A letter from Innocent III, pope (1213, January 19)
Sender
Innocent III, popeReceiver
Marie of MontpellierTranslated letter:
To Marie, illustrious queen of Aragon. He who is a faithful witness in heaven, to whom every heart lies open and no secret is concealed, knows that in the case of the marriage, which is known to be troubled for some time between you and our dearest son in Christ, Peter, illustrious king of Aragon, your husband, we have always proceeded on a just path, nor have we deviated to the right or left; because, with our conscience as witness, we do this in all cases brought for our investigation, since by his disposition we should administer the duties on earth of him who, just and loving justice, judges without regard of persons. Further, let us not ignore the mandate of divine law by which we are prohibited to have different weights and different measures, both of which are abominable before God, and we are commanded to consider impartially cases and the merits of individuals. So, although we embrace, among other princes of the world, the aforesaid king with affection of special love, as the deeds themselves demonstrate, and we desire the success and honor of this person, nonetheless when it comes to the investigation of a trial, where we are permitted neither to be mindful of the pauper nor to honor the face of the powerful, we can and should show no favor to one or the other; and this is especially true for the sacrament of marriage, which was established by the Lord in paradise before sin, and is known to represent, beyond the fruit of the human race’s propagation, that ineffable sacrament of the union of Christ to holy church, of God to the faithful soul, and of his word to human nature, as the Apostle witnesses, saying about good matrimony: But I speak of the great sacrament in Christ and the church [Eph.5:32]. Therefore, given that for some time the same king declared that he considered invalid the marriage contracted between you and him because you were said to have another husband living, namely the nobleman count of Comminges, and because the same king had previously had carnal relations with a certain woman related to you, as was said, through bond of consanguinity, and concerning this he demanded knowledge and counsel for his salvation, we recall that we had entrusted the case to the bishop of Pamplona of good memory and to Peter of Castelnau and brother Raoul, monks of Mount Froimont, who were then two legates of the Apostolic see. When in their presence the attorneys of the parties had lawfully tried the suit over the aforesaid two points, with the nobleman Hugh of Torroja, kinsman of the king, arguing against the marriage, as was said; the same legates in the meantime departed from this life and the bishop occupied at the apostolic see with his and the church’s business, we had the case entrusted to our venerable brothers, the archbishop of Narbonne, bishops then performing the duty of legate, in the form that it previously had been entrusted to the aforesaid of Pamplona and his cojudges, with nothing added or changed in the subsequent letters. This was done so that if a lawful plaintiff were to appear, those hearing the case with parties convened might conclude it with a canonical resolution if said case were to go forward by the will of the parties. Further, recording faithfully all deeds, they would transmit them to us through testimony of their letters, setting a deadline for the parties by which they would present themselves through suitable attorneys to our presence to receive a just decision by God’s authority. Therefore, as we understood from the records established by you and the same king personally in the presence of those judges, the said king asserted that you could not be lawfully united with him in a marriage contract both because he had previously had carnal relations with your relative, from which it followed that you were linked to him by affinity, and because you had been joined in marriage in the presence of the church to the said count of Comminges, still living. Because of this it was evident that you could not contract with him since you had not been separated from the same count by judgment of the church. But in the same matter you had acknowledged absolutely that in truth, with your father living and arranging, you had contracted with the said count, but you added that this marriage had been contracted by deed, not by law because the same count was joined to you by consanguinity and likewise by affinity, and