The distinction between constitutions and rescripts is made in the canon
law of the time, see the titles De constitutionibus and De rescriptis in
the various decretal collections. Most confirmations are rescripts,
confirming what is presented. (Note that there also are occasions when a
rescript is done literally by writing on the petition. I once saw one in
the Vatican, but I no longer have all my notes on Vatican canon law MSS
from my days of working for Stephan Kuttner.)
At 10:54 AM 11/15/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Tom Izbicki <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >One should distinguish between bulls that are directed to all the faithfull
>(Constitutions) and those directed to individuals or groups replying to some
>point of business (Rescripts). Most bulls fall into the latter category. The
>percentage of constitutions seems to have been fairly small, usually dealing
>with general matters.
>is this distinction/terminology actually used in the early/high M.A. or
>is it, more or less, a modern one?
>most all of the 11th-13th cc. Bulls i've had occasion to see/read (not many)
>have been specific confirmations of one sort or another --Pascal II's
>confirmation of Count Stephen-Henry's renunciation of the right to
>pillage the Bishop's house upon his death[!] (granted to Bishop Ivo of
>Chartres, c. 1100) springs to mind.
>or they are what i ad hockly term "general confirmations" of the real property
>and (unreal) rights of some ecclesiastical institution.
>this latter sort, typically, repeats --largely verbatum-- the language of a
>previous/contemporary episcopal general confirmation (after all, even the
>soon-to-be-infallable Papa Himself could hardly be expected to know that the
>_villa_ of Oinville was given to the abbey of Josaphat at Leves by the late
>Herbert of Houville-la-Branche).
>and the confirmation of one pope would very often be reissued under the Bulla
>of one (or several) of his sucessor(s) "in the same terms", with only the
>opening and closing apparatus --and the addition of any new property
>acquistions-- being different.
>Constitutions or Rescripts?
>just from what i've seen of the charters themselves, i've always assumed that
>the practice was that, say, a copy of the local bishop's
>confirmation charter was taken to the papal chancellary (wherever it
>might have been at the time) and, perhaps in return for a "donation" (for i
>hear that such things were not unknown, en ces temps la), the papal scribes
>would produce a nice, new, smooth copy, complete with magical illegible
>writing along the top and that wierd lead-on-a-string thingie
>at the bottom.
>is this in the ball park of the way things might have been?
> >There are references in the proceedings of the Council of Basel to certain
>decrees being posted on the cathedral door.
>and these would be, in your terminology, "Constitutions", right?
>it seems to me that in earlier times and with less geopolicially matters at
>hand there might be less of a reason to "post" such things. i *believe* that
>it was that confirmation of the Count's renunciation of
>his "rights" that is mentioned in another charter as being "read in the
>chapter" of the cathedral --if not this one, then another Bull (i can't
>recall) concerning things Chartraine is so mentioned.
>i've always assumed that most papal charters --like other charters of all
>types-- were "published" by being read out loud, either in an ecclesiastical
>(secular or regular) chapter or, if of more general interest, in some public
>place --e.g., in front of a portal or in a
>porch. there are a *few* charters which mention this latter practice.
>best to all from here,
>Cecilia Gaposchkin wrote:
> >thanks for your interest George. Do you really want a conference on
>i wouldn't count on it, Cecilia; i think that Ole George was just feeding you
>a little bull. you know how leviteous his posts can be.
>Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1