Manuscript: Faustina B. IX

Previous Folio 53r Next Folio
quia1 ipsi citati ⁊ aliis nullis aliorum omnino personis ⁊ causis expressis facturi iusticiam deberemus per
nos uel per responsales idoneos comparere. Presentes pro certo non fuimus sed ex iustis causis absentes, ad
quarum allegacionem admissi responsales nostri legitime non fuerunt. Nec absentes contumaciter
fuimus, cum pape \preter/ quod nulla fuit citacio ut est dictum peremptorium terminum prout ordo iuris ex
postulat citacio non haberet, prout citacionis forma principibus ⁊ prelatis missa per litteras eui
denter ostendit. Contumaciam nostram, magistri Thadei de Suessa magne curie nostre iudicis dilecti fidelis nostri
procuratoris plenum mandatum excusat cuius auctoritas ex eo quod contra nos
non ex ciuilibus, sed ex criminalibus sit processum ad que frustra procurator interuenit nullatenus eneruatur
cum ipsius citacionis tenor que nos aut procuratores nostros exegit manifeste contrarium dedisset in
telligi, videlicet quod non contra nos criminaliter, sed tantum ciuiliter esset agendum, predictis etiam omnibus absque iustitie
nostre preiudicio circumscriptis. Dato quod manifeste fuerimus contumaces, non est ista2 legitima con
tumacie pena quam3 delatus, aut accusatus ⁊ contumax per diffinitiuam sentenciam ante ceptum rite
iudicium priuato, uel publico iudicio nullo de sua causa discusso debeat condempnari. Sunt enim
in talibus alie contumacium pene ciuilibus legibus uel canonicis, introducte denique, posit\o/4 quod, quod
omnia predicta iuris presidia* irrefragabilia cause nostre deficiant. Ipsius tam pronunciacionis
tenor ipsam sentenciam nullam ostendit, per quam non procurator noster presens, sed nos absentes ex
titimus condemnati. Quam ipso iure nullam esse sentenciam leges ⁊ iura qualibet manifeste declarant
Euidentem quoque processus ⁊ procedentis iniquitatem cause denotant quas in sentencia comprehendit
a quibus nos incoruptibilis ueritas ⁊ publica munimenta defendunt prout seriatim hec fida relacio
latoris presencium ⁊ ipsorum munimentorum tenor manifeste profitentur. Quamquam tam dire pene
sentenciam, si tamen sentencia dici potest que contra nos precipitata dinoscitur contra Romanum principem
omnia predicta ⁊ singula minime suffecissent, manifestum namque precipicium ex presuscepto iam dudum
animi feruore fuisse dinosscitur in predictis. Dominum enim Frisigonensem episcopum dilectum principem fratrem
H’ magistrum domus hospitalis Sancte Marie Teuthonicorum, ⁊ magistrum \P’/ A’ de Uinea magne
curie nostre iudicem, dilectos ⁊ fideles nostros quos ultimo pro omnimoda consummatione tractate pacis
ad concilium miseramus saltem per triduum summus pontifex noluit prestolari. Nam expectato etiam ma
gistro Waltero de Ocra capellano uicario nostro,5 \qui/ cui de conniuencia summi pontificis ⁊ quorundam
de fratribus ad nos missus per xx dies debuit expectari, nec fuit solummodo per biduum quo tempore predicti processus
iniqui Lugdunum distabat ad multam nobilium ⁊ quamplurium aliorum iusticiam \instanciam/ prelatorum expectatus.
Apparet nihilominus animosa nimis ⁊ ampullosa non minus ex ipsius inflicte pene seueritatis sententia
per quam inperato\r/ Romanus imperialis rector, ⁊ dominus maiestatis lese maiestatis crimine dicitur condemp
natus, per quam ridiculose legi subicitur qui legibus omnibus imperialiter est solutus, de quo temporales pene non
sumende non sunt in homine sed in Deo cum temporalem non habeat superiorem. Spirituales autem penas per
sacerdotales nobis penitencias indicendas tam pro contemptu clauium quam pro aliis transgressionis
humane peccatis, nedum a summo pontifice quem in spiritualibus patrem nostrum ⁊ dominium profitemur
si tamen ipse nos filium debita relacione cognoscat sed per quoslibet sacerdotes reuerenter accipimus ⁊
deuote seruamus. Ex quibus omnibus manife▬▬▬▬▬▬6 quam ignominiose quam iniuste habendos
 
