Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:01:15.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. The Disputed Election of Hugh Balsham, Bishop of Ely

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

Walter Ullmann
Get access

Extract

Hugh Balsham, bishop of Ely from 1257 to 1286, is chiefly remembered for his services to the university of Cambridge and for his foundation of Peterhouse. His election to the see of Ely, and the subsequent dispute arising out of it, has hitherto received but scanty attention, and the treatment that this incident was afforded has usually been based on the account given by Matthew Paris. But Matthew Paris's highly romantic and colourful account is not at all accurate, nor, from a canonist's point of view, does his report make intelligible reading; it is the somewhat sensational presentation of one who relied on the necessarily somewhat distorted tales of more or less well-informed reporters. Being apparently the only contemporary source, it has served so far as the sole record of this dispute. But newly discovered material enables us to reconstruct the dispute following the election and, above all, to show the real reasons which provoked it. Although by no means aspiring to the striking publicity of the Canterbury election some fifty years earlier, this incident, in several respects, is more important than its renowned predecessor. Before we attempt to reconstruct the arguments, it will be advisable to summarize briefly the report of Matthew Paris.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , 1949 , pp. 259 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wharton, Henry, Anglia Sacra, I, 637, note xGoogle Scholar; Ward, A. W., in Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. Balsham.Google Scholar Cf. also Eubel, K., Hierarchia Catholica, I, 238, n. 3Google Scholar, and Gams, F., Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae, p. 188.Google Scholar On the trustworthiness of Matthew Paris, see Smith, A. L., Church and State in the Middle Ages, p. 179Google Scholar, and Prof. Galbraith, V. H., Roger Wendover and Matthew Paris (David Murray Lecture, 1944), p. 4aGoogle Scholar.

8 Paris, Matthew, Chronica Majora (ed. Luard, H. R., Rolls, vol. v), p. 589Google Scholar.

3 Ibid. pp. 589, 611. Cf. also Neve, J. Le, Fasti Anglicani, I, 329Google Scholar.

4 Paris, Matthew, op. cit. p. 619Google Scholar.

6 ‘Scripsit amicis suis in curia Romana contra episcopum electum, ut ibidem eo reprobate in eundem episcopatum frater Adam de Marisco, frater de ordine minorum, subrogatur.’

6 Paris, Matthew, op. cit. pp. 635–6, 661Google Scholar.

7 Signature: I. B. IV, fol. 79.

8 J. F. v. Schulte, ‘Die Decretalen zwischen den “Decretales Gregorii IX” und “Liber Sextus Bonifacii VIII”, ihre Sammlung und Verarbeitung ausserhalb des Liber Sextus und im Liber Sextus’, in Sitz. kaiser. Ahad. Wiss. (Phil.-hist. Classe), LV (1867)", 701-96, at pp. 724-59.

9 Loc. cit. p. 724.

10 Friedberg, Aemilius, Corpus Juris Canonici, vol. IIGoogle Scholar, sub Liber Sextus, I.vi.10, cols. 951-2.

11 Barraclough, G., ‘The Making of a Medieval Bishop’, in Catholic Hist. Rev. xix (1933), 275–316, at p. 293, n. 101Google Scholar.

12 Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward, I, 260, n. 3Google Scholar.

13 Les Registres d'Alexandre IV (ed. Loye, J. de and Cernival, P.), no. 2230, pp. 684–6Google Scholar.

14 Cf. the observations of Smith, A. L., op. cit. pp. 33–6Google Scholar.

16 Durham Cathedral Chapter Library, MS. C.II.2. I desire to express my thanks to the Dean and Chapter for the loan of this MS.

16 The collection is at fol. 255ra-260vb; original foliation: fol. 5ra-9vb, each column 51 lines, late thirteenth-century hand, probably English. The collection bears the heading:’ ‘Hie incipiunt constitutiones novae alexandri IIII.’ It contains 29 chapters, all of which belong to the first two years of Alexander's pontificate with the sole exception of the decretal to be presently discussed which was issued: ‘III idus septembris pontificatus nostri anno III’ (11 Sept. 1257). The collection, which bears no resemblance to the one discovered by Schulte in the Codex Monacensis (Munich State Library, MS. lat. 213, fol. 195-200V), loc. cit. p. 712, is in two parts, of which the first comprises 14 chapters, our decretal ‘Dilecti filii’ being the last one (fol. 258ra-258va). To judge by the subject-matter of the decretals in the first part, there is a presumption that it was produced in one of the English schools. Immediately following our decretal we find the heading: ‘Hie incipiunt novae constitutiones quae sunt secundum dispositionem alexandri.’ This heading would suggest that we have here an official collection of Alexandrian decretals, but this presumption does not hold good, since there is also included in it a decretal of Clement IV (no. 26 of the collection, fol. 260vb): ‘Ex parte tua’ with the heading: ‘Simoni tit. sanctae ecclesiae presbytero cardinali.’ This can be verified as part of Sextus, i.xv.2, and was issued 9 Apr. 1265, see Potthast, Regesta Pontiflcum Romanorum, no. 19089. This codex contains another collection of decretals of Alexander III, Innocent IV, Alexander IV and Clement IV, 12 chapters grouped under appropriate title headings (fol. 8va-9ra); some of these chapters recur in the presently discussed collection. About all this and the unknown collection in Durham, C.I.9, set v, we shall have to report on another occasion.

