum, in prestatione decimarum et aliis capitulis precipimus observari, et in synodis episcoporum constitutiones illius concilii una cum istis prout videbitur expedire volumus recitari.=
195 William Lyndwood (Gulielmus Lindwood), Provinciale (seu Constitutiones Angliae) (Oxford: H. Hall, 1679), cf. Tabula, kira; Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 101.
196 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 139-154, c.38, on the secure custody of holy oil and chrism (cf. Lat. IV, c.20); c.40, on publishing the banns of marriage, >nuper in concilio super huiusmodi statutam= (cf. Lat. IV, c.51); cc.63-65, on clerical behavior (cf. Lat. IV, cc.14-16); c.77, on the appointment of vicars, >cum in generali concilio nuper statutum esset= (cf. Lat. IV, c.61).
197 I.e. the Fourth: see Cheney, >The Numbering of the Lateran Councils= 206-207.
198 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 125-137, at 126.
199 Councils and Synods 2.1 pp. 227-237 (Exeter), 169-181 (Worcester, 1229), 237-259 (Cardinal Otto), 294-325 (Worcester, 1240), 265-278 (Lincoln), 342-364 (Norwich), 586-626 (Bath and Wells); et passim.
200 Councils and Synods 2.1 p. 589, >salvis in omnibus statutis conciliorum Lateranensis, Oxoniensis, et Londoniensis=.
201 For the attribution, see Pontal, Les statuts synodaux français du XIIIe siècle 48-50; for the text, with French translation, see ibid., 52-97; cf. Synodicon Ecclesiae Parisiensis (Paris; F. Muguet, 1674) 3-21; Mansi 22.731-736 (shorter text), under the title >statuta incerti loci=; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 315. Cf. A. Artonne, >Les statuts synodaux diocésains français du XIIIe s. au concile de Trente=, Revue d=histoire de l=Église de France 36 (1950) 168-181. For the reception of Odo=s statutes in England, see Cheney, English Synodalia 55-56; for their influence in Germany, see n. 206 below. For Portugal, see I. da Rosa Pereira, >Les statutes synodaux d=Eudes de Sully en Portugal=, L=année canonique 15 (1971) 459-480.
202 Text lost: cf. Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 106.
203 Odette Pontal, >Les plus anciens statuts synodux d=Angers et leur expansion dans les diocèses de l=ouest de la France=, Revue d=Histoire de l=Église de France 46 (1960) 54-67; Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 106, 138-239 (with French translation).
204 Pontal, Les statuts synodaux 138-237, c.18, on priestly obligation to say the Office, >Ex concilio lateranensi ultimo= (cf. Lat. IV, c.17); c.22, on the proper care of altar linen and vestments, with the phrase >sicut continetur in concilio (lateranensi)= (cf. Lat. IV, c.19, end); c.23, Ex concilio lateranensi de crismate (cf. Lat. IV, cc.19 [end], 20); c.24, Item de eodem, forbidding the keeping of private possessions in churches, opens with the phrase >In concilio firmiter inhibetur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.19); c.31, Ex concilio lateranensi forbidding clergy from indulging in profane pursuits (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.32, on clerical dress (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.33, forbidding clergy to participate in sentences of blood, derived from the Council of Tours, 1216 (cf. Lat. IV, c.18); c.34, Ex concilio lateranensi (et turonensi) forbidding clergy from taking paid employment or blessing the elements in ordeals (cf. Lat. IV, c.18); c.37, Ex concilio lateranensi, on clerical behavior (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.38, excommunicating clergy who still retained >suspect women= >usque ad concilium lateranense ultimo celebratum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.39, Ex concilio lateranensi, on illegitimate children of priests and clerical and lay concubinage (falsely attributed to the council; derived from Odo de Sully, c.81); c.40, on reservation of relics, opens with the phrase >Item in concilio est statutum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.62); c.41, Ex concilio lateranensi, on episcopal control of preachers and alms‑collectors (false attribution; from Odo de Sully, c.68); c.64, allowing marriage from the fifth degree of consanguinity onwards (cf. Lat. IV, c.50); c.65 forbidding clandestine marriages (cf. Lat. IV, c.51); c.69, on clerical duties towards the sick, opens with the phrase >Statutum est in concilio= (cf. Lat. IV, c.22); c.73, In concilio lateranensi, sacraments to be conferred freely (cf. Lat. IV, c.61); c.75, on confession (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.73, In concilio lateranensi, sacraments to be conferred freely (cf. Lat. IV, c.61); c.75, on confession (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.76, on confession (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.80, Ex concilio lateranensi, on penance (mistaken attribution).