moreover he had two wives at the time when he is known to have contracted with you; you requested that a period of time be granted to you to prove these statements. And although the king’s party responded that your exceptions concerning this should not be received unless you were restored to the aforesaid count, with whom you had acknowledged to have contracted, the king himself was not bound to respond to exceptions of this sort. Finally, nonetheless, it was decided by the will of the parties that, saving the king’s exception and aforesaid reply, the arguments of each party concerning the aforesaid points would be heard. Subsequently, B. Aimery, whom the king had established as attorney in the same matter, with the king’s consent presented himself to prove three points, namely that a marriage had previously been contracted between you and the count of Comminges, and if there was any marriage between the same count and G. daughter of A. of Barca, it had been ended by judgment of the church before the same king had married you, and the daughter of the count of Bigorre, former wife of the said count, was joined in consanguinity to the aforesaid king. Thus, a period of time was assigned to the parties, who mutually promised that henceforth they would not seek other delays to request or prove anything. When at the established deadline the parties met in the presence of two of the aforesaid judges, with the third excusing his absence by letters, you, declaring that you were burdened by illness and unable to produce your witnesses in the meantime, requested further delays; although the said attorney of the king asserted that this should in no way be granted to you, citing the agreement made concerning not seeking delays, after this was disputed at length, finally with the parties’ consent delay was granted under the aforesaid condition and agreement, and a deadline was assigned. When R. your attorney had reached this (deadline) and again requested further extensions, and the king’s said attorney argued that this should absolutely not be granted to you, the judges of Montpellier together with those attorneys agreed that there, with you present, the business would be conducted. After the parties had litigated at length over whether extensions should or should not be granted, finally the said attorney of the king granted consent, and the judges allowed further extensions under the aforesaid condition and assigned a place and deadline to the parties. Then, when the parties convened at the appointed time in the judges’ presence, with you absent but your attorney present, the king’s attorney again asserted that the said count of Comminges was related to the king through bond of consanguinity, intending through this to prove further affinity between you and him. Concerning this, although the case had not been contested, and it was agreed, as said, between the parties that they should not propose anything new, nonetheless the judges presumed to receive witnesses who by no means had taken oath except concerning those articles over which the suit had thus far been contested. On this we cannot fail to wonder about their prudence, even if the king’s attorney attempted multiple times before us to demonstrate that on this point the process was according to law. At last, when it was announced mutually with proofs and charges, although you promised with an oath taken that you would not oppose an obstacle of appeal, since the opportunity for hearing our judgment, if you preferred, had been reserved for you in our letters, you, wishing to employ the benefit of these same letters, humbly requested that the case drawn up be sent to us with the aforenamed deadline pertaining to the parties. When this request, as law required, had been granted, the said judges, as they had received by mandate from us, transferred faithfully all records with their seals to us. Therefore, because you and the beloved son master Columbus, attorney of the king, a man quite learned, prudent and faithful, and to be deservedly praised for the careful diligence and diligent care that he has shown in the same matter, came before us for this, we carefully and solemnly examined the case in the public chamber of assembly. Therefore, after these things, which had been asserted prudently, carefully and faithfully by the parties concerning the events, both in the presence of the aforenamed judges and of us, were diligently heard and discussed with subtle investigation, because it was clearly manifest to us that the aforesaid