[*]presidio fulciantur licet
irrefragabiliter
cause nostrae deservi
ant

Notes

1 JRD: Other authorities give quod.
2 JRD: In ista, t in the st ligature not crossed, meaning it resembles illa. Cf. Matthew Paris and Peter de Vinea.
3 JRD: Cf. Matthew Paris and Peter de Vinea, quod.
4 JRD: Originally written posite.
5 JRD: Other authorities read notario et fideli nostro.
6 JRD: Erasure of a textual error after manife- but no substitution; manifeste liquet apparently intended.
that, being cited, no other persons and cases whatever having been mentioned, we would be bound to appear, either ourself or through suitable proxies to do justice, we were for certain not present but absent, and for just reasons, but our legal representatives were not admitted to prove it. Nor were we absent out of contumacy; since, \besides/ from the fact that the pope’s citation was no citation (as we have already said), it did not have, in order to accord with the demands of the legal process, a fixed time, just as the form of the citation sent by letters to the princes and prelates clearly shows. The full mandate of Master Thaddeus de Suessa, our proxy and well-beloved and sworn man, and judge of our high court, excuses our contumacy; and his authority is by no means weakened by the fact that we were proceeded against not on civil charges but criminal ones (which our proxy opposed in vain), since the terms of the citation which required us or our proxies to attend plainly conveyed the contrary meaning, namely that the case against us was to be treated not as a criminal case, but as a civil case, even with all the things mentioned set aside without prejudice to our justice. Even allowing that we were manifestly contumacious, it is not a legal penalty for contumacy that the denounced, or the accused and contumacious party, ought to be condemned by definitive sentence before a private or public judgment is duly instigated, and nothing concerning his own case has been considered. In fact other penalties for contumacy have been introduced for such cases in civil and canon law. Finally, suppose that all the aforesaid unanswerable legal defences were lacking from our case, * both the terms of such a pronouncement, by which not our representative who was present but we who were absent stand condemned, shows the sentence itself to be null, and also laws and rights anywhere plainly prove the sentence to be null ipso iure. The grounds of the judgment, which he has described in the sentence, show the plain injustice both of the legal case and of the proceedings, from which grounds the incorruptible truth and public documents defend us, exactly as taken in order, the trustworthy report of the bearer of this letter and of the actual documents clearly declare. Notwithstanding that all and singular things mentioned had hardly been sufficient grounds for a sentence of such severe punishment against a Roman prince, even if the sentence which was, as is well known, precipitately passed on us can be called a sentence, his obvious and inconsiderate haste, which came from a bitterness of mind long preconceived, can assuredly be recognised in what I have related. The supreme pontiff would not wait even for three days for the lord bishop of Freising, the well-beloved prince, Brother H[enry], master of the Hospital of the Teutonic Knights of St Mary, and Master A. \P[eter]/ de Vinea, a judge of our high court, our well-beloved and sworn men, whom we had lately sent to the council to conclude a treaty of peace, however they could. They also awaited Master Walter de Ocra, our chaplain and vicar, \who/ to whom had been sent to us with the consent of the supreme pontiff and of certain of the brethren;1 and ought to have been allowed twenty days, yet at the \considerable insistence/ of the nobles and many other prelates, he was not waited for even for the two days which was the distance he was from Lyon at the time of the aforesaid unjust proceedings. The animosity and arrogance of the sentence appears no less from the severity of the imposed penalty by which the Roman Empero \r/ , the imperial ruler and lord of majesty, is condemned of the crime of lese-majesty,2 and by which he who by his imperial rank is freed from all law is ridiculously subjected to the law; in respect of whom the exaction of temporal punishments not belongs not to man but to God, since he has no temporal superior. We accept with reverence and devoutly observe the imposition on us of spiritual penalties as priestly penances, both for contempt of the Keys3 and for other sins of human transgression, when imposed not only by the supreme pontiff (whom in spiritual matters we acknowledge as our father and lord, as long as he recognises us in a proper relation as his son), but also by any priest. From all these things it is plainly [made clear] how disgracefully, how unjustly,
[*]suppose the legal defences are supported by the law, even though they irrefutably serve our case

Notes

1 JRD: I.e., the cardinals.
2 JRD: I.e., treason.
3 JRD: I.e., of St Peter.