Widescreen Fixer

GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press
INNOCENT III AND THE ESZTERGOM ELECTION DISPUTE: THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
OF THE DECRETAL "BONE MEMORIE II" (X. I. 5. 4)
Author(s): JAMES ROSS SWEENEY
Source: Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, Vol. 15 (1977), pp. 113-137
Published by: GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563811
Accessed: 19-08-2018 09:10 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23563811?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Archivum Historiae Pontificiae
This content downloaded from 109.102.22.181 on Sun, 19 Aug 2018 09:10:22 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
JAMES ROSS SWEENEY
INNOCENT III
AND THE ESZTERGOM ELECTION DISPUTE
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DECRETAL

BONE MEMORIE II (Χ. I. 5. 4) *
Summarium. — Annis 1204-1205 lis de electione ad sedem primatialem Stri

goniensem vertebatur, cum duae partes contendentes bis suum candidatimi
nominaverint et eodem tempore capitulum cathédrale et episcopi suffragane!
de compositione coetus electoralis inter se disceptaverint. Rex quoque in desi
gnatone primatis omnino deesse noluit. Innocentius III vero in hac contro
versia se firmiter et simul caute gessit. Deinde pontifex magis spiritu compro
missi politici quam legalismi immoderati ductus litem in favorem illius candi
dati resolvit, qui pluries ab omnibus partibus ius eligendi sibi attribuentibus
approbatus fuerat. Haec decisio exemplo fuit, ut postulatone summo ponti
fici exhibita vetitum esset coetui postulanti electionem suam revocare, sed
deberet iudicium papae exspectari.
In his treatise on the forms of episcopal élection Lawrence of

Somercote outlined the four alternative procédures for the sélection
of a bishop, of which the fourth was the method known as postula
tion. This procedure initiated by the électoral body took the form
of a supplication to the pope to provide to a vacant episcopal or
archiépiscopal see a candidate designated by the electors. This can
* I wish to thank Brian Tierney and Gyôrgy Bonis for their helpful comments
on this paper. Completion of the final draft was facilitated by a grant from the
Liberal Arts Research Office of the Pennsylvania State University. A brief discussion
of this topic was offered at the Ninth Conférence on Medieval Studies, Kalamazoo,
Michigan on 10 May 1974.
The following abbreviations are used currently: Fejér, Codex diplomaticus = G.
Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus et civilis, II, Budapest 1829;
Gams, Sériés episcoporum = P. B. Gams, Series episcoporum ecclesiae catholicae,
Ratisbonae 1873; Huillard-Bréholles, Examen des chartes = J. L. A. Huillard
Bréholles, Examen des chartes de l'église romaine contenues dans les rouleaux dits
rouleaux de Cluny, Paris 1865; Knauz, Mon. Strig. — N. Knauz, Monumenta ecclesiae
Strigoniensis, I, Esztergom 1874; MGH SS = Monumenta Germaniae historica:
Scriptores (folio), 32 vols., Hannover-Berlin, 1826-1934; Potthast = Regesta pontificum
romanorum inde ab anno post Christum natum MCXCVIII ad annum MCCCIV, edidit
Augustus Potthast, 2 vols., Berlin 1874-1875; Reg. = Innocenta III romani pontificis
regesta sive epistolae (libri I-XVI), ed. J. P. Migne, Patrologia latina, voi. 214-216,
Paris 1855; SmiCiklas, Codex diplomaticus = T. SmiCiklas, Codex diplomaticus regni
Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, I-III, Zagreb 1904-1917; Szentpétery, Reg. Arp. =
I. Szentpétery and I. Borsa, Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica,
Budapest 1923-1961.
114 JAMES ROSS SWEENEY
didate could not be elected in the usuai way because he was re

cognized to be canonically inéligible. Lawrence, writing in the mid
dle of the thirteenth century, described the commonly encountered
circums tances which required recourse to postulation, namely when
the nominee was an already consecrated bishop, an electus, in minor
orders, too young or of illegitimate birth \ The ultimate responsi
bility for the « élection » of a postulated candidate was thus shifted
1o the Apostolic See which alone possessed the authority to set aside
these spécifie canonical impediments. It is for this reason that Bar
raclough concluded that « postulation was not so much a form of
élection as a parallel method of filling a vacancy »2. In the glosses
appended to Lawrence's Tractatus it is clear that a canonical text
centrai to an understanding of the postulation process is the decretai
Bone memorie II (Χ. I. 5. 4), a letter of Pope Innocent III written
in 1205 to the cathedral chapter of Esztergom resolving the nearly
fourteen-month-long dispute over the choice of a primate for the
Hungarian Church. The présent study is an exploration of the his
torical circumstances which led up to promulgation of this important
Innocentian decretai.
Electoral disputes arising from episcopal or archiépiscopal sees
had become by the beginning of the thirteenth century fairly com
mon occurrences. The controverted élection was an inhérent hazard
of the Church's experiment with the theory and practice of electio
canonica between the era of the Gregorian Reform and the second
half of the thirteenth century when papal provision and réservation
became more fréquent. The ius commune provided that episcopal
électoral disputes be resolved by the metropolitan in his capacity
1 Der Traktat des Laurentius de Somercote, Kanonikus von Chichester, iiber
die Vornahme von Bischofswahlen entstanden im Jahre 1254, ed. A. von Wretschko,
Weimar 1907, pp. 46-50. Το the five instances above Lawrence added a sixth per
taining to the postulation of an exempt abbot to the abbacy of another monastery.
For references to Bone Memorie II, see pp. 55-56.
2 G. Barraclough, The Making of a Bishop in the Middle Ages: Catholic Historical
Review 19 (1933-34) 287. Since the publication of Barraclough's fundamental essay, the
literature on électoral theory and practice has grown, especially in recent years.
Among the most notable contributions are M. Pacaut, Louis VII et les élections
épiscopales dans te royaume de France 1137-1180, Paris 1957, p. 83ff. ; P. G. Caron,
Les élections épiscopales dans la doctrine et la pratique de l'Église: Cahiers de civi
lisation médiévale 11 (1968) 573-585; R. L. Benson, The Bishov-Elect, Princeton 1968,
esp. pp. 23-35; idem. Election by Community and Chapter: Reflections on Co-responsi
bility in the Historical Church : The Jurist 31 (1971) 54-80; K. Ganzer, Zur Beschran
kung der Bischofswahl auf die Domkapitel in Théorie und Praxis des 12. und 13.
Jahrhunderts: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische
Abteilung 88 (1971) 22-82, and 89 (1972) 166-197; V. Pfaff, Die deutschen Domkapitel
und das Papsttum am Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts: Historisches Jahrbuch der Gôr
resgesellschaft 93 (1973) 21-56; and J. Gaudement, L'élection épiscopale d'après les
canonistes de la deuxième moitié du XIIe siècle, in Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche delta
' Societas Christiana' dei secoli XI-XII : Papato, cardinalato ed episcopato 6 Atti
della quinta Settimana internazionale di studio Mendola, 26-31 agosto 1971. — Pubbl.
dell'Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore: Miscellanea del Centro di Studi Medioe
vali, 7), Milan 1974, pp. 476-489.
INNOCENT III AND ESZTERGOM 115
as provincial superior for the diocese

nocent III controverted élections to the
the pope was the direct superior) and
postulation or translation was involved
Rome 3. Cases dealing with élection to
cidedly more complex because in addi
divided cathedral chapter, a challenge to
or an accusation of secular interférence
questions concerning the électoral rôle
maintenance of local archiépiscopal p
rights associated with the pallium. In
résolve a strikingly large number of s
élections of Mainz, Cologne, Armagh an
famous. The Esztergom dispute, while to
ranks among the important metropol
cate 4.
Esztergom, the primatial see of Hungary, had been founded at
the end of the tenth century at the time of the conversion of the
Magyars. Throughout the Middle Ages it was the richest and most
distinguished see in the Ârpâd kingdom *. Our knowledge of the
détails of the électoral controversy over Esztergom is based largely
on a sériés of letters recorded in Innocent III's registers supple
mented occasionally by the fragments gleaned from the extremely
scarce local documents for this period6. The initial cause of the
s Barraclough, Making of a Bishop, p. 293; cf. Caron, Les élections épiscopales,
p. 576. Papal intervention in archiépiscopal élections had the overall effect of
strengthening the papal centralization of the Western Church.
4 Pope Innocent's actions in these disputes are summarized in H. Tillmann,
Papst Innocenz III., Bonn 1954, pp. 63-66 (Canterbury), 72-73, 110-113, 130-131 (Mainz
and Cologne); the Esztergom dispute is related with some discrepancies on p. 74
n. 57. More extended treatment may be found in A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutsch
lands, IV, Berlin 1954, pp. 731-754; M. D. Knowles, The Canterbury Election o1
1205-6: English Historical Review 53 <1938) 211-220; J. A. Watt, The Church and the
Two Nations in Medieval Ireland, Cambridge 1970, pp. 57-58, and Appendix 2; « The
Armagh Election Dispute, 1202-7 », pp. 226-230.
5 On the establishment of the see by St. Stephen as « ecclesiam metropolim et
magistram per consensum et subscriptionem Romane sedis apostolici, » see Le
gendae Sancii Stephani régis maior et minor, atque legenda ab Hartvico episcopo
conscripta, ed. E. Bartoniek, in I. Szentpétery, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, II,
Budapest 1938, p. 383. Cf. N. Knauz, Monumenta ecclesiae Strigoniensis, I, Esztergom
1874, p. 34, no. 7. On the identity of the first archbishop see Gy. Gyôrffy, Zu den
Anfdngen der ungarischen Kirchenorganisation auf Grund neuer quellenkritischer
Ergebnisse : Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 7 (1969) 79-113. As the « metropolis Un
garie », Esztergom was reported to have received from the court of Béla III f 1172
1196) an annual stipend from the revenues of the royal mint of 6,000 silver marks.
This amount was more than twice that received by any other bishopric; Paris,
Bibl. Nat., ms. lat. 6238, f. 20. (The frequently cited printed text of this document
edited by S. L. Endlicher, Rerum hungaricarum monumenta arpadiana, St. Gali
1849 (reprinted 1931), pp. 245-6 contains many serious misreadings.)
e Re g. VII, 159 (Potthast no. 2328); VII, 226; VIII, 88 (Potthast no. 2550); VIII,
139 (Potthast no. 2588); VIII, 140 (Potthast no. 2591). Hungarian narrative sources
are wholly lacking for this period, although scattered references may be found in
dispute was the exclusion of the