205 Compiled by Pierre de Sampson and widely disseminated, it was adopted in Arles, Béziers, Uzès, and Lodève, and its influence can be traced in the work of Guillaume Durand (Mende) and Raymond de Calmont d=Olt (Rodez) and in synodal statutes in northern Spain and Italy. Manuscript copies survive in Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Germany; see Odette Pontal, >Quelques remarques sur l=oeuvre canonique de Pierre de Sampzon=, AHC 8 (1976) 126-142, especially 127-132; cf. Mansi, 24.521-566 (wrongly attributed to Bishop Bertrand de Languisel and mis‑dated 1284).
206 Pontal, >Les plus anciens statuts= 57-59 and Les statuts synodaux 106-108, 136. According to Odette Pontal (p.136), >pour toute la France du Moyen Age il [the synodal book of Angers] reste le synodal de base jusqu=au Concile de Trente.= For manuscript and bibliographical details, see A. Artonne, L. Guixard, Odette Pontal, Répertoire des statuts synodaux des diocèses de l=ancienne France du xiiie à la fin du xviiie siècle (Documents, Études et Répertoires publiés par l=Institut de Recherche et d=Histoire des Textes 8; 2nd edition; Paris 1969) 80-81 (Autun, 115-116 (Bayeux), 205 (Clermont‑Ferrand), 213-214 (Coutances), 257 (Langres), 297 (Le Mans), 279 (Lisieux), 287 (Lyon), 316-317 (Nantes), 337 (Noyon), 342-343 (Orléans), 378-379 (Rouen), 409 (Saintes), 421 (Sisteron), 453 (Tours); cf. Raymonde Foreville, >Les statuts synodaux et le renouveau pastoral du XIIIe siècle dans le Midi de la France=, Le Credo, la morale et l=Inquisition (Cahiers de Fanjeaux 6; Toulouse 1971) 119-150 (reprinted in idem, Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen‑Âge [London 1979] no.15).
207 Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis 1.130-132: c.1 declares, >auctoritate sacri Concilii LateranensisYhaec potissimum volumus observari quae in ipso Concilio constituta noscuntur=; cc.1-19 = Lat. IV, cc.6, 10, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15-16, 19-20, 21, 10, 27, 30, 31, 32, 47, 51, 53-54, 55, 59; cf. Raymonde Foreville, >La réception des conciles généraux dans l=église et la province de Rouen au XIIIe siècle=, Droit privé et institutions régionales: Études historiques offertes à Jean Yver (Paris 1976) 245 (reprinted in Gouvernement et vie de l=Église au Moyen‑Âge [London 1979] no. 9).
208 Bremen, Cologne, Magdeburg, Mainz, Salzburg, Trier.
209 Peter Johanek, >Die Pariser Statuten des Bischofs Odo von Sully und die Anfänge der kirchlichen Statutengesetzgebung in Deutschland=, Proceedings Cambridge 327-347, especially 345-347, for the Latin text; cf. Pixton, The German Episcopacy 149-151 (with English translation).
210 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 84-85. For the Utrecht statutes, see Concilia Germaniae, ed. J. F. Schannat and J. Hartzheim (11 vols. Cologne: Krakamp and Simonis, 1759-1775; reprinted Aalen 1970) 3 (1760) 488-490; cf. Anton Joseph Binterim, Pragmatische Geschichte der deutschen National‑ Provincial‑ und vorzüglichsten Diöcesanconcilien vom vierten Jahrhundert bis auf das Concilium zu Trient (7 vols. Mainz 1835-1848) 4 (1840) 458-465 (German translation).