count of Comminges is related to you by distance of the third and fourth degrees of consanguinity and affinity, and the same count had previously in the church’s view contracted with the noble woman Beatrice, from whom he was not proved to be separated by the church’s judgment, and because concerning the alleged point of affinity nothing was lawfully proved against you, by our brothers’ common counsel, we have decided in judgment to absolve you from the king’s accusation concerning those matters that were brought for judgment, determining from this that in no way are you guilty of perjury because you requested that the case drawn up be sent to our presence, given that this, as mentioned above, had been reserved for you in our letters. Therefore let it be allowed to absolutely no man to infringe or to contradict with audacious attempt this document of our decree. But if anyone will presume to attempt this, may he know that he will incur the indignation of almighty God and his blessed apostles Peter and Paul. Dated at Lateran, fourteenth kalends of February, fifteenth year of our pontificate.1Original letter:
MARIA:, illustri Reginae Aragonum. NOVIT ille qui est testis in coelo fidelis, cui omne cor patet et nullum latet secretum , quod in causa matrimonii quae inter te et carissimum in Christo (ilium nostrum Petrum illustrem Regem Aragonum, virum tuum, diutius noscitur agitata, via regia semper incessimus, nec ad dexteram declinavimus vel sinistram, quod, teste conscientia, in causis facimus universis quae ad nostrum perferuntur examen, cum illius vices, disponente ipso, exerceamus in terris, qui, justus et justitiam diligens, sine acceptione judicat personarum; nec ignoremus legis divinae mandatum quo habere pondus et pondus, mensuram et mensuram, quorum utrumque apud Deum est abominabile, prohibemur, et aequa lance causas et merita pensare praecipimur singulorum. Licet igitur inter alios mundi principes praedictum Regem, sicut opera ipsa declarant, amplexemur specialis dilectionis affectu, et ad personae ipsius honorem et commodum aspiremus; ubi tamen ad judicii pervenitur examen, in quo nec respicere pauperem nec potentis vultum honorare permittitur, nullam ei vel alii gratiam facere possumus aut debemus, et maxime ubi agitur de matrimonii sacramento, quod ante peccatum in paradiso a Domino institutum, praeter propagationis humani generis fructum, illud ineffabile sacramentum, conjunctionis Christi videlicet ad sanctam ecclesiam, Dei ad fidelem animam, et ipsius verbi ad humanam naturam, noscitur figurare, Apostolo attestante, qui, de bono matrimonio agens, inquit: Ego autem dico, magnum in Christo et ecclesia sacramentum. Dudum igitur, cum idem Rex matrimonium contractum inter te ac ipsum proponeret se habere suspeotum, pro eo quod tu ferebaris maritum alium habere superstitem, videlicet nobilem virum Comitem Convenarum, ac idem Rex prius carnaliter mulierem quamdam cognoverat, te ipsam consanguinitatis, ut dicebatur, linea contingentem, et super hoc conscientiae ac saluti suae consuli postularet, causam bonae memoriae Pampilonensi episcopo et Petro de Castronovo et fratri Radulpho, monachis Montis-frigidi, qui duo tunc erant apostolicae sedis legati, nos meminimus commisisse: coram quibus cum lis fuisset super duobus praefatis articulis per partium procuratores legitime contestata, nobile viro Hugone de Turre-rubea, consanguineo Regis, tunc matrimonium, ut dicitur, accusante, legatis eisdem interim ab hac luce subtractis, et episcopo pro suis et ecclesiae suae negotiis apud sedem apostolicam occupato, causam ipsam venerabilibus fratribus nostris Narbonensi archiepiscopo tunc officio legationis fungenti, episcopis, duximus committendam sub ea forma qua praefato Pampilonensi et suis conjudicibus fuerat ante commissa, nullo in posterioribus literis addito vel mutato; ut videlicet, si appareret legitimus accusator, causam convocatis partibus audientes, eam, si de partium voluntate procederet, fine canonico terminarent. Alioquin gesta omnia fideliter conscribentes, ea nobis sub suarum testimonio transmitterent literarum, praefigentes partibus terminum competentem, quo per procuratores idoneos nostro se conspectui praesentarent, justum, Deo auctore, judicium recepturae. Te igitur ac eodem Rege, sicut ex actis intelleximus, personaliter in ipsorum judicum praesentia constitutis, Rex proposuit memoratus quod tu sibi de jure sociari non poteras fcedere maritali, tum quia carnaliter consanguineam tuam ante cognoverat, ex quo sequebatur te sibi fore affinitate conjunctam, tum