archbishop by the cathedral ca
as their candidate a rivai Hung
Later some of the canons and
other candidate, Bishop Kalân
each side lodged an appeal in R
cided to translate the archbish
gom. This action, although no
at the beginning of the thirteen
recorded translation of an arch
bury occurred in 1396 and not
The death of Job, archbishop

the way for the élévation of a
the Hungarian royal court. Ki
Archbishop Job to his side dur
duke of Croatia, and had even
completed royal palace at Eszt
pelled to denounce the archbis
festus and to ask the pope not
Jób's successor in 1204 was Ugr
prominent aristocratie house o
Lgrin had been the leader of t
garian episcopate during the civil war. His advancement to the
Austrian chronicles, MGH SS, IX. Modem historians also have largely ignored the
events discussed here. The bare outline of the course of the dispute is given in V.
Fraknói, Magyarorszàg Egyhdzi és politikai osszekottetései a tomai Szentszékkel
[Hungarian Ecclesiastical and Politicai Relations with the Holy See], I, Budapest
1901, pp. 42-3. The usually inclusive B. Hóman has omitted the Esztergom question
in the second volume of his Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters, Berlin 1943. Of
the historians of Innocent III's pontificate, A. Luchaire devotes to it only two para
graphe, containing errors and misleading information in his Innocent III, VI: Les
royautés vassales du Saint-Siège, Paris 1908, pp. 124-5; while H. Tillmann relegates the
épisode to a footnote, see above n. 4.
ι F. M. Powicke and E. B. Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology, 2nd ed., Lon
don 1961, p. 211.
8 Accounts of the civil war are given in Thomas of Spalato, Ή istoria pontificum
salonitanorum atque spalatensium, ed. F. RaCki, Zagreb 1894, pp. 81-2; the annals of
Melk, Admont and Klosterneuburg, MGH SS, IX, pp. 506, 588, 620; and the Chronica
regia Coloniensis, ed. G. Waitz, MGH SS. in usum scholarum, Hannover 1880, pp.
168-9. The fundamental secondary treatment remains A. Huber, Studien iiber die
Geschichte Ungarns im Zeitalter der Arpaden: Archiv fiir osterreichische Geschichte
65 (1884) 156-163. Archbishop Jôb's part in the civil war must be pieced together
from scattered documentary evidence. He was regarded as a friend to King Imre
in 1198, but that had changed by 1203; see esp. Re g. I, 5 {ed. Ο. Hageneder and A.
Haidacher, Graz-Cologne 1964) excerpted in Χ. III. 34. 5; Knauz, Mon. Strig., I, p. 156,
no. 139; and J. L. A. Huillard-Bréholles, Examen des chartes de l'église romaine
contenues dans les rouleaux dits rouleaux de Cluny, Paris 1865, p. 78, no. 19.
primacy was a favorable omen which

of close coopération between the mo
act which would symbolize the new
primate was the coronation of Imre's on
Pope Innocent wrote Archbishop Ugrin directing him promptly to
perform the coronation for the prince, not yet five years of âge, and
to see to it that the customary oath should be sworn by King Imre
on his son's behalf10. The festivities were scheduled to coincide
with the annual national célébration of St. Stephen's Day on 20 A
gust. But shortly before that date Archbishop Ugrin died11.
Immediately the Esztergom cathedral chapter gathered to d
cuss the sélection of a new metropolitan. They decided in favor
John, archbishop of the neighboring province of Kalocsa12. Th
chapter's choice was an unusual one. Until the beginning of th
thirteenth century the translation of an archbishop of Kalocsa to t
primacy of Esztergom had occurred perhaps once, if at ali, at the e
9 The early career of Ugrin of Csâk is uncertain. It has been suggested that he
may have joined the episcopal bench as early as c. 1175 as bishop of Zagreb and
shortly thereafter was translated to Gyôr. His residence at Gyôr, however, is first
definitely attested by a document from 1188 in which he is referred to as electus;
see Knauz, Moti. Strig., I, p. 169. If Ugrin had earlier been bishop of Zagreb it is
more likely to have been in 1185, which conforms with a suggestion made long ago
by Knauz, Mon. Strig., I, p. 126. Ugrin's loyalty to King Imre is reported in a letter
of Innocent III where the bishop is glowingly described as « dilectum et familiarem
suum [Imre], qui post mortem inclite recordationis B(ele), progenitoris eius, tam in
guerra quam in pace in omnibus et pre omnibus fidelis sibi extitit et devotus et
inter fideliores fidelissimus est inventus, unde ipsum dignis in Domino laudibus com
mendamus », Re g. I, 511. See also Huillard-Bréholles, Examen des chartes, p. 77.
This dévotion did not go unrewarded, as the royal grants of land to Ugrin in 1198 and
1201 imply; see G. Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus et civilis, II,
Budapest 1829, p. 344; and I. Szentfétery and I. Borsa, Regesta regum stirpis Arpa
dianae critico-diplomatica, Budapest 1923-1961, no. 172, 195.
10 Reg. VII, 57; Potthast no. 2196 (24 Aprii 1204). See also J. Deér, Die heilige Krone
Ungarns (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., Bd. 91), Vien
na 1966, p. 206, where, however, the coronation date is given incorrectly because of
a misprint; 16 August 1204, recte 26 August. For the importance of Innocent's letter
in the historical debate over the Hungarian coronation oath see J. R. Sweeney, The
Problem of Inalienability in Innocent III's Correspondence with Hungary: Mediaeval
Studies 37 (1975) 247 nn. 57-8.
11 The date of Ugrin's death is unrecorded. What is known is that the bishops
of the province of Esztergom assembled on 20 August which was shortly after the
archbishop's death (« post dilationem vero non longam, cum ad festum beati Ste
phani regis iidem episcopi solemniter convenissent », Reg. VII, 159). Thomas of
Spalato reports that Imre summoned the prelates of the kingdom to the coronation,
including Archbishop Bernard of Spalato, Historia pontificum (see above, n. 8),
p. 81. Thomas mistakenly crédits Bernard with performing the ceremony, see below,
n. 34. From the twelfth century and perhaps earlier it was customary for Hunga
rian kings to hold court and render justice at Székesfehérvâr during the month of
August and to observe the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin (15 August) and
the feast of St. Stephen (20 August); see Gy. Bónis, The Hungarian Feudal Diet
(13th-18th Centuries): Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin pour l'histoire comparative
des institutions 25 (1965) 289; and J. Deér, Aachen und die Herrschersitze der Arpa
den: Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir osterreichische Geschichtsforschung 79 (1971)
17-18.
12 Reg. VII, 159.
of the eleventh century13. Si

copal élections in ali but one
province of Esztergom had b
over, in the person of Archb
prelate who had done much t
two Hungarian provinces.
Archbishop John had presid
and Bacs only since 1202. Of his personal background almost no
thing is known except that he is likely to have been a native Hun
garian and was probably bishop of Csanâd at the time of his ad
vancement to the archiépiscopal dignity15. Within a year of his
élévation Archbishop John was accused in Rome by his colleague
Job of Esztergom of committing serious injuries against the rights
of Esztergom. It was reported that in a church subject to Eszter
gom, as Job was pronouncing the bénédiction after mass, Arch
bishop John burst in to give the bénédiction himself. In another
church subordinate to Esztergom, John of Kalocsa had conse
crated two bishops, and he had had his cross solemnly borne be
fore him and celebrated mass in his pallium without the primate's
consent in other churches belonging to the province of Esztergomle.
13 Desiderius was archbishop of Esztergom c. 1067-c. 1075 according to Knauz,

Mon. Strig., I, pp. 49-51, but for his supposed translation from Kalocsa see P. B.
Gams, Sériés episcoporum, pp. 371, 380, where he is listed as an incumbent in the
primatial see from 1078 to 1084/85. Desiderius is named as the archbishop (whether
of Esztergom or Kalocsa is not mentioned) who preached a moving Christmas ser
mon before King Géza I, probably in 1076 while the king was at Székszard; see Hun
garian Illuminated Chronicle, ed. D. Dercsényi, New York 1969, p. 127, facsimile f.
46r. The Benedictine abbey of St. Saviour at Székszard lay within the diocese of
Pécs, in the province of Esztergom. but only a short distance on the other side of
the Danube from Kalocsa, ali of which is regrettably inconclusive.
The only other archiépiscopal translation recorded for the domains of the king
of Hungary was that of Peter Chitiléni from Spalato to Kalocsa c. 1187-1190; Tho
mas of Spalato, Hist. pont, (see above, n. 8), p. 77; and Gams, Sériés episcoporum,
pp. 371, 420. Innocent III's translation of Bernard, archbishop of the Dalmatian see
of Ragusa, to the diocese of Carlisle, while closer in time to the Esztergom case,
was remote from Hungarian affairs and otherwise quite exceptional. See C. R.
Cheney and W. H. Semple, Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, London 1953, p. 54;
and C. R. Cheney and M. G. Cheney, The Letters of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216)
Concerning England and Wales: A Calendar, Oxford 1967, no. 474 (15 May 1203). Ar
chiépiscopal translations in neighboring German provinces were similarly rare. The
notable exception was that of Conrad von Wittelsbach, archbishop of Mainz (1161
1165, 1183-1200), archbishop of Salzburg (1179-1183) and cardinal-bishop Sabina (1166
1200); see M. Pacaut, Alexandre 111, Paris 1956, p. 269.
ι* Anno 1142: Macarius, from Pécs (Knauz, Mon. Strig., I, p. 102); anno c. 1150:
Martirus, from Veszprém (ibid., p. 105); anno 1158: Lucas Bânffy, from Eger (ibid.,
p. 114); anno 1181: Nicholas, from Nagyvârad in the province of Kalocsa (ibid., pp.
126-7); anno 1185: Job, possibly from Pécs (ibid., p. 130); anno 1204: Ugrin, from
Gyôr (see above, n. 9). For a différent list covering the same period see the Diction
naire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, XV, Paris 1963, col. 1102, « Esztergom ».
is Knauz, Mon. Strig., I, p. 178; and C. Juhâsz, Das Tschanad-Temesvarer Bistum
im friihen Mittelalter 1030-1307, Munster 1930, pp. 106-114.
ie The rivalry between the two archiépiscopal sees was of long standing and in
some respects similar to that between Canterbury and York. As in the English
Archbishop John's politicai sympathies in

