Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:31:27.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Endorsed Subdelegation: 1284

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Robert Brentano
Robert Brentano*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The commission of subdelegation here transcribed is one of a large number surviving, in the original or in transcript, from a jurisdictional dispute between the archbishop of York and the prior and convent of Durham. The case was tried before various benches of papal judges delegate between the years 1281 and 1286. This commission is a good, clear example of its type. It reflects the structure and phraseology of the papal mandate. Its particular distinction lies in its bearing on its dorse a certification, a dated note of receipt, in the hand, presumably, of one of the subdelegates, Master Robert Merley, a canon of Dunblane in Scotland. Beyond its obvious interest for antiquarians involved with Dunblane, the certification, particularly in conjunction with another endorsement on the commission, helps date, place, and make real, if not simple, activities within a peculiarly elusive and involved legal mechanism where fiction is everywhere a possibility.

Type
Miscellany
Information
Traditio , Volume 13 , 1957 , pp. 452 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

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 The dispute arose over an attempted metropolitan visitation. Before it was settled another dispute over the administration of Durham sede vacante was added to it. By 1284 this compound dispute was completely enmeshed in procedural difficulties. Google Scholar

2 An exception, but not one dealing with delegates’ courts, is to be found in Woodcock, Brian L., Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (London 1952). Lord Cooper's Select Scottish Cases of the Thirteenth Century (Edinburgh 1944) contains valuable material connected with delegate procedure.Google Scholar

3 It must be admitted that a careful reading of the pertinent portions of the Decretals (X. 1.29), of Durandus in the Speculum, of Hostiensis in the Commentaria, or particularly of Drogheda in the Summa Aurea, would lead one to suspect the sort of behavior that one finds in canonists practicing before delegates. Google Scholar

4 Durham, Dean and Chapter Archives: Locellus xiv.2f; British Museum: Cotton MS Julius D. iv, fo.167v. Google Scholar

5 Among the regulars, sacristans and precentors are particularly noticeable. Google Scholar

6 Baldred Bisset was receiving his annual pension from the convent of Durham as late as 1296: Durham Dean and Chapter Archives: Miscellaneous Charters, 3429, 3543, 3987, 4028, 5919 (acquittances). Google Scholar

7 Cf. Durham, Dean and Chapter Archives: Miscellaneous Charter 5820. ‘8 Instruments.’ 3: Durham advice to a proctor at Rome: ‘… consilium nostrum est quod sit [tercius iudex] episcopus, et de Scocia …’. Google Scholar

8 Julius, B. M. D. iv, fo. 164; bishop of Dunkeld: William, former dean of Dunkeld (1283–1287 or 1288); abbot of Alnwick (Premonstratensian, diocese of Durham): Thomas (?); abbot of St. Agatha (Premonstratensian, diocese of York), John of Newcastle (oc. 1260, 1300). The York faction complained that the abbot of Alnwick was not a suitable judge because John Vesci, Alnwick's patron, was Durham's factor.Google Scholar

9 e.g. Durham Dean and Chapter Archives: Miscellaneous Charter 1450; Loc. xiv. 11; Loc. xiv. 2.b; Loc. xiv. 3.d.Google Scholar

10 Julius, B. M. D. iv, fos. 163–7; Durham Dean and Chap. Arch.: Loc xiv. 2.j; Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores tres (Surtees Society; 1839) (Graystanes) 67–8; cf. Durham Dean and Chap. Arch.: Misc. Charter 5820. k; Loc. xiv. 2.c. ‘26’.Google Scholar

11 Durham Dean and Chap. Arch.: Misc. Chart. 5820. ‘8 Instruments.’ 5. Google Scholar

12 St. John, Pontefract (Cluniac, diocese of York). Google Scholar

13 Durham Dean and Chap. Arch.: Loc. xiv. 3. a, b (1,2), c,e,g; Julius, B. M. D. iv, fos. 167–8; Historiae Dunelmensis 68.Google Scholar

14 Dryburgh (Premonstratenian, diocese of St. Andrews); Kelso (Tyronian, diocese of St. Andrews). Google Scholar

15 Durham Dean and Chap. Arch.: Misc. Chart. 2620.3; Loc. xiv. 2.c. 20,21. It is possible that Goseford is the subdelegate whom the bishop of Dunkeld was tricked into commissioning, according to Graystanes, see a note ‘William of Dunkeld,’ Innes Review 3 (1952) 129–30.Google Scholar

16 Dunkeld: Durham Dean and Chap. Arch.: Loc. xiv.2. f; Julius, B. M. D. iv, fos. 164–164v, 167v. Alnwick: Durham Dean and Chap. Arch.: Loc. xiv.2.c. 22; Misc. Chart. 5192 (abbot's seal in red wax remains on strip); Julius, B. M. D. iv, fos. 167v-168; 170v-171.Google Scholar

17 Cf. Pantin, W. A., Report on the Muniments of the Dean and Chapter of Durham (1939) 7–8, 19.Google Scholar

18 It is also interesting to find those letters sent from Durham to Rome sealed close, now in Misc. Chart. 5820. ‘8 Instruments,’ preserved at Durham. Google Scholar

19 Cf. Pantin, , op. cit. 7.Google Scholar