211 For German attendance at the council, see Hermann Krabbo, >Die Deutschen Bischöfe auf dem Laterankonzil 1215', QF 10 (1907) 275-300: 7 from the province of Mainz, 3 from Trier, 2 from Cologne, 4 from Salzburg, 2 from Bremen, 3 from Magdeburg, as well as the patriarch of Aquileia and the bishops of Trent, Basel, Cambrai, Riga, and Estonia; cf. Pixton, The German Episcopacy 190. For monastic and capitular representation, >perhaps forty or fifty other clerics=, see ibid., 190-193.
212 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 223-234: cc.8-9, on abuse by lay advocates (cf. Lat. IV, cc.44-45); c.11, compelling subdeacons and deacons who have married to return to the clerical state (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.14, on appointment of vicars (cf. Lat. IV, cc.30 and 61; confirmed by Pope Honorius III, Dec. 1217. Potthast 5635).
213 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 234, 240-241, 415-418. A council in 1216 is inferred; for the 1238 council see Mansi 23.477-86. 12 of its 45 decrees reflect Lateran legislation: 10-13, 15-16, 21, regulating clerical dress and tonsure (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); 14, forbidding clergy to frequent taverns, except on pilgrimages and journeys (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.17-18, forbidding clerical cohabitation with women (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.20, forbidding hawking and dicing (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.26, on sufficient income for vicars (cf. Lat. IV, c.32); c. 27, on the safe custody of the eucharist >corpus Domini=, holy oil and baptismal fonts (cf. Lat. IV, c.20); c.31, against heresy (cf. Lat. IV, c.3); two reflect that of the Third Lateran: c.9, forbidding clergy to engage in business (cf. Lat. III, c.12); c.34, against usury (cf. Lat. III, c.25; cf. Lat. IV, c.67).
214 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 246-248, 418-419.
215 Ibid., 252-261, 334.
216 Ibid., 225-282, passim, 288-291.
217 Ibid., 282-261.
218 Ibid., 284-285.
219 Albert Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (5 vols. in 6, Leipzig 1896-1920; reprinted Berlin-Leipzig 1954) 5.1 p. 144. For Cologne, see Binterim, Pragmatische Geschichte 5 (1843) 162-178 (Conrad, >1260=) Concilia Germaniae 3.588-597 (>1260=); ibid., 596-615 (Werner, 1261); Mansi, 23.1012-1030 (Conrad, >1260=); for Magdeburg, see Binterim, 5.214-220.
220 Pixton, The German Episcopacy 259-260, 296-300.
221 Ibid., 291-296, 298-299, 300.
222 Mansi 23.1-8, c.14 (col. 7-8), >districte praecipimus, ut archiepiscopi, episcopi, archidiaconi, & decani, in suo singuli concilio annis singulis celebrando eas publicari faciant servari=; cf. Concilia Germaniae 3.520-523; Binterim, 4.471 (German translation); cf. Pixton, The German Episcopacy 345-349.
223 Hauck, Pragmatische Geschichte 5.1 pp. 136-40; cf. Pixton, The German Episcopacy 348.
224 Peter Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge 1971; Spanish translation published in Salamanca 1975) 4-19.
225 For the list, see Antonio García y García, >El Concilio IV Lateranense (1215) y la Península Ibèrica=, Iglesia, sociedad y derecho 2.187-208, at 190-192 (reprinted from Revista española de teologia 44  355-375).