and the duke of Croatia seem to have been with the king, at whose
side he appears as a witness to royal charters 17. This loyalty may
have won for him the see of Kalocsa and possibly also been im
portant in his désignation to Esztergom.
On the feast of St. Stephen the King, the comprovincial bishops
of Esztergom assembled to discuss the élection of a metropolitan.
They inquired of the chapter whom that body intended to elect.
But according to the bishops' report written later, they were rebuffed
by the canons who answered that they dare not elect anyone unless
he received full royal approvai and that the bishops had no right
of élection. Thereupon the chapter formally designated John of Ka
locsa by a unanimous vote. Later the canons defended their action
by declaring that their provost had, prior to the élection, solemnly
summoned the bishops who did in fact come. The chapter had then
sought their assent as a courtesy (de gratia), but the bishops re
fused to give aid and counsel. It was only then, they said, that the
chapter had voted for John of Kalocsa without dissent. When, more
over, the suffragane were asked to draft letters to Pope Innocent
endorsing the postulation of the chapter's candidate, they refused.
These two versions are not so much contradictory as complementary.
Basically they reflect divergent views of the place of the suffragane
in the élection of a metropolitan18 The chapter admitted to the
bishops no right to elect but only the formality of assent (assensus).
The bishops on the other hand claimed that canons and suffragane
together elected the metropolitan, that this had been the practice
parallel one of the principal issues between Esztergom and Kalocsa was the right to
perform the royal coronation which, in theory, was reserved exclusively to Eszter
gom but in practice was occasionally performed by Kalocsa. As early as August
1201, Innocent deputed the bishops of Gyôr and Csanâd to hear testimony in the
dispute between the two archiépiscopal sees, see A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta
Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia, I, Rome 1863, p. 59, no. 135; Potthast
no. 1457. On 5 May 1203 Innocent reproved John of Kalocsa for the offenses enu
merated above and delegated the bishop of Vâc and the Cistercian abbots of Pilis
and Bakony to convene the parties, hear both sides and decide the case without
appeal; see Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, II, 419; Potthast no. 1897. The two bishops
consecrated by Archbishop John are to be identified as Simon of Nagyvârad and
Peter II of Transylvania, since they were the only new bishops of the Kalocsa prov
ince elected between 1200 and 1203.
" The evidence for John's politicai sympathies is entirely circumstantial. As
bishop of Csanâd and archbishop of Kalocsa John's name occurs often among the
witnesses to royal charters but not with the regularity of Ugrin of GyOr or Katapân
of Eger; see Szentpétery, Reg. Arp., no. 172, 182, 184, 185, 193, 204. Unlike a number
of his colleagues John was never listed by King Imre among the bishops hostile to
the royal party. There may be a danger in inferring politicai significance in the
presence of a name among witnesses to charters, especially since the physical prés
ence of the bishops has been doubted. On this methodological problem see the
discussion of Bernard Reilly who infers the regular attendance of a corps of
bishops at the court of the kings of Leon and Castile, The Court Bishops of Al
fonso VII of Leon-Castilla, 1147-1157: Mediaeval Studies 36 (1974) 67-78.
18 Both versions are set out in Reg. VII, 159.
since the establishment of C

had been elected in the past
accord with canon law and a
At the beginning of the thi
were subject to the archbish
of Eger and formerly King
Esztergom dispute20. The see
of 120421. Of the remaining f
during the reign of Imre's f
conspicuously opposed Imre
épiscopal élection. The senio
Pécs, a remarkable prelate w
the metropolitan see. His co
of Veszprém and John of Nyi
19 It is difficult to corroborate the bishops' claim regarding the antiquity of

their rights, but if true it is a most interesting datum for studente of Hungarian
ecclesiastical practices. For the assertion that the suffragans' électoral rights ac
corded with the canons, see below, n. 64.
20 Katapân was a member of the aristocratie clan Katapan-Koppan, see J. HorvAth,
Meister P. und sein Werk: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 18 (1970)
404. He served as provost of Székesfehérvâr from 1192 to 1197 and as royal chancellor
during the same period until 1198; see. I. Szentpétery, Magyar Oklevéltan [Hungarian
Diplomaties], Budapest 1930, p. 70; Deér, Heilige Krone (see above, n. 10), p. 204.
As bishop of Eger his name occurs frequently among the witnesses to Imre's charters
between 1197 and 1202; Szentpétery, Reg. Arp., no. 172, 173, 175, 177, 184, 185, 189, 193.
Between 1203 and 1205 Katapân's name is noticeably absent from the records, but
the surviving documentation for these years is also scarcer. He died in 1216.
21 The vacancy was created by the promotion of Bishop Ugrin to Esztergom
and lasted for about a year. The first mention of a new incumbent at Gyôr is
associated with the obsequies of Làszló III (died 3 May 1205); see Continuatici
Admuntensis, ed. G. H. Pertz, MGH SS., IX, p. 591. Innocent III included a bishop
of Gyôr (« Janviensis ») among the bishops who petitioned Rome for the translation
of John of Kalocsa before the receipt in Hungary of the pope's second mandate
(hence May-June 1205, since the second mandate was issued c. 24 June 1205); see
Re g. Vili, 88, 139. The new bishop, Peter (1205-1217), has been identified with Master
Peter, provost of Székesfehérvâr and royal chancellor from 1202 to 1204; Szentpétery,
Magyar Oklevéltan, p. 70; Deér, Heilige Krone, pp. 206-207. His élection to Gyôr thus
occurred in the early months of 1205 before 3 May, but confirmation of this élection
by the appropriate metropolitan was impossible because of the Esztergom dispute.
Hence the bishop was listed among the witnesses of a royal grant given on 1 August
1205 as « Petro Jaurinensi electo»; T. SmiCiklas, Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae,
Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, Zagreb 1904-1917, III, p. 52, no. 46 (Szentpétery, Reg. Arp.
no. 217). The recent learned effort of J. HorvAth to identify Bishop Peter of Gyôr
with the anonymous Magister P., the author of the Gesta Hungarorum (Die Person
lichkeit des Meisters P. und die politische Tendenz seines Werkes: Acta Antiqua Aca
demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 19 (1971) 347-382) has been successfully challenged in
a masterful study of Gy. Gyôrffy, Abfassungszeit, Autorschaft und Glaubwiirdigkeit
der Gesta Hungarorum des Anonymen Notars: Acta Ant. Acad. Sci. Hung. 20 (1972)
209-229.
22 For the career of Kalân of Pécs see below, n. 43. The date of the accession
of Boleslaus of Vâc to his see is in dispute. Gams, Sériés episcoporum, places the
event in 1188, but C. Péterffy, Sacra concilia Ecclesiae Romano-Catholicae in regno
Hungariae celebrata, I, Vienna 1742, p. 81, gives the year as 1192. Boleslaus appears
to have been a conscientious administrator concernei to secure the revenues of his
diocese and correct the excesses of his clergy; see Péterffy, pp. 81-85 and Innocent III's
to Innocent relating their interprét

out additional arguments against the c
They complained that the chapter sho
a suitable nominee from within the
without false modesty, included many
They cited John of Kalocsa's reeent v
gom and accused him of having clai
the equal of Esztergom. They expre
be translated and thereafter fail to ad
those bishops who out of duty pers
pressed by him. Therefore, they ap
a suspect judge ought not to be set
Even if the bishops had not oppos
case would have been brought to R
thirteenth century it had become
épiscopal office to seek confirmatio
pallium from the pope25. Furtherm
référencé to Boleslaus as « vir discretus et pro