In the meantime mention should be made of the miscellaneous contents preceding the main body of the codex (fol. 11-269V: the Gregoriana and the glossa ordinaria, with numerous marginal additions by obviously English canonists). There is, for instance, an interesting commentary on the decretal ‘Quia propter’ (originally issued in the Fourth Lateran Council, cap. 24, Compilatio Quarta, l.iii.9, and Extra, l.vi.42) written by one Egidius (it is difficult to believe that this was Egidius Fuscararius); this commentary has two chapters (fol. 3ra-3rb), the first beginning ‘De commendatione ecclesiarum videndum est’, the second under the title ‘De triplici forma electionis’ begins ‘Ad intelligendum decretalis quia propter nota, quod secundum quosdam tres sunt formae electionis’. Then there is a short anonymous tract on the conduct of visitations (fol. sv), followed by very detailed instructions given by the arch-bishop of York for a particular visitation (fol. 6v). On fol. 8rb there is a note on the model of a memorandum which refers to the arrangement of paying the tenth made by Walter Suffield, bishop of Norwich, and its subsequent disregard by the King (this may refer to the events of 1297, see AmtalesMonastici, IV (Worcester), 532-5), incipit: ‘Domino regi respondent clerici.’ Fol. o.v— iorb contain six Bonifacian decretals all dated from the first year of his pontificate and all issued on the same day, 8 Apr. 1295, and dealing with Celestine's abdication. A noteworthy feature of these ten folios preceding the main body of the codex is the frequent employment of Arabic numerals, even for popes, and the characteristic English charter hand of the late thirteenth century.

17 Fol. 258ra.

18 There are some textual variants between the reading of the Codex Bohemicus (Schulte and Friedberg), the official Registers, and the Codex Dunelmensis. Where necessary, the variants will be shown in the transcription.

19 R[egister]: acceptatam.

20 R: tamen for prius. Omission of the passage from ‘protestatione’ to ‘opponendus’ in S[chulte] and F[riedberg].

21 R: opponendum.

22 ‘Postulation’ takes the place of an election: if there is a canonical impediment against the proposed candidate, for instance, illegitimate birth or lack of adequate orders, and the like, the electors must ‘postulate’ the candidate to the superior authority, in episcopal elections, to the pope, so that he can grant a dispensation from the impediment. See the title ‘De postulando praelatorum’ in Extra, i.v. This objection by the King makes it quite plain that he was desirous of bringing the case to the Roman curia.

23 Most of the royal objections are omitted in S and F.

24 ‘Quorum appellationi archiepiscopus ipse non deferens ad examinationem personae ipsius electi adhibitis secum quibusdam praelatis suae provinciae ac aliis viris diligenter processit, de vita, moribus, conversatione ac meritis ipsius electi in eliensi capitulo exacta diligentia sollempniter inquirendo.’ Omission of this passage from ‘adhibitis’ to ‘inquirendo’ in S and F.

25 ‘Procuratores quoque dictorum prioris et conventus appellationem huiusmodi acceptantes ob eiusdem sedis reverentiam petierunt ipsum [S and F: dictum] negotium ad [MS.: ad inserted by corrector] examen praedictae sedi remitti [S and F: et], ne in eo idem archiepiscopus [R: amplius] procederet, nichilominus appellando [S and F: appellarunt].’

26 ‘Licet tune tarn ex parte ipsius eliensis ecclesiae quam saepedicti regis ex hiis et aliis variis causis, quae in [MS.: in inserted by corrector] instrumentis publicis plenius continentur, ad nos ab eodem archiepiscopo fuerit appellatum, nichilominus tamen ipse praefatam electionem pro sua voluntate cassavit, et eliensi ecclesiae de alia persona providit.’ This passage is entirely omitted in S and F.