226 Antonio García y García, >Primeros reflejos del conc. 4 Lateranense en Castilla=, Iglesia, sociedad y derecho 2.209-235 (reprinted from Studio historico‑ecclesiastica: Festgabe für Prof. Luchesius Spätling OFM, ed. I. Vázquez Janeiro [Bibliotheca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani 19; Rome 1977] 249-282). The clergy revolted, and Archbishop Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada of Toledo virtually nullified Bishop Gerald=s statutes in 1220 (cf. ibid., 215). Reflections of the Lateran canons are found in 1.1, which refers to the >statutum pape= on interdicts (cf. Lat. IV, cc.57-58), 1.3, clergy to serve in person or appoint perpetual vicars, >seruetur statutum domini pape= (cf. Lat. IV, c.32), 1.11, episcopal elections, >seruetur ius scriptum= (cf. Lat. IV, c.23); 2.3, archdeacon=s procurations (cf. Lat. IV, c.33), 2.11, tithes (cf. Lat. IV, c.53), 2.17, forbidding communication with excommunicates, >seruetur constitutio domini pape Innocentii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.3); 3.1-2, tonsure and clerical dress, 5-6, forbidding gaming and drinking in taverns (cf. Lat. IV, c.16), 3.10, forbidding clergy to hear confessions of non‑parishioners (cf. Lat. IV, c.21), 3.13, ' 3, archpriests= visitations: small entourage, may not take hunting dogs and hawks (cf. Lat. IV, cc.33, itself citing Lat. III, c.4), 3.16, forbidding Christians to eat or drink Jewish meat or wine (cf. Lat. IV, c.67-9), 3.17, forbidding involvement in sentences of blood (cf. Lat. IV, c.18), 3.21 ' 3, forbidding priests to participate in clandestine marriages (cf. Lat. IV, c.51). For a full discussion of synodal activity in Spain after 1215, see José Sánchez Herrero, >Los concilios provinciales y los sinodos diocesanos españoles 1215-1550', Quaderni Catanesi 3 (1981) 113-177; 4 (1982), 111-197.
227 Although four of the eight the synodal statutes issued by Bernardo II of Santiago de Compostela in 1229 were based on Lateran constitutions, the choice of decrees was highly selective: Synodicon Hispanum, ed. Antonio García y García, et al. (Madrid, 1981-) 1.263-266, cc.2, 6-8 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.10, 32 (bis), 30).
228 Linehan, The Spanish Church 20-34; García y García, >El Concilio IV Lateranense (1215) y la Península Ibèrica=.
229 Josep M. Pons Guri, >Constitucions conciliars Tarraconensis (1229 a 1330)=, Analecta Sacra Tarraconensia 47 (1974) 65-128, 48 (1975) 241-363, especially 47.75-92 (Latin); cf. J. Tejada y Ramiro, Coleccíon de cánones y de todos los concilios de la Iglesia de España y de América (6 vols. Madrid 1861) 3.329-342 (Latin and Spanish); Manuel Guallar Perez. Los concilios Tarraconensis celebrados en Lérida (Siglos VI-XV) (Lérida 1975) 107-147 (Spanish).
230 Linehan, The Spanish Church 28. For Valladolid, cf. Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, ed. Edmond Martène and Ursin Durand (5 vols. Paris 1717) 4.167-174 (a monastic parallel of the Valladolid legislation). On the reaction to John of Abbeville=s legislation, see Linehan, The Spanish Church 35-53.
231 Pons Guri, >Constitucions conciliaris Tarraconensis= 76: >statuta sacri concilii generalis que, pro magna parte, non sine gravi periculo, sunt neglecta, pleniori diligentia de cetero precipimus observari.=
232 Pons Guri, >Constitucions conciliars Tarraconensis= 75-92 (the numeration in Tejada y Ramiro and Perez differs slightly), c.1-2, on holding provincial and diocesan synods (cf. Lat. IV, c. 6); c. 3, on imposition of discipline, >Constitutio de correctione subditorum edita firmius observetur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.8); c.4, on appointment of preachers and confessors, >quia provide statutum est in concilio generali= (cf. Lat. IV, c.10); c. 5, on the appointment of masters to teach theology and >grammar=, opens >Cum in generali concilio pia fuerit