During the civil war between King Imre and his brother Andrew, Boleslaus was
denounced by the king as one of the bishops aiding the rebellious duke of Croatia
with money and troops; see Huxllaro-Bréholles, Examen des chartes, p. 32, no. 73
(Szentpétery, Re g. Arp., no. 187). More dramatically, Boleslaus' person and his cathedral
treasury were the objects of a violent attack by King Imre on 10 March 1199; see
ibid. and Innocent III, Re g. II, 96, 97 (Potthast no. 748, 749). After this affair the
bishop's name vanishes from the witness lists of Imre's acta for the rest of his
reign, reappearing only in 1205 during the reign of Andrew II; SmiCiklas, Codex
diplomaticus, III, no. 46. Boleslaus died in 1212.
Less is known about the career of Kalenda of Veszprém (1193-1209). He too was
apparently among the episcopal supporters of Andrew about whom Imre complained
to Rome in August 1199; Huillard-Bréholles, Examen des chartes, p. 75 (where he
is erroneously referred to as « Johannes Vesprimensis »). If he lost the king's favor
at this time, he seems to have made amends by 1203 when Imre confirmed two
grants in the diocese of Veszprém, one specifically at Kalenda's request; see SmiCiklas,
Codex diplomaticus, III, p. 35, no. 31, where the king states that he acts « ad peti
tionem venerabilis Zlandi Wesprimensis episcopi » (Szentpétery, Re g. Arp., no. 204) ;
and Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, II, p. 385 (Szentpétery, Re g. Arp., no. 205).
Of John II, bishop of Nyitra, we know nothing prior to 1204. His predecessor
Everardus died in 1198 (Gams, Sériés episcoporum, p. 375), but Bishop John does not
appear in the surviving documents until January 1204, in connection with the Eszter
gom élection. See R. Marsina, Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Slovaciae, I, Bratislava
1971, pp. 97, 103, 106. The year of his death is also disputed. His successor, Jakob,
is listed as the incumbent in 1213 by Marsina, p. 138, but cf. C. Eubel, Hierarchia
Catholica, I, s. v. « Nitriensis ». Curiously, the bishop of Nyitra is consistently absent
from the list of episcopal witnesses to royal diplomas for this period.
23 The bishops' appeal has not survived, but its contents were summarized in
the papal response issued 22 November 1204; Re g. VII, 159 (Potthast no. 2328). A more
accurate édition than that printed in Migne, PL 215, coll. 463-465, is the one recently
published by Marsina, Codex diplomaticus Slovaciae, I, pp. 105-107, no. 128.
24 « Cum tamen iuxta canonicas sanctiones iudex aliquibus non debeat dari
suspectus ». Marsina has re-punctuated this passage and attached it to the following
sentence with the resuit that the sense is distorted. The phrase clearly belongs
with the preceding recapitulation of the bishops' complaint, not with the protesta
tions of the représentatives of the cathedral chapter.
25 On papal confirmation of the élection of metropolitans and the theory of
obviously possessed the nece

—age, learning and legitimate
stituted a canonical impedime
which only the pope could remove. The désignation of John of
Kalocsa was therefore in the form of a postulation in which the
chapter petitioned the pontiff to release him from Kalocsa and con
fimi him in Esztergom2G. To this end the canons sent their treasurer
and the provost of Pozsony to Rome with a letter requesting papal
approvai of their choice. The chapter's représentatives were joined
by two royal envoys, the abbot of the Benedictine foundation of
St. Maurus at Bakonybél and a certain Master Peter, whose purpose
was probably to reinforce John's candidacy on the strength of previ
ously amicable relations between Innocent and Imre 27.
While the case was stili pending in Rome politicai conditions
in Hungary changed. The coronation of Laszló III occurred as plan
ned, but with John of Kalocsa officiating on 26 August 12042S. On
the following 30 November, King Imre was dead, and the governance
of the king and kingdom was entrusted to the formerly rebellious
the lus pallii during the pontificate of Innocent III, see Benson, The Bishop-Elect
(see above, n. 2), pp. 167-189, esp. pp. 171-2, 175, 185.
zfi The chapter's pétition has not survived but may be inferred from Reg. VII, 159:
« convenistis in unum et vota vestra in predictum Colocensem archiepiscopum, ut
ipsum postularetis a nobis unanimiter ». Such a pétition would have been drawn
up in accordance with current formulae. Lawrence of Somercote provides the
appropriate form for the postulation of a bishop later in the thirteenth century when
the procedure for postulation was more clearly defined; Tractatus, ed. Wretschko
(see above, η. 1), pp. 47-8.
27 The treasurer of Esztergom in 1204 was presumably the same officiai who
later represented the chapter in this affair in the summer of 1205. He was then
identified merely as « M. thesaurarius » in Reg. Vili, 139. Marsina suggests the name
« Ubaldus » for the provost of Pozsony, Codex diplomaticus Slovaciae, I, Bratislava
1971, p. 107, n. 10. The abbot of Bakonybél was possibly Abbot Peter listed as the
incumbent for 1204 or 1206, see D. Fuxhoffer and M. Czinàr, Monasteriologiae Regni
Hungariae, I, Pest 1858, p. 161. The identity of « Magister Petrus » is open to debate
and is bound up with the question of the authorship of the Gesta Hungarorum.
L. Szilàgyi identifies him as the provost of Esztergom, De aetate ac persona P. ma
gistri, Anonymi Belae regis notarii, in Szentpétery, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum,
II, Budapest 1938, p. 634. This is highly unlikely since the letter is addressed to the
cathedral chapter, and the treasurer is specifically mentioned as « thesaurarius Ec
clesiae vestrae, » but Master Peter, a royal envoy not a représentative of the Esztergom
chapter, is nowhere referred to as « prepositus ecclesie vestre ». Conceivably this
Petrus was the provost of Székesfehérvâr who later became the bishop of Gycir
(see above, n. 21) and who is J. HorvAth's candidate for the anonymous notary:
Die Personlichkeit des Meisters P. (see above, n. 21), pp. 374-377. But as this prelate
was also the royal chancellor during this period and is not mentioned in Innocent's
letter as holding this office, such an identification is far from certain. Two other
possibilities remain. « Magister Petrus » could be the contemporary provost of the
chapter of O-buda who is Gy. Gyôrffy's candidate for author of the Gesta: Abfassungs
zeit, Autorschaft und Glaubwiirdigkeit (see above, n. 21), pp. 226-9. Or this Master
Peter is an otherwise unknown figure associated with the royal court who may also
be considered a candidate for the authorship of the Gesta Hungarorum.
28 John's role in the coronation is attested in Reg. VII, 159. The date is given
in Chronici Hungarici compositio saeculi XIV, in Szentpétery, Scriptores rerum Hun
garicarum, I, Budapest 1937, 463.
Prince Andrew, the duke of Croatia29

had been the récipient of sharp pap
communication and threats to remove him from the succession to
the throne so. Despite his record of hostility to Imre and his flagr
disregard of papal sanctions, one of Duke Andrew's first acts as
regent was the dispatch of a letter to Innocent informing him that
he had taken control of the kingdom and assuring the pope that he
would complete the worthy projects which the late king had left
unfinished31. Principal among these was the postulation of John of
Kalocsa to the see of Esztergom. In what seems a deliberately
brusque tone the duke asked the pope to translate John of Kalocsa
without delay (sine dilatione) if he had not already done so. An
drew, furthermore, made it plain that this was his first request after
assuming the governance of the kingdom; through its fulfillment he
would count himself a récipient of Innocent's affection. He in turn,
so he said, would be more devoted to the Roman Church in every
way. The duke's letter was destined to fail of its desired resuit.
Innocent had already issued a décision to the chapter of Eszter
gom and to King Imre on 22 November, which we assume was in
transit at the time Andrew wrote32. John of Kalocsa's postulation
was not approved. The envoys of the king and chapter had in the
pope's presence attempted to counter the written arguments of the
bishops by stressing the bishops' refusai to respond to the chapter's
repeated requests for aid and counsel. Moreover, they had asserted
that the translation of the archbishop was required by évident utility
and urgent necessity33. In the midst of these pleadings it appears
that the envoys let slip the fact that John of Kalocsa had performed
Lâszlô's coronation despite the protests of the chapter which had
displayed to him their letters of privilège from the Apostolic See.
The complaint of the suffragane is silent on this point, but the act
itself gave weight to their argument that Archbishop John was dis
respectful of the rights of Esztergom. Innocent declared that the
right to crown kings of Hungary was known to pertain to Esztergom
and not to Kalocsa, and thus John of Kalocsa ought to be punished
as an invader of the rights of others and as a defier of apostolic
statute34.
2® For a discussion of the problems created by Duke Andrew's regency see my

Problem of Inalienability (see above, n. 10), pp. 239-244.
30 Ο. Hageneder, Exkommunikation und Thronfolgeverlust bei Innozenz III. : Ro
mische Historische Mitteilungen 2 (1957-58) 9-20.
31 Reg. VII, 226; Migne, PL 215, col. 543. The assertion made by H. Wolter that
« Innocent approved the regency of Duke Andrew » is without foundation as the text
of this letter shows; « The Papacy at the Height of its Power, 1198-1216, » in Handbook
of Church History, ed. H. Jedin and J. Dolan, IV, New York 1970, p. 147.
32 Reg. VII, 159.
33 « Prenominatis autem nuntiis asserentibus, quod translationem ipsius archie
piscopi urgens nécessitas et evidens utilitas exigebant ».
34 it is clear that in pleading extenuating circumstances the représentatives of the
The pope did not intend by