quia dicto Comiti Convenarum adhuc superstiti fueras in ecclesiae facie matrimonialiter copulata; per quod constabat te cum ipso contrahere nequivisse, cum ab eodem Comite separata per judicium ecclesiae non fuisses. Tu vero ibidem fuisti absolute confessa quod revera, patre tuo vivente ac procurante, contraxeras cum Comite memorato; sed adjecisti quod hujusmodi matrimonium de facto contractum fuerat, non de jure, cum idem Comes tibi esset consanguinitate pariter et affinitate conjunctus, et insuper duas haberet uxores tempore quo tecum noscitur contraxisse, ad quae probanda tibi dari terminum postulasti. Et licet fuerit ex parte Regis responsum, quod tuae super hoc exceptiones recipi non debebant, donec esses praefato Comiti, cum quo te contraxisse confessa fueras, restituta, nec ipse exceptionibus tenebatur hujusmodi respondere; ad ultimum tamen ita fuit de partium voluntate provisum, ut scilicet, salva Regis exceptione seu replicatione praedicta, utriusque partis probationes super praemissis articulis audirentur. Postmodum B. Aimerii, quem Rex procuratorem in negotio constituerat memorato, de consensu Regis tria se obtulit probaturum, scilicet matrimonium prius fuisse contractum inter te ac Comitem Convenarum, et matrimonium, si quod fuit inter eumdem Comitem et G. filiam A. de Barca, fuisse judicio ecclesiae separatum, antequam te sibi Rex idem matrimonialiter copulasset, et filiam Comitis Bigorrae, uxorem quondam Comitis antedicti, fuisse prae- dicto Regi consanguinitate conjunctam; et sic terminus fuit partibus assignatus, facta promissione hinc inde, quod alias dilationes non peterent ad proponendum aliud vel probandum. Cumque partes termino constituto in duorum judicum praedictorum praesentia, tertio literatorie suam excusante absentiam, convenissent, tu proponens te infirmitate gravatam, testes tuos medio tempore producere nequivisse, dilationes alias postulasti, quas, licet dictus procurator Regis assereret tibi non esse ullatenus concedendas, pactionem factam de non petendis dilationibus allegando, ac super hoc fuisset diutius disputatum, tandem de consensu partium concessa fuit sub praefata conditione seu pactione dilatio et terminus assignatus; ad quem cum venisset R. procurator tuus, ac rursus dilationes alias postularet, dicto procuratore Regis eas tibi non debere concedi omnimodis contendente, judices Montempessulanum una cum ipsis procuratoribus accesserunt, ut ibi, te praesente, negotium tractaretur: ubi cum super dandis vel non dandis dilationibus fuisset a partibus diutius litigatum, tandem, dicto procuratore Regis adhibente consensum, judices sub conditione praemissa dilationes alias concesserunt, locum et terminum partibus assignantes. Porro, partibus praefixo termino in judicum praesentia constitutis, te absente, tuo tamen procuratore praesente, procurator Regis de novo proposuit, quod dictus Convenarum Comes ipsum Regem consanguinitatis linea contingebat, per hoc inter te ac ipsum probare aliam affinitatem intendens; super quo quamquam lis minime contestata fuisset, et convenisset, ut dictum est, inter partes quod aliquid de novo proponere non deberent, judices tamen testes, qui nequaquam juraverant nisi super illis duntaxat articulis super quibus lis fuerat contestata, recipere praesumpserunt; super quo de ipsorum prudentia non possumus non mirari, etsi procurator Regis coram nobis multipliciter conatus fuerit demonstrare in hoc articulo legitime fuisse processum. Demum, cum probationibus et allegationibus fuisset renunciatum hinc inde, licet tu quod non opponeres appellationis obstaculum juramento praestito promisisses, quia tamen facultas a nobis sententiam audiendi, si malles, in nostris tibi fuerat literis reservata, uti volens beneficio earumdem, humiliter postulasti ut ad nos causa remitteretur instructa, praefixo partibus termino competenti: cujus petitione, sicut jus exigebat, admissa, dicti judices acta omnia, prout a nobis in mandatis acceperant, ad nos sub sigillis suis fideliter transmiserunt. Cum ergo tu, et dilectus filius magister Columbus procurator Regis, vir utique literatus, providus et fidelis, ac de sollicita diligentia et diligenti sollicitudine in eodem negotio habita merito commendandus, propter hoc ad nostram praesentiam venissetis, causam in consistorio publico solemniter examinavimus et attente. His igitur , quae a partibus prudenter, subtiliter ac fideliter, tam super actis in praesentia judicum praedictorum quam coram nobis, fuere proposita, diligenter auditis et subtili examinatione discussis, quia nobis