constitutione provisum= (Lat. IV, c.11; cf. Lat. III, c.18); c.7, against clerical incontinence (cf. Lat. IV, c.14); c.8, on clerical dress and behavior, forbidding involvement in sentences of blood (cf. Lat. IV, cc.15-18); c.9, on proper maintenance of altars, safe custody of holy oil, chrism, eucharist, >que...pie et provide statuta sunt= (cf. Lat. IV, c.20); c.10, on confession, >districte servantes constitutionem concilii generalis= (cf. Lat. IV, c.21); c.11, against plurality >post generale consilium (sic)Yante conciliumYpost conciliumYante conciliumYsecundum statuta generale conciliiYiuxta statutum generale concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.12, on clerical ordination: none to be ordained without sufficient title, unworthy to be excluded, >amodo districtius observari per penam super hoc in generali concilio constitutam= (cf. Lat. IV, cc.26, 30, 32; Lat. III, cc. 3, 5); c.13, on consanguineous and clandestine marriages (cf. Lat. IV, cc. 50-51); c.14, Jews and Saracens to pay tithes (cf. Lat. IV, c.67); c.15, Jews to wear distinctive clothing (cf. Lat. IV, c.68); c.20, against charges for sacraments, opens >Sicut in generali statutum est concilio= (cf. Lat. IV, c.66); c.21, forbidding payment for ordination (cf. Lat. IV, c.63); c.22, ordering general chapters, >secundum formam generalis concilii= (cf. Lat. IV, c.12); cc.24-5, against improper dress for clerics and monks (cf. Lat. IV, c.16); c.30, if parishes not filled within the legal term, bishop may appoint (cf. Lat. IV, c.23); c.32, against infringement of rights of parish churches (cf. Lat. IV, c.56). Two canons refer back to Alexander III and the Third Lateran Council (1179): c.18, against abuse of lay patronage, >sicut ex constitutionibus tam Lateranensis quam domini Alexandri noscitur institutum= (cf. Lat. III, c.14); c.35, forbidding the sale of military supplies to the Saracens, >Constitutionem domini Alexandri ad memoriam reducentes= (cf. Lat. III, c.24).
233 Linehan, The Spanish Church 54-82; Pons Guri, >Constitucions concilars Tarraconensis= 34-104, especially 104, c.12: >dominus archiepiscopus precepit omnes constitutiones generalis concilii domini Innocentii papae et constitutiones domini Sabinensis Apostolicae Sedis legati [= John of Abbeville] et presentes constitutionesYper totam suam provinciam inviolabiliter observari=; cf. Tejada y Ramiro, Coleccíon de cánones 1.349-361; 3 (1859), 29-32, especially 32. For his subsequent councils at Valencia (1240), Tarragona (1242, 1243, 1244, 1246, 1247, 1250), see Pons Guri, >Constitucions concilars Tarraconensis= 104-128, 241-249.
234 Linehan, The Spanish Church 74-76; for the text, see idem, >Pedro de Albalat, arzobispo de Tarragona y su Asumma septem sacramentorum@=, (Hispania Sacra 22; Barcelona‑Madrid 1969) 16-30 (reprinted, Spanish Church and Society 1150-1300 [London 1983]) no. 3.
235 Synodicon Hispanum 1.272-280.
236 J. Giménez y Martínez de Carvajal, >San Raimundo de Peñafort y la Siete Partidas de Alfonso X el Sabio=, Anthologica Annua 3 (1955) 201-238 (cited by García y García, Constitutiones 4, n. 4).
237 The archbishop of Esztergom (Gran), and the bishops of Eger, Györ, Veszprém, Vác; the archbishop of Kolocsa and the bishops of Nagyvárad and Csanád; the archbishop of Spalato (Split), and the bishops of Hvar (Lésina) and Nona (Nin): Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 p. 1731; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 393.
238 Kalocsa (1122, before 1225); Esztergom (1252 [not 1256]; Buda (1263). The alleged council of Esztergom of 1276 is a figment. For these councils and supposed councils, see Lothar Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien, Kroatien und Ungarn: Von der Völkerwanderug bis zum Ende der Arpaden (1311) (Paderborn 1987) 173-187, which corrects Gabriel Adriányi, >Die ungarischen Synoden=, AHC 8 (1976) 541-575, especially 544.