John as a potential candidate, for as he explained, while no one
acquired any righi through postulation, this particular postulation
was denied without préjudice to anyone. As a mark of his special
grace he offered the chapter three avenues for the resolution of the
dispute35. If the canons insisted upon Archbishop John's postula
tion and the suffragane remained in opposition, both sides were to
send proctors to Rome before Septuagesima (6 February 1205) so
that Innocent might render a décision in the presence of both sides.
If, however, the suffragane dropped their opposition to John, the
chapter was to send suitable persons able fully to inform the pope
of the changed situation before the expiration of the time limit. On
the other hand, should the suffragans persisi in their opposition and
the canons have doubts about their own case, they were to provide
another candidate in accordance with canonical procédures. At the
conclusion of a letter to the king containing this décision, Innocent
added a warning that he not impede the efforts of the bishops seek
ing justice from the Roman See 3e.
In rejecting the candidacy of John of Kalocsa, the pope care
fully avoided ruling in favor of the suffragan bishops, preferring to
place the authority of the papacy behind the préservation of locai
ecclesiastical privilèges such as the church of Esztergom's right to
crown Hungarian kings. Yet Innocent's décision possessed additional
diplomatie overtones. It is conceivable that in différent circumstan
ces the pope might have granted this postulation, perhaps stipulating
that the traditional coronation rights were to be maintained in their
entirety. But diplomatie relations between Innocent and Imre were
gravely strained in 1204 for many reasons, not the least of which was
the king's imprisonment of Cardinal Leo Brancaleone, the papal
legate37. In the effort to win the cardinal's freedom Innocent had
threatened to impede Laszló's coronation. Quite unknown to him
at that time was the fact that the coronation had already been per
formed by John of Kalocsa. His threat had been hollow. Thus in
king and chapter hoped to strengthen their case, but the resuit was exactly opposite.
There is no reason to doubt that John of Kalocsa performed Laszló's coronation
in his capacity as archbishop of Kalocsa. The later report of Thomas of Spalato,
Historia pontificum (see above, n. 8), p. 81, that Archbishop Bernard of Spalato
performed the ceremony is erroneous.
ss This section of the letter was later extracted and incorporated into the Liber
Extra (Χ. I. 5. 5). The point that interested later canon lawyers was the statement
that « per postulationem huiusmodi nullum ius sit alicui acquisitum » ; see Bernardus
Parmensis, Glossa Ordinaria, in Décrétâtes D. Gregorii Papae IX, Venice 1605, I. 5. 5.,
s. v. « nullum ».
36 « Monemus igitur celsitudinem tuam, quatinus prefatos episcopos non impe
dias, nec impediri permittas, quo minus episcopi supradicti suam apud nos iustitiam
libere prosequentur ».
3? This diplomatie crisis is discussed in détail in J. R. Sweeney, Innocent III
Hungary and the Bulgarian Coronation: Church History 42 (1973) 320-334.
November 1204, Innocent could have be

toward a king who after years of pa
war behaved so ungratefully nor tow
didate whose performance of Laszló's
diplomatie embarrassment.
II
The chronology of the next stage of the dispute is unclear, but

probably sometime early in 1205 a number of the cathedral canons
had a change of heart38. They withdrew their support from Arch
bishop John, which may have been initially conceded under pressure
from the late King Imre. These canons, no doubt with the encourage
ment of Duke Andrew, then nominated Bishop Kalân of Pécs, while
the canons stili loyal to Archbishop John lodged an appeal in Rome.
When the new candidate's name was presented to the suffragans,
only Bishop John of Nyitra gave his assent. Despite these divisions
the duke of Croatia, acting as regent for his nephew, wrote to Inno
cent to ask him to translate the bishop of Pécs to the metropoli
tan see3e.
The duke's endorsement of Kalân of Pécs should be seen within
the larger context of turbulent politicai conditions in Hungary. As
early as 1203 Imre regarded Kalân as a royal enemy, from which
we may conclude that the bishop had been a partisan of Duke An
drew 40. By early 1205 two politicai factions had emerged, one loyal
to the boy king Làszló III and to his mother Constance of Aragon,
the other partisans of the regent41. By spring conditions had so
worsened that Làszló, Constance and perhaps also some bishops and
38 The first postulation of Kalân of Pécs probably occurred in January 1205.
Shortly after his assumption of the regency (post 30 November 1204), Duke Andrew
supported John's candidacy and was stili unaware of Innocent's décision of 22
November. Allowing three to four weeks for receipt of the pope's message in
Hungary, the déniai of John's postulation would have been known no earlier than
late December 1204. Innocent specified that a new élection should take place before
6 February 1205, which presumably occurred. Later arguments do not mention the
expiration of this time limit.
so Andrew's letter is not extant. It is referred to both in Re g. Vili, 88 and 139.
It should probably be dated January-February 1205, see n. 38. Szentpétery, Reg. Arp.,
I, does not calendar the ad a of Andrew as gubernator Ungariae.
40 Imre's enmity toward Kalân in this period is described by Innocent III later
on 7 July 1206, see Re g. IX, 113 (Potthast no. 2837). The plausible suggestion that the
source of this royal enmity lay in Imre's suspicion of Kalân's collaboration with Andrew
was made by J. Roller, H istoria episcopatus Quinqueecclesiarum, I, Pozsony 1782,
p. 259: « Odii vero, quo Emericus in Calanum flagrabat, causa mihi quidem videtur
fuisse, quod in discordia Enterici Regis cum Andrea Duce, huic contra Regem quacun
que ratione favere existimaretur ».
41 The principal source of our knowledge of this confused period is a series
of seven lettere written by Innocent III between 25 and 27 Aprii 1205 and recorded
in the papal register {Reg. Vili, 3642).
loyal magnates felt compelled to ilee to the court of Leopold VI

of Austria. These politicai quarrels together with the possible de
parture of some members of the Hungarian episcopate to Vienna
account for Andrew's support of Kalân's nomination and for the
reluctance of the comprovincial bishops to accede to it42.
Kalân of Pécs is one of the more interesting Hungarian prelates
in this period. He was a careerist of considérable ability who, after
serving as royal chancellor, was elevated to his see during the reign
of Béla III. King Béla appointed him ban of Slavonia in 1189 and
a year later promoted him to governor of Dalmatia and Croatia
where he served until 1193 43. During this time he had the excep
tional personal honor to receive the pallium from Pope Celestine III
although he was not a metropolitan nor was his diocese customarily
distinguished in this way. Kalân was evidently proud of this dis
tinction for in several charters he referred to himself as episcopus
palleatus 44. According to the account of Alberic of Trois Fontaines,
unsubstantiated by Hungarian chroniclers, Kalân was suspected in
1196 of having brought about King Béla's death by poison45. This
accusation seems unfounded especially because it was not repeated
by the bishop's enemies in any later dispute.
More troublesome were the allégations of immoral behavior re
ported on several occasions to Pope Innocent who initially disre
garded them as malicious invention. Even when sometime in 1203
King Imre charged that Kalân had committed incesi with his niece
and requested that the papacy act to remove « such a pernicious
evil » from the Hungarian church, Innocent was inclined to dismiss
the accusations 46. To him the charges seemed to be prompted by
hatred for the bishop whom the king had persecuted as an enemy.
He thought it unbelievable that a learned man who in his youth and
maturity had demonstrated his integrity and prudence would in his
42 The Continuatio Admuntensis (see above, n. 21), p. 591, reports that the dowager
queen and the fugitive king arrived in Vienna in company with « quosdam episco
porum et optimatum Ungaricorum ». But which bishops these were remains a
mystery. Of the suffragane of Esztergom only Katapân of Eger is a possibility
because of his former close ties to Imre's household and his absence from both
ecclesiastical and secular disputes. But his absence could also be the result of illness.
43 The bishop was a member of the aristocratie clan of Bar-Kalân whose lands
were situated in the middle Tisza valley in the neighborhood of Csongràd; see
Horvàth, Meister P. und sein Werk {see above, n. 20), pp. 404-5, where the fundamental
research of Gy. Gyôrffy is summarized. For détails of Kalân's early career see
Szentpétery, Magyar Oklevéltan (see above, n. 20), pp. 62, 70; Koller, Historìa episco
patus Quinqueecclesiarum, I, Pozsony 1782, p. 223; and M. Wertner, Ungarns Palatine
und Bane im Zeitalter der Arpaden: Ungarische Revue 14 (1894) 147.
44 SmiCiklas, Codex diplomaticus, II, p. 259, no. 244; p. 265, no. 250 {A. D. 1193:
« episcopus palleatus et totius Dalmatie atque Chroatie gubernator »). Cf. Re g. IX, 113:
« ab Ecclesia Romana meruerit ornamento pallei decorari ».
43 Chronica Alberici Monachi Trium Fontium, ed. P. Scheffer-Boichorst, MGH SS.,
XXIII, 873: « Rex Hungarie Bela moritur in cena Domini, de cuius potionatione
contra quendam episcopum Calanum orta fuit suspicio ».
4« Re g. IX, 113.
INNOCENT III AND ESZTERCOM 127
old âge abandon himself to ignom

theless, acting largely in defense o
dered Ugrin of Gyôr to investiga
report his findings to Rome.
Early in 1204 the pope informed
investigation: Innocent stili did no
true, and Bishop Ugrin had toget
many other prelates testified to
précaution Innocent warned him in
his réputation. In a postscript or
letter, the text of which no longe
Kalân as a father would admonish
to keep away from that girl and t
evil suspicions4S. Unfortunately f
munication was stolen by one of
licly in the presence of King Imr
a defamatory attempt to show tha
Therefore, when Kalân became a ca
dignity, his enemies, who seem a
drew, were prepared to revive th
The case for Kalân's nomination
mid-June 1205 by an unnamed proctor. In discussions before
Innocent and the cardinals, the proctor urgently requested the pope
to order a formai canonical purgation so that the bishop might
demonstrate his innocence. Innocent was reluctant to agree, nor was
he compelled by law to impose this procedure. Finally, persuaded
by the persistent pleadings of the bishop's proctor, Innocent directed
the bishop of Csanâd and the abbot of the Cistercian monastery at
Zek (Cikâdor) to conduct the bishop's purgation in company with
two other bishops and three other abbots 49. This authorization was
made despite the pope's expressed réservations about holding the
proceeding with bishops from Esztergom province since they then
were opposing Kalân's candidacy or with the suffragans from the
province of Kalocsa since they were subject to the bishop's rival.
After they had disposed of this question, Innocent and the cardinals
dealt directly with Kalân's nomination.
This time the décision was unequivocal. The postulation was
denied, not because of any defect in the suitability of the candidate,
47 Reg. VI, 1% (Potthast no. 2086).