constitit evidenter quod Comes Convenarum praedictus te in distantia tertii et quarti gradus consanguinitatis et affinitatis contingit, et idem Comes prius in conspectu ecelesiae cum nobili muliere Beatrice contraxerat, a qua non est probatum ipsum ecclesiae fuisse judicio separatum, cum super proposito affinitatis articulo nihil contra te legitime sit probatum, communi fratrum nostrorum consilio, te ab impetitione Regis super iis quae in judicium fuere deducta, sententialiter duximus absolvendam, te ex eo nequaquam ream esse perjurii decernentes , quod causam instructam ad nostram remitti praesentiam postulasti, cum id, sicut est expressum superius, in nostris fuisset tibi literis reservatum. Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae diffinitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire; si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei et beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum ejus se noverit incursurum. Datum Laterani, xiv kalend. februarii, pontificatus nostri anno quinto decimo.Historical context:
The information in this note comes from Damian J. Smith, Innocent III and the Crown of Aragon: The Limits of Papal Authority (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2004), 70ff. Peter of Aragon, Marie’s third husband, contracted the marriage to gain possession of Montpellier (Smith,70) and within a year unilaterally changed the terms of the marriage contract (71). He claimed all her possessions if she died childless, though he had agreed to their reverting to her family. He also promised Montpellier as dowery for their infant daughter, when he betrothed her to the son of Raymond VI of Toulouse, though he had sworn not to alienate her possessions. Marie made a public complaint about his fraudulent actions and his bullying, and declared that she had accept them only under duress. In 1206 Peter began annulment proceedings in order to marry Marie of Montferrat. Montpellier revolted against Peter later that year, because of his financial oppression, twice attacking a castle Peter was in and putting him to flight. As part of the negotiated peace, Peter agreed to share possession with Marie if the marriage was not dissolved, and to return it to her and her heirs if it was. In the winter of 1207, Peter visited Marie and their son, James, was conceived. He was born in February, 1208. Annulment proceedings continued, slowly. Peter’s case was that he had had carnal relations with a relative of Marie’s prior to the marriage contract with Marie, and that a prior marriage existed between Marie and Count Bernard IV of Comminges. Marie argued that Bernard already had two living wives, so their marriage was not valid. Meanwhile, the couple continued to fight: when, at the beginning of August 1207, Peter attempted to recover the castle at Lattes by siege (contrary to the terms of the accord ratified by Innocent), the queen ordered the consuls to hold that castle as well as Castelnau until the king and his army had departed (Smith 74). The pope, Innocent III, was not anxious to alienate Peter, and there was a complication for him in that he had threatened to excommunicate Bernard of Comminges for repudiating Marie in 1201. The bishops he appointed to hear the case reported that there were many witnesses swearing to the marriage between Bernard and Marie. The case went on through April, 1212, when Marie invoked her right of appeal to Rome, putting the case directly in the pope’s lap. Meanwhile, Peter recognized William IX’s claim to Montpellier and William complained to the pope that Marie held lands of his unlawfully and refused to restore them. Innocent, in Gravem dilecti filii, dated 6 June 1212, decreed that Marie must restore the lands to William (whom he had earlier refused to legitimize) or present her explanations to the curia. Marie, though seriously ill and without funds, went to Rome. When Innocent heard the case personally, he ruled in favor of Marie in Novit ille of January 19, 1213. Innocent instructed Peter to receive the queen kindly and to treat her with marital affection and to repay her expenses for the case and the trip to Rome, threatening him with papal excommunication if he did not do so. In Marie’s final will of April 20, 1213, she “made James her heir and, should he die without issue, then her two daughters by Bernard, Mathilde and Petronille, were to succeed to all her rights” (Smith 129-30). Innocent sent a similar letter to Peter, with the added admonition that he take Marie and their son back.