239 >In castro Budensi, vesprimiensis Diocesis= (ed. Hube 72). Discussion of this council is complicated by the transmission of two versions of its decrees. The full text, set out in 128 capitula, derived from manuscripts in Warsaw and St. Petersburg, is available only in the now very rare Antiquissimae consitutiones synodales provinciae gneznensis maxima ex parte nunc primum e codicibus manu scriptis typis mandatae, ed. Romuald Hube (Petropoli: Cancellariae imperatoris,1856) 72-164, whereas the most widely available text, Sacra concilia ecclesiae romano‑catholicae in regno Hungariae celebrata ab anno Christi MXVI usque ad annum MDCCXXXIV, ed. C. Péterffy, S.J. (2 vols. Posony 1741-1742 and Vienna 1742)1.106-126; Mansi, 24.269-308; Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 6.1 pp. 247-257 breaks off at the beginning of c.75 (which it numbers 69), provides different rubrics and different numeration, and lacks cc.76-128 and the greater part of c.75. In the following analysis, the Budan decrees are cited according to Hube=s edition, with the alternative numeration in square brackets. For the context, see Michael Szvorény, Synopsis critico‑historica decretorum synodalium pro ecclesia hungaro‑catholica editorum (Veszprém 1807) 32-45; Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien 188-200; Adriányi, >Die ungarischen Synoden= 545-546; cf. (with caution) Z. J. Kosztolnyik, >Rome and the Church in Hungary in 1279: The Synod of Buda=, AHC 22 (1990) 68-85, especially 76-81.
240 Hube, Antiquissimae constitutiones synodales cc.83, 88 (seven sacraments); cc.84-86 (Incarnation, Ascension, descent of the Holy Spirit); cc.89-96, 98 (baptism, confirmation, penance); cc.99-117 (eucharist, care of altars, etc.) cc.118-120 (matrimony).
241 Ibid., c.9 , >ClericiYdiligenter= (cf. Lat. IV, c.16, >ClericiYdiligenter=); c.10 , >Nullus clericus sententiam sanguinisYintersit. Nec quisquamYdestinandas, nec illam partem chirugiaeYinducit= (cf. Lat. IV, c.18, >Sententiam sanguinisYintersit=; >nec quisquamYdestinandas=, >nec illam chirurgiae artemYimpendat=); c.24 , >Statuimus utYextendi=, >Si vero isYpuniatur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.20, >Statuimus utYextendi=, >Si vero isYultioni=); c.28 , >ut a modoYapprobatae= (cf. Lat. IV, c.62, >ut a modoYapprobatae=);
c.43 , >ne supellectilia sacerdotisYportentur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.19, >ne huiusmodi supellectiliaYreportentur=); c.97 [-], >districte injunctum medicis corporum...procedatur. Ceterum autem...convertatur= (cf. Lat. IV, c.22, >districte praecipimus medicis corporum...procedatur...Ceterum...convertatur=); and c.123 [-] is a verbal rearrangement of Lat. IV, c.66.
242 Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien 194-195; Kosztolnyik, >Rome and the Church in Hungary= 76-80. For texts of these councils, see Mansi, 22.783-794 (Avignon); Bessin, Concilia Rothomagensis 1.134-138; cf. Mansi, 23.213-222 (Rouen); Mansi, 23.1167-1178 (Vienna); Péterffy, Sacra concilia 1.53-62; Mansi, 21.97-112 (Esztergom I). For the date and legislation of Esztergom I, see Waldmüller, Die Synoden in Dalmatien 127-133.
243 Adam Vetulani, >La pénétration du droit des Décrétales dans l=Église Polonaise au XIIIéme siècle=, Acta Congressus Iuridici Internationalis VII saeculo a decretalibus Gregorii IX et XIV a codice Iustiniano promulgatis Romae 12-17 Novembris 1934 (5 vols .Rome 1935-1937) 3.385-405, especially 389-394 (reprinted in Institutions de l=Église et canonistes au Moyen Age: De Strasbourg à Cracovie, ed. Wac»aw Uruszczak [Aldershot 1990] no. 2).
244 The bishops of Kraców, Wroc»aw, W»oc»awek, and Lebus: Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 pp. 1731; cf. Foreville, Latran I, II, III et Latran IV 393.