48 Re g. IX, 113. « Quia vero pater filium, quem diligit, corripuit, nos eumdem
episcopum per nostras litteras corripuimus, injungentes eidem ad majorem cautelam,
ut, ab illius familiaritate cessando, apud Deum et hommes taliter se haberet, quod
sinistra de ipso suspicio non posset haberi ». The text of this letter was subsequently
edited and divided into two sections for inclusion in the thirteenth century canonical
collections.
48 Reg. Vili, 98 (Potthast no. 2547); 19 June 1205. Cf. Reg. IX, 113.
but because of flaws in the électoral procedure. Expressing to

Andrew his regret at the outcome, Innocent wrote that the postula
tion suffered from four spécifie failings50. It had been rashly
celebrated despite pending appeals lodged against it in Rome. The
suffragane were in disagreement and so were the canons of Eszter
gom. The form of the élection was contrary to the papal mandate
issued the previous November, and even the regular procedure
appropriate for such occasions had been omitted. The pope ordered
the canons of Esztergom to provide a suitable pastor for their see
through canonical élection or harmonious postulation, to obtain the
assent of the suffragane, if that were ancient custom in Hungary,
and to do so within one month of the receipt of his letter. Other
wise, from the plénitude of apostolic power he himself would provide
for the see 51.
A combination of legai and diplomatie considérations may be
observed in the rejection of the postulation of Kalân of Pécs. The
unambiguous papal décision was firmly based upon the glaring irré
gularités of Kalân's élection. In considering the merits of the
postulation, Innocent did not rush to give judgment but allowed
several months to pass. He may have delayed, if only briefly, until
he had learned whether his efforts to moderate Andrew's behavior
toward Constance and Laszló had succeeded52. There was stili
another reason for him to defer this judgment. Innocent certainly
wished to distinguish sharply between the décision on the postula
tion and the validity of the accusations made against the candidate.
His scrupulous regard for the bishop's réputation no doubt prompted
him first to dispose of the charge of immorality so that no imputa
tion of wrongful behavior could be inferred from the rejection of
the postulation.
Before this second papal mandate of June 1205 was received in
Hungary, the supporters of Archbishop John had attempted once
more to secure the assent of the suffragane for the archbishop's
postulation in accordance with the pope's first mandate53. They
summoned ali the bishops of Esztergom province except Kalân of
Pécs, and this time they were successful. The bishops of Vac and
50 Re g. Vili, 88 (Potthast no. 2550); 24 June 1205.
51 The second mandate to the chapter at Esztergom is not extant, but presumably
was issued at about the same time as Innocent's letter to Andrew which describes
the content of the mandate; Re g. Vili, 88.
52 From his letters of Aprii 1205, Innocent appears unaware of Laszló's flight
to Vienna. With the current evidence it is not possible to determine when the
pontiff learned of this event or what diplomatie hearing it may have had on the
outeome of Kalân's postulation. In general Innocent appears to have been poorly
informed about Hungarian affairs at this period. Note that in announcing the déniai
of this postulation, the pope addressed Andrew as « Dominus Hungariae » more
than seven weeks after Laszló's death; Reg. Vili, 88.
ss Reg. Vili, 139. The date of the bishops' adherence to the candidacy of
Archbishop John is probably May-June 1205.
INNOCENT III AND ESZTERCOM 129
Veszprém and the bishop-elect of Gyôr

John's nomination without réservati
alone had endorsed Kalân's nominatio
stating that if the pope did not admi
of Pécs, then he would join his collea
tion of the archbishop.
By the time Innocent's second letter
conditions had changed again decisiv
in exile in Vienna, and the duke of Croatia ascended the throne as
Andrew II 54. His coronation celebrated later that month was also
performed by Archbishop John of Kalocsa55. Since Lâszlô's death
eliminated any legitimate opposition to Andrew, and Innocent had
rejected Kalân's nomination, the new king was reconciled to the
candidacy of Archbishop John. The chapter, its number augmente
by some who had once supported Kalân, renewed their support fo
the postulation of the archbishop and sent a délégation of five clerics
to Rome. This time they brought with them a letter from Andrew
strongly endorsing their case56. But the supporters of Kalân, the
ranks thinned by défection, refused to abandon their cause. Their
persistence reveals that despite the obvious politicai influence of Imre
and Andrew, certain parties to this dispute acted on the basis of
personal commitment. Kalân's partisans, believing that Innocent'
second mandate had returned the right of free élection to the canons
attempted to convene the chapter. But Archbishop John's faction
refused to participate. Kalân's partisans declared that the other sid
had thereby deprived itself of the right to elect, and they formally
designated the bishop of Pécs for the second time. They then sent
proctors to Rome to defend what was left of their case57. They
argued that only they had complied with the form and within the
time limit of the second mandate. Archbishop John's partisans chal
lenged these assertions and argued instead that they had acted within
54 Làszló III died 3 May 1205. see Chronicon Zagrabiense cum textu chronici
Varadiensìs collatum, in Szentpétery, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, I, Budapest
1937, p. 212.
55 The identity of the célébrant of Andrew II's coronation (29 May 1205) is
given in the text of a royal grant from 1206 in favor of the church of Esztergom;
Fejér, Codex diplomaticus, III, pt. 1, p. 31 (Szentpétery, Re g. Arp. no. 224) : « in
nostrae coronationis memoriam, quam de sursum capite nostro per manus venerabilis
patris Ioannis Archiepiscopi Strigoniensis ... ».
56 Re g. VIII, 139. While the available sources do not inform us of the date
of the défection of the canons formerly supporting Kalân or of Andrew's change of
heart, it is reasonable to assume that this occurred after Lâszlô's death and probably
only after the king learned that Kalân's postulation had been denied (post 24 June
1205). As Kalân witnessed a royal grant on 1 August 1205 as « Caiani Quinqueeccle
siensi episcopo et Strigoniensi electo» (SmiCiklas, Codex diplomaticus, III, p. 52,
no. 26; Szentpétery, Reg. Arp. no. 217), Andrew's volte-face should probably be dated
to August 1205 at the earliest.
57 Reg. VIII, 139.
the terms of the first mandate

of the bishops.
In company with the cardin
resolved the dispute through
6 October 1205 5S. He observe
postulation and apply those co
mandate, the provision for th
him. But he stated that he wa
candidate in Hungary or with any other qualified person of
Hungarian origin, and that he did not wish to instali a foreigner.
So that although he believed it more proper that a suffragan should
be advanced to the metropolitan see, he chose to translate the arch
bishop of Kalocsa to Esztergom because he was the candidate upon
whom ali who had the right to elect had supported at one time
or another. John of Kalocsa's ties to his former see were thereupon
dissolved, and he was permitted to transfer his pallium to the name
and use of Esztergom. A week later Innocent wrote to the cathedral
chapter of Kalocsa informing them that the translation of their arch
bishop had been dictated by necessity and that it should in no way
préjudice the right and dignity of the church of Kalocsa 59.
Ili
The materials relating to the Esztergom dispute reveal a pap

course which was firm, orderly and restrained. The fact that t
case had been twice returned to the Hungarian electors demonstrates
Innocent's reluctance to provide for the vacant see until and unl
the locai electors failed in their responsibility. The final resoluti
expressed in Bone memorie was an admirable compromise. Ther
had been numerous technical violations of canonical procedure an
subséquent papal directives sufficient to permit the pope to just
the imposition of his own candidate. This legalistic course was n
pursued. By the autumn of 1205 ali sides had shown a willingne
to reach an accommodation : the suffragane had earlier yielded, mos
58 Reg. Vili, 139; Knauz, Mon. Strig., I, p. 180, no. 167. The letter was addresse
to the provost and chapter of Esztergom. Master Peter, the provost of Esztergom
(1197-1210), was one of the leading men of letters of his age. Educated at Paris, h
is considered by some to be the anonymous author of the Gesta Hungarorum. See,
for example, Gy. BOnis, La pénétration du droit romain dans les pays slaves
hongrois; Recueil de mémoires et travaux de la société d'histoire du droit et d
institutions des anciens pays de droit écrit (Université de Montpellier), 6 (1967) 77
and esp. SzilAgyi. De aetate ac persona P. Magistri (see above, n. 27), pp. 633
For a critique of the identification of Master Peter of Esztergom with the author
of the Gesta, see HorvAth, Die Personlichkeit des Meisters P. (see above, n. 2
pp. 350-1 et seqq.
s» Reg. VIII, 140 (14 October 1205); Potthast no. 2591.
of the canons who had favored the b

and the new king was prepared to acc
Little could be gained from a prolongat
possibly to drive King Andrew, who a
of the Hohenstaufen party in German
Philip of Swabia60. In selecting the n
or another the approvai of ali the par
Innocent settled the Esztergom dispu
He may well have been forced into this
no other suitable Hungarian candidate
know from the Langton case, when In
qualified native, whatever general réser
imposing his own candidate could be o
The arguments advanced by the suf
vincingly demonstrate the thorough
Hungary and the integration of the k
of the Western church. The représen
Innocent to approve the first postul
justified his désignation on the groun
dens utilitas. In so doing the canons
the ancient Romano-canonical maxim
By their appeal to this principle the can
about the legality of the procedure emp
bishop. Innocent, moreover, adopted
60 Andrew had married Gertrude, second daughter of Duke Berthold IV of