27 That this eminent Franciscan was constantly summoned by the archbishop is well known; cf. Creighton, in Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. Adam Marsh, p. 79Google Scholar, and Knowles, M. D., The Religious Orders in England, p. 181.Google Scholar The statement of the late A. G. Little that ‘in 1256 the King and archbishop of Canterbury tried to force him [Adam Marsh] into the bishopric of Ely’ must be dismissed as inaccurate (The Grey Friars in Oxford, p. 138).

28 Cf. Little, A. G., ‘The Franciscan School at Oxford in the thirteenth century’ in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, XIX (1926), 837Google Scholar, and Knowles, M. D., op. cit. pp. 181–2Google Scholar; cf. also Creighton, loc. cit. Tout’ s statement that ‘the election [of Adam Marsh] to the see of Ely was quashed by the malevolence of the court’, is somewhat cryptic: The History of England 1216-1377. p. 81. Adam's, letter no. ccxlv (Monumenta Franciscana, ed. Brewer, J. S., Rolls, pp. 411–12Google Scholar) might lend some support to the assumption that he was reproved for accepting the appointment; cf. also Little, , op. cit. p. 138Google Scholar.

29 See Hinschius, P., System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, II, 589fGoogle Scholar

30 The legal position is carefully examined by Prof. Barraclough, art. cit., especially at pp. 292-7.

31 He dismissed them simply to get his own man appointed, but this was a motive which did not touch the issue at all.

32 ‘Quia cum in causis majoribus inter quas electionum episcopalium causae merito numerentur [S and F: numerantur], ad examen praefatae sedis propter appellationem quaelibet negotia devolvantur, idem archiepiscopus post praedictas appellationes negotio ab examine ipsius exempto, nichil rite potuit super hoc [S and F: super hoc potuit] attemptare, proptef quod quicquid postmodum fecerat cassum debeat et irritum nuntiari [S and F: revocari].’

33 MS.: excludi. Thi s and the foregoing objections were later adopted by Gregory X, see below, p. 267.

34 ‘[proctor] adjiciens, quod ta m electus ipse qua m procuratores eliensis ecclesiae post appellationes praedictas eiusdem archiepiscopi judicium voluntarie subierunt.’ This passage is omitted in S and F.

35 R: videremur.

36 MS.: tempore.

37 R: indulximus.

38 The passage cited in the text is omitted in S and F.

39 ‘Auditis itaque omnibus [S, F, R: omit omnibus] inde propositis et plenius intellectis ad removendam omnem ambiguitatem de caetero super huiusmodi articulo quaestionis, nolentes in hac parte ulterius dubitari, de fratrum nostrorum consilio decernimus et censemus causas electionum episcopalium seu de electionibus episcoporum existere de majoribus et inter ipsas annumerari debefe, quod est etiam a nostris praedecessoribus observatum, ac electionis praedictae negotium fuisse ad eandem sedem per appellationes huiusmodi devolutum. Unde quicquid post appellationes.…’

40 ‘Nos tamen et temerariam appellantium audaciam et effrenatam appellationum frequentiam refrenare volentes, hac generali constitutione duximus providendum.…’

41 Liber Sextus, i.vi.10.

42 This MS. of the Apparatus has been unknown; Lincoln Cathedral Chapter Library, MS. 173, fol. 291va–301vb. On the author see Hove, van, Prolegomena, 2nd ed., p. 481Google Scholar.

43 In the collection Durham C.I.9., set v, our decretal appears under neither of these titles: it stands here under the title ‘De concessione praebendae’ and is the second chapter. In the Summa contained in the Codex Monacensis ( Schulte, , loc. cit. p. 782Google Scholar) our decretal is again under the title ‘D e electione’, where it is the third chapter.

44 The Constitutions of Gregory X passed at the Second Council of Lyons are also in the Codex Dunelmensis (fol. 272ra–279vb), but the hitherto unnoticed Apparatus of the Spaniard appears separately, following the text: fol. 280va-280vb. This Apparatus is considerably shorter than the work of Guilelmus, but, at the same time, crisper and livelier in style.

45 This is a reference to his Speculum Judiciale which was written some time before the Council.

46 Apparatus on the decree ‘Quamvis’, fol. 283va (Durham C.II.2).

47 Ibid., s.v. ‘constitutio’, continuing: ‘Et sic olim servabat Romana curia ante istam constitutionem.’

48 S.v. ‘frivolas’, fol. 29srb: ‘Puta ne procedatur ad electionem regis praecibus non expectatis, prout continetur in praedicta constitutione dilecti filii… tali appellationi deferendum non est.’