245 Hefele and Leclercq, Histoire des conciles 5.2 p. 1428.
246 Concilia Poloniae, ed. Jakub Sawicki, vi (Warsaw 1952) 8.
247 Ignacy Subera, Synody Prowincjonalne Arcybiskupów Gnieïnie½skich (Warsaw 1971) 41-45; cf. Hube, Antiquissimae constitutiones synodales 1-13; Vetulani, >La pénétration= 395-396.
248 Hube, Antiquissimae constitutiones synodales 14-49 (based on early manuscripts in Warsaw and St. Petersburg), which combines two sequences of statutes in a single series numbered 1-31. Canons 1-10 are principally concerned with the cathedral of Gniezno; nos. 11-31 concern the province. Hefele and Leclerq (Histoire des Conciles 5.2 pp. 1707-1709, nos. 1-26) provides a summary of a later, variant and extended version of the provincial decrees, based on Mortimer de Montbach, Statuta synodalia dioecana sanctae ecclesiae Wratislaviensis (Wroc»aw 1855) 307-310 (not available to me). In the following analysis, the legate=s decrees are cited according to Hube=s edition, with the alternative numeration in square brackets. C.11  (cf. Lat. IV, cc.44-5), cc.15-17 [5-7] (cf. Lat. IV, cc.53-54), c.23  (cf. Lat. IV, c.51), c.24  (cf. Lat. IV, c.50), c.27  (cf. Lat. IV, c.20), c.28  (cf. Lat. IV, c.33). For the context, see Johann Heyne, Dokumentierte Geschichte des Bistums und Hochstifts Breslau (3 vols. Breslau 1860; reprinted Aalen 1969) 1.364-371; Vetulani, >La pénétration= 397-398. For the importance of Jacques Pantaléon=s legation for the development of legal institutions in the Polish and Hungarian churches, see Péter ErdÅ, >Diritto canonico e cultura giuridica europea (con particulare riguardo ai APaesi dell=Est@): I tribunali ecclesiastici medievali=, Il Diritto Ecclesiastico 3 (1995) 687-705 at pp. 689-690.
249 Mansi, 23.1155-62 (Bremen) 1161-1166 (Magdeburg) 1167-1178 (Vienna, for Salzburg); Hube, Antiquissimae constitutiones synodales 56-71 (Gniezno).
250 Gniezno, cc.2, 5 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.43-45); c.3 (cf. Lat. IV, c.50); c.4 (cf. Lat. IV, c.29); c.6 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.53-56); c.7 (cf. Lat. IV, c.40); cc.8-9 (cf. Lat. IV, cc. 6, 33); c.11 (cf. Lat. IV, c.6); cc.10, 12-14 (cf. Lat. IV, cc.67-70). Cf. T. Si»nicki, Kardyna» legat Gwido, jego synod wroc»awski z r. 1267 I statuty tegoó synodu (Lwów 1930); Adam Vetulani, >The Jews in Medieval Poland=, trans. M. Wajsblum The Jewish Journal of Sociology 4 (1962) 274-294 at 278, 285-289. Guido=s ordinances were cited by Bishop Thomas of Wroclaw in 1279: Mansi, 24.327-330, >iuxta tenorem Constitutionis (bonae memoriae) domini Guidonis Suaden. quondam in partibus Poloniae Apostolicae sedis Legati=, (on clerical continence); >iuxta tenorem Constitutionis domini Guidonis praefati=, (on lay abuse); cf. Gniezno 1266 (ed. Hube) cc.2, 5-6; Vienna 1267 (for the province of Salzburg: Mansi, 23.1167-1178), cc.1-5, 7.
251 Hube, Antiquissimae consitutiones synodales 165-80 citing the decrees of the legates Philip and Guido against incontinent clergy (c.14). See above, at nn. 236-237; cf. Vetulani, >La pénétration= 399-400; Subera, Synody Prowincjonalne 57-63.
252 L. Boyle, >The Fourth Lateran Council and Manuals of Popular Instruction=, The Popular Literature of Medieval England (Tennessee Studies in Literature 28; Knoxville 1985) 30-43.