Andechs-Merania, and throughout his life maintained close relations with this
prominent pro-Hohenstaufen dynasty. See Edmund Oefele, Geschichte der Grafen von
Andechs, Innsbruck 1877, pp. 36, 94-100. Duke Berthold had been one of the electors
of Philip of Swabia in 1199 and was proposed as one of the negotiators for the
Hohenstaufen party in 1200. In 1202 he joined in the protest against Innocent III's
public déclaration in favor of Otto of Brunswick. Innocent in 1203 urged the duke
to abandon Philip and join Otto's cause; see Regestum Innocenta papae super negotio
Romani imperii, ed. F. Kempf, Rome 1947, no. 14, 20, 61, 98. Even after Duke
Berthold's death in 1204 his sons Duke Otto VII, Heinrich, margrave of Istria, and
Eckbert, bishop of Bamberg, continued to move in Hohenstaufen circles. That
Innocent appreciated Andrew's links with this family is clearly revealed in a papal
letter (29 November 1206) to Bishop Eckbert asking him to convey to the king of
Hungary the pope's joy in learning of the birth of a royal son, the future Béla IV ;
Reg. IX, 188; Potthast no. 2924.
e1 Roger of Wendover, Flowers of History, trans. J. A. Giles, II, London 1849,
pp. 238-9; cf. Knowles, The Canterbury Election (see above, n. 4), p. 219.
ο2 For a discussion of the terms nécessitas and utilitas in the context of twelfth
century legai and politicai thought see Gaines Post, Ratio publicae utilitatis, ratio
status, and ' Reason of State 1100-1300, in Studies in Medieval Legai Thought, Prin
ceton 1964, pp. 253-269; for the thirteenth and subséquent centuries, idem, Vincentius
Hispanus ' prò ratione voluntas ', and Medieval and Early Modem Théories of So
vereignty: Traditio 28 (1972) 167, 175-6. The spécifie expression of the concept « neces
sity has no law » was introduced into the décrétais through texts of Innocent III;
see Χ. I. 4. 4, Quanto de benignitate : « tutius tamen est ea sine periculo ex necessi
tate (que legem non habet) omittere », and X. III. 46. 2, Consilium nostrum: «non
subiaceat legi nécessitas ».
case in John s favor when he explained to the provost and chapter

of Kalocsa that their metropolitan's translation to Esztergom was
motivated exigente necessitate. In the counterargument of the suf
fragans the righi of the comprovincial bishops to share in the élec
tion of their metropolitan was claimed to be iuxta constitutionem
canonicam et consuetudinem approbatam. The most likely text of
the Decretum to which the suffragans alluded is a letter of Pope
Leo the Great to Anastasius bishop of Thessalonica in which the
provincial bishops are charged with the task of assembling and sum
moning the clergy of the see city upon the death of the incumbent
metropolitan63. But the prevailing twelfth century decretisi inter
prétation of this text scarcely supported the Hungarian bishops'
claim64. Locai custom in this matter varied, yet, as Innocent III
himself ultimately maintained in Bone memorie, the local tradition
was to be respected65.
In challenging the suitability of John of Kalocsa for the primatial
dignity, the suffragans pointed to the varias et intolerabiles iniurias
he was said to have comitted against them, expressing the fear that
if he were translated to Esztergom he would continue to oppress
them. Thus they protested the postulation on the grounds that iuxta
canonicas sanctiones iudex aliquibus non debeat dare suspectas. By
the invocation of the legai argument against suspect judges, the
bishops drew attention to the view that judicial functions were
inherent in the episcopal office generally, and that metropolitans in
particular exercised rights of jurisdiction over their suffragans in
certain cases 66. The spécifie text to which they referred is likely to
be a letter of Pope Nicholas I included in the Decretum where the
*3 D. 63 c. 19.
84 The views of Simon de Bisognano, the Ordinaturus Magister, Huguccio of Pisa,
Alanus Anglicus and others are set out in the commentaries on D. 63 c. 19 cited by
K. Ganzer, Zur Beschr'ànkung der Bischofswahl (see above, n. 2), 88 (1971) 43, 45, 534,
56, 58, 67, 71. Almost ali the decretists agreed in denying the bishops an explicit right
to participate in the élection of a metropolitan, although Laurentius Hispanus inclined
to the view that in certain cases the suffragans shared in the élection as fictitious
canons of the metropolitan church; Ganzer, p. 58. A right based upon the custom
of the province in question, however, was often recognized as legitimate, and so
too was the view that in default of an élection by the chapter or as the result of
a defective or contested élection the suffragans were to decide the élection; see the
comments of Huguccio cited by Ganzer, pp. 534.
«s Reg. Vili, 139: « per electionem canonicam, vel postulationem concordem, re
quisito suffraganeorum assensu, si esset de antiqua et approbata consuetudine requi
rendus ». Cf. Bernardus Parmensis, gloss on Χ. I. 5. 4, s. ν. « consuetudine ».
es See the ardo for the consécration of a bishop in the early thirteenth century
Roman Pontificai where the obligation to judge is listed first among the responsibilities
of the episcopal office: « De officio episcopi. Episcopum oportet iudicare, inter
pretari, consecrare, confirmare, ordinare, offerre et baptizare»; M. Andrieu, Le
Pontifical romain au moyen âge, II, Vatican City 1941, p. 356. The judicial rôle of
the episcopate was of great antiquity; see for example the discussion of the judicial
business transacted in the provincial synods of Narbonne and Toledo attended by
the metropolitan, his suffragans and other clergy in E. W. Kemp, Counsel and
Consent, London 1961, pp. 3841. Pope Leo I in the canonical text upon which
pontiff urges quod suspecti et inimi

This text was a well known basis for
judges delegate, although the principle
the Corpus iuris civilis6S. In the Esztergom case, however, In
nocent III appears not to have been persuaded by this argument,
for, as we have seen, John of Kalocsa's first postulation was rejected
for différent reasons.
The issue raised in the Esztergom dispute concerning the défini
tion of the électoral body responsible for the désignation of a
metropolitan was certainly not unique. On the contrary, it was
precisely at the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the
thirteenth that a decisive shift occurred in électoral theory and
practice which affected the entire Western Church. Despite the
explicit prohibition of the Second Lateran Council, cathedral chapters
in this period often reserved to themselves the exclusive right to
elect bishops. A similar, related development can be seen in the
procedure for the élection of an archbishop69. In the Esztergom
case the suffragans asserted that they were entitled to full rights
to élection una cum canonicis, whereas the chapter admitted to the
suffragans only the passive rôle of giving assensus assigned to them
de gratia. In Bone memorie Pope Innocent provided only for the
subsidiary participation of the suffragans by requiring their assent
to the chapter's nominee, and that conditionally si esset de antiqua
et approbata consuetudine requirendus. The suffragans themselves
contributed to the narrowing of the définition of the électoral body
through their failure to insist upon full électoral rights in the sub
séquent course of the dispute and through their final pétition for
John of Kalocsa's translation, their réservation noted by Innocent III
—salvo iure suo in posterum—notwithstanding. From evidence for
the subséquent archiépiscopal élections of 1225-1226, 1240 and 1243,
the Esztergom cathedral chapter clearly emerged at the beginning
of the thirteenth century as the exclusive électoral body70. Whatever
rights the suffragans later retained were decidedly interior to those
which they claimed in 1204.
subséquent électoral procedure was based (Decretum, D. 62, c. 1) declared that

episcopal consécration was to be preceded by a judgment of the candidate by his
metropolitan. For a discussion of the other duties of a thirteenth century metropolitan
including hearing judicial appeals from the courts of his suffragans with special
reference to England, see R. Brentano, The Office of Metropolitan, in York Metropolitan
Jurisdiction and Papal Judges Delegate, Berkeley 1959, p. 1-22, esp. 8-9.
67 C. 3 q. 5 c. 15.
«s R. Helmholz, Canonists and Standards of Impartiality for Papal Judges
Delegate·. Tradìtio 25 (1969) 397-399.
β® This shift is admirably explored with particular reference to the churches
of Trier and Cologne by Ganzer, Zur Beschrankung der Bischofswahl (see above, n. 2),
88 (1971) 22-82, and 89 (1972) 166-197.
70 No direct references to the participation of the comprovincial bishops can
be found in the papal lettere which refer to these élections, and in only one case
The course of the Esztergom

the part played by the Hungarian
The royal rôle was both explicit
politicai. According to the accusa
canons had deliberated among
Ugrin's death and sent a déléga
their preference and seeking his
order to nominate a candidate ".
licentia eligendi or royal concu
tions but, so the bishops wou
approvai of the candidate antéc
action would have been highly
of free élection and a violation of a decretai of Celestine III forbid
ding prior assent by princes or patriarchs in episcopal élections 72.
Innocent III in Bone memorie seems to have dismissed the suffragans'
charge, for in restating the same sequence of events the pope placed
the obtaining of royal assent after the unanimous postulation by the
canons. The king's formai public role thus consisted entirely in
concurring in the chapter's décision, in drafting letters to the pope
in behalf of the candidate, and in sending an embassy to Rome. The
indirect influence of the Hungarian king on the élection process was,
however, far greater, especially in light of the chapter's pragmatic
admission that their choice of a candidate was limited to persons
who could win royal approvai 72\ Similar politicai considérations
must be sought in the circumstances surrounding the first postula
can some sort of episcopal participation be inferred from the inclusion of two
suffragane together with the cathedral chapter as récipients of a papal mandate;
A. Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, I, Rome 1859,
p. 54, no. 116. Cf. ibid., p. 166, no. 139 (A. D. 1226); p. 174, no. 316 (1240); p. 186,
no. 343 (1243).
71 Reg. VII, 159: « vos, habito adinvicem Consilio diligenti, quosdam de canonicis
vestris ad... regis... presentiam destinastis, et quem vobis prefici volebatis, nominete
nus expressistis. Post dilationem vero non longam ... vos ... prefatum Colocensem archie
piscopum... nominare curastis... ». Marsina, Codex Diplomaticus Stovaciae, I, p. 106.
72 At the time of the Esztergom dispute Pope Celestine's decretai Cum terra (X.
I. 6. 14) had not yet entered the formai decretai collections (Comp. II, I. 3. 6), but the
text was included in the collection of Gilbertus (1202-1203), Lib. I, tit. 3 (« De electione
et electi potestate »), cap. 4 ; see R. von Heckel, Die Dekretalensammlungen des Gilber
tus und Alanus nach den Weingartener Handschriften: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung
fiir Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung, 29 (1940) 180, 345. The principle of the
exclusion of the prince from prior désignation of a candidate for episcopal office was
well established in theory; see for example Humbert of Moyenmoutier, Libri III ad
versus simoniacos, in MGH, Libelli de lite, I, p. 205.
72a Further récognition of the considérable royal influence upon the élection of
Hungarian bishops is found in the Notabilia ad Compilationem II of Paulus Ungarus
written between 1215 and 1218, where he remarked; « Item layci possunt interesse
tractatui electionum in ecclesia conventuali, si hoc obtinuerunt de longa consuetudine,
et est notandum prò regibus Hungarie, Yspanie et Sicilie» (III. 24.2); see I. Kapi
tAnffy and T. Szepessy, Paulus Hungarus két Notabiliàjànak magyar vonatkozâsù helyei
[Hungarian References in the Two ' Notabilia ' of Paulus Hungarus], in J. HorvAth and
Gy. Székely, eds., Kozépkori kutfoink kritikus kérdései [Criticai Problems Regarding
Our Medieval Sources], Budapest 1974, pp. 282, 288.
tion of Kalân of Pécs and in the final resolution of the conflict in

John of Kalocsa's favor. That royal influence upon the élection of
a primate was necessarily informai and indirect is in itself an
important fact in light of the claims made in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries that the Hungarian kings as successors of
St. Stephen possessed an unusual apostolic légation7S. By the early
thirteenth century such legatine authority, if actually exercised by
Hungarian kings, would have been severely circumscribed both by
the development of the Gregorian concept of electio canonica and
by the earlier renunciations of Kings Kâlmân, Géza II and Stephen
III 7\ Innocent III's direct warning to Imre not to prevent the
bishops' appeal to Rome must also be viewed as further evidence
against the royal possession of legatine powers. From the documents
in the Esztergom case, the existence of the apostolic légation cannot
be sustained.
Innocent III's settlement of the Esztergom dispute expressed
in Bone memorie left unresolved at least one major issue: had John
of Kalocsa wrongfully intruded upon the rights of the church of
Esztergom when he performed the royal coronation? In November
1204 Innocent clearly thought he had and denied his postulation
because of this. Presumably the coronation of Laszló III was per
formed by Archbishop John in his capacity as metropolitan of Kalocsa
rather than as archbishop-elect of Esztergom7S. Innocent was cor
rect, moreover, in noting the existence of papal privilèges confirming
the right of coronation to the church at Esztergom, although there
were also précédents for the Hungarian royal coronation performed
73 The legatine grani is described in the twelfth century Legendae S. Stephani regis
of Bishop Hartwig in Szentpétery (ed.), Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, II, Budapest
1938, p. 144, cap. 9. There are a number of subséquent allusions to the légation in later
documents of which perhaps the most explicit is to be found in a letter of Gregory IX
to Béla IV dated August 1238 in Theiner, Mon. Hung. (see above, n. 70), I, pp. 165-6,
no. 295. The authenticity of the légation is accepted by P. von Vàczy, Die erste Epoche
des ungarischen Konigtums, Pécs 1935, pp. 92-136; while the Hungarian claim is com
pared to similar instances in Sicily and England in J. Deér, Der Anspruch der Herrscher
des 12. Jahrhunderts auf die apostolische Légation: Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 2
(1964) 156-162. Cf. the rejection of the historicity of the claim on the grounds that it
was the pure invention of Bishop Hartwig, in A. Szentirmai, Die ' Apostolische Léga
tion' des Ungarnkonigs Stephan des Heiligen: Osterreichisches Archiv fiir Kirchen
recht 8 (1957) 253-267.
" For King Kâlmân's abandonment of lay investiture at the synod of Guastalla
(1106), see J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XX, coli.
1211-2. The renunciation of Géza II (1161) and Stephen III (1169) are discussed with
full reference to associated textual problems in W. Holtzmann, Papst Alexander III.
und Ungarn, in idem, Beitrage tur Reichs- und Papstgeschichte des hohen Mittelalters,
Bonn 1957, pp. 147-163.
is Archbishop John was nowhere charged with presuming to exercise the prima
tial authority at Esztergom before his élection was confirmed. In the Empire the
right to crown German kings depended upon receipt of the pallium and confirmation
of élection, see Benson, Bishop-Elect (see above, n. 2), p. 169n. As John was already
in possession of a pallium there was no need to lay claim to Esztergom in order to
validate the coronation.
by the archbishops of Kalocsa76. This intrusion into the corona

tion rights of Esztergom had not been so serious as to disqualify
John entirely for the primatial dignity and thus his second postula
tion was specifically countenanced. What is remarkable is the fact
that between the rejection of his first postulation and his translation
to the primatial see, John of Kalocsa performed a second royal
coronation, that of Andrew II, about which Innocent is completely
silent. It is highly unlikely that the pope was ignorant of Andrew's
coronation at the time Bone memorie was drafted. Moreover, if
the violation of the coronation privilèges of Esztergom had been
adequate justification for the rejection of Archbishop John's first
postulation, should not a second instance committed after a papal
reprimand be considered an even more serious offense? It is dif
ficult to supply legai arguments to explain Innocent's silence. Con
ceivably he had been informed of Alexander III's license to an earlier
archbishop of Kalocsa to perform a royal coronation in 1173 and
moderated his views in light of this precedent77. It seems equally
probable that Innocent and the curia were prepared for politicai
and diplomatie reasons to set legai technicalities aside and reach a
compromise from which the papacy, the royal court and the church
of Esztergom might each derive some benefit.
Through inclusion in the Compilatio Tertia and then in the Liber
Extra papal décisions relating to the Esztergom case entered the
decretai law of the church in the form of four separate capituli.
Innocent's letter of 1206, Cum in iuventute, which reviewed the earlier
action taken in the case against Kalân of Pécs, was divided so that
one part was included in the title De praesumptionibus (Χ. II. 23. 15)
and the other in De purgatione canonica (Χ. V. 34. 12)7S. An excerpt
from the décision Postulationem quam celebrastis was included in
the title De postulatione praelatorum (Χ. I. 5. 5), but the fullest text
even though severely abridged was that of Bone memorie II also
placed in the title De postulatione praelatorum (Χ. I. 5.4)79. From a
legai perspective the central point established in this décision was
that once a postulation had been presented to the pope the postulat
ing body was unable to retract its choice but was obligated to await
76 Papal confirmations of the coronation rights of the see of Esztergom include
those of Clement III (5 Aprii 1188), Knauz, Mon. Strig., I, no. 116; Celestine III (13
and 20 December 1191), ibid., I, no. 124, 125; and Innocent III (5 May 1203), Reg. VI,
55. Archbishops of Kalocsa performed the coronations of Laszló II (1162), Stephen IV
(1163) and Béla III (1173), See Hóman, Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters, I, Ber
lin 1943, pp. 394, 430.
77 Innocent in a letter of 15 May 1209 exhibits a thorough acquaintance with the
events of 1173 which he obtained directly from Alexander III's register; Reg. XII, 42
(Potthast no. 3725), but direct evidence is lacking for his knowledge in 1205.
78 Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, II, Leipzig 1881, coll. 358, 874.
79 Ibid., II, col. 47. For a correction of Friedberg's text of this decretai based on
a criticai re-examination of the manuscripts, see K. J. Pennington, The French Recen
sioni of the Compilatio Tertia: Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, n. s., 5 (1975) 62.
papal judgment. In the decretai text th

Ugrin was replaced by the abbreviat
resuit of a confusion with the immedia
to Archbishop Guglielmo of Ravenna in
In a gloss on this Esztergom decretai
Tertia, Johannes Teutonicus dealt with
obtaining the royal assent mentioned ab
action had been unnecessary. This wa
completed élection, not a mere nomin
the prince for his assent81. It may h
such an explanation that in the final
the Decretales the reference to regiu
abridgments notwithstanding, through
canonical commentaries and later treatises such as that of Lawrence
of Somercote, the Esztergom eleotion dispute achieved a form o
legai immortality.
so Corpus iuris canonici, II, col. 44.

si K. J. Pennington, A Study of Johannes Teutonicus' Theory of Church Government
and the Relationship between Church and State, wìth an Edition of his Apparatus to
Compilatio Tertia, (Ph. D. Dissertation, Cornell, 1972), ν. II, pt. 1, p. 44.

Widescreen Fixer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Widescreen Fixer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GBPress- Gregorian Biblical Press

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DECRETAL

Summarium. — Annis 1204-1205 lis de electione ad sedem primatialem Stri

In his treatise on the forms of episcopal élection Lawrence of

didate could not be elected in the usuai way because he was re

as provincial superior for the diocese

dispute was the exclusion of the

The death of Job, archbishop

primacy was a favorable omen which

of the eleventh century13. Si

13 Desiderius was archbishop of Esztergom c. 1067-c. 1075 according to Knauz,

Archbishop John's politicai sympathies in

since the establishment of C

19 It is difficult to corroborate the bishops' claim regarding the antiquity of

to Innocent relating their interprét

référencé to Boleslaus as « vir discretus et pro

obviously possessed the nece

Prince Andrew, the duke of Croatia29

2® For a discussion of the problems created by Duke Andrew's regency see my

The pope did not intend by

November 1204, Innocent could have be

The chronology of the next stage of the dispute is unclear, but

loyal magnates felt compelled to ilee to the court of Leopold VI

old âge abandon himself to ignom

47 Reg. VI, 1% (Potthast no. 2086).

but because of flaws in the électoral procedure. Expressing to

Veszprém and the bishop-elect of Gyôr

the terms of the first mandate

The materials relating to the Esztergom dispute reveal a pap

of the canons who had favored the b

60 Andrew had married Gertrude, second daughter of Duke Berthold IV of

case in John s favor when he explained to the provost and chapter

pontiff urges quod suspecti et inimi

subséquent électoral procedure was based (Decretum, D. 62, c. 1) declared that

The course of the Esztergom

tion of Kalân of Pécs and in the final resolution of the conflict in

by the archbishops of Kalocsa76. This intrusion into the corona

papal judgment. In the decretai text th

so Corpus iuris canonici, II, col. 44.

You might also like