Ken Pennington,  "Enrico da Susa, detto l'Ostiense (Hostiensis, Henricus de Segusio o Segusia)," Dizionario biografico degli Italiani  42 (Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1993) 758-763 and in English AHenricus de Segusio (Hostiensis),@ Popes, Canonists, and Texts 1150-1550 (Collected Studies Series 412; Aldershot: Variorum, 1993) article XVI

Henricus de Segusio (Hostiensis)

Hostiensis, Henricus de Segusio (or Segusia) was the most important and brilliant canonist of the thirteenth century. His work had great influence on the development of canonical jurisprudence and was used extensively by later jurists. To Dante he represented the decretalist tradition (Paradise 12.82-85). He was born in Susa (Piedmont), probably around 1200. There is no contemporary evidence that he was born in the family de Bartholomeis as some authors have asserted. From the citations of Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Seneca and Cicero in his works, we may assume that he was interested and educated in the classics. Salimbene (died after 1287) praised Hostiensis for his learning, his singing, and his playing of the viol.(1) Rolandinus of Padua (died 1277) described him as a man who was learned in theology, natural science, the Old and New Testaments, as well as canon and civil law. Although he may have had broad learning, Hostiensis wrote only legal works.

He studied law at Bologna and named Jacobus Balduinus and Homobonus as his teachers in Roman law. Johannes Andreae wrote in his Additiones to Guilielmus Durantis's Speculum iudiciale(2) that Hostiensis studied with Jacobus de Albenga in canon law, but Hostiensis himself never named a particular master. He taught canon law at Paris (most manuscripts of his commentary read "legens Parisiis in decretalibus;" Oxford, New College MS 207,(3) states that he taught the Decretum: "legens Parisiis in decretis"), but there is no evidence that he taught at Bologna. A number of modern authorities state that this passage of his commentary, in which he mentioned teaching, is datable to 1239, but there is no evidence to support that claim either. Certainly after he became bishop of Sisteron in 1244 he held offices that would have normally precluded a teaching career. Nevertheless his connections with the universities must have been close throughout his life. The masters at Bologna sent a `quaestio' for him to resolve after he became cardinal, and he took great care in his testament to have corrected copies of his Lectura on the decretals sent to Bologna and Paris after his death.

That Hostiensis did not have a long teaching career is slightly puzzling. He was the most prolific and creative canonist of his age. Yet for reasons that we do not know, he did not follow an academic career. Instead, he pursued advancement in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. After studying at Bologna, he became the prior of the cathedral church of Antibes in Savoy sometime during the 1230's. The first datable reference to his holding this office is 1239. He made a number of references to this region and period in his works. But his horizons soon expanded far beyond the Duchy of Savoy. Although his movements are very difficult to trace with certainty, by 1240 he had acquired benefices in England, had become archdeacon in Paris, and had taught canon law for an indeterminate time in Paris. He had also begun his Summa on the decretals. He mentions the year 1239 in the text of his Summa as being the current year in one passage, and, since he mentions that an early draft was destroyed by fire in a colophon appended to the Summa, he must have already begun a second draft by this time (see below).

From 1239 to 1242 Hostiensis was involved in a dispute with the bishop of Antibes, Bertrand, over the division of diocesan property between the bishop and the canons. In an agreement reached on 3 September 1242, the goods of the bishopric were divided into two parts --- one under episcopal, the other under the canons'control. At the same time, Aymar, archbishop of Embrun, reorganized the diocese. He created a new office, provost, for the reformed cathedral chapter and gave it to Hostiensis. Pope Innocent IV completed the reform in 1244 when he transferred the episcopal seat from Antibes to Grasse. Hostiensis then became provost of Grasse. On 6 December, 1244, Bertrand, now bishop of Grasse, and his provost issued new statutes governing the diocese. These statutes granted the provost and cathedral chapter more authority in diocesan affairs. In his legal commentaries Hostiensis emphasized the rights of cathedral chapters and the Roman cardinals to share authority with their respective prelates, bishop and pope. These statutes seem to have been an extension of his thought into the real world of ecclesiastical government.

During the time that Hostiensis was prior, and then provost of Antibes and Grasse, he made several trips to England. Didier conjectured that he may have travelled with Otto Candidus, cardinal deacon of St. Nicolas in Carcere, on his legation of 1237, or, possibly, as part of the entourage from Savoy that accompanied Eleanor, the daughter of Count Raymond Berenger V, who married King Henry III of England (1236). The first certain proof that Hostiensis had arrived in England is 1240. Matthew Paris described his interrogation of a deranged heretic in London who thought that Pope Gregory IX had polluted the world. According to Matthew he was in the service of the papal legate. Although Didier may well be right that Hostiensis had arrived earlier with the Savoyards, there is no certain evidence for his assumption other than Hostiensis's close ties to the house of Raymond Berenger. Another piece of evidence attesting to this relationship was another marriage linking the house of Savoy and the English crown. In 1242 Hostiensis witnessed the marriage agreement between the king's brother, Richard of Cornwall, and Sanchia, the third daughter of Count Raymond Berenger of Savoy.

Hostiensis became involved in the dispute between Henry III and the canons of Winchester over the election of the new bishop. Henry III wished to have William of Savoy elected bishop. The canons had postulated Ralph Neville, Bishop of Chichester and Chancellor of England. Quite naturally Hostiensis would have supported the king's choice, but, again, it is only conjecture that Hostiensis played any role in the delegation that the king sent to Rome. Pope Gregory IX supported the king's choice, did not approve Neville's postulation, and appointed William of Savoy to Winchester. William of Savoy, who was the bishop-elect of two other sees, died soon afterwards in Italy (October, 1239). Then the canons postulated William Raleigh, bishop of Norwich, who had been their first choice in the previous election. Again the king objected to their candidate. Henry III sent Hostiensis on a legation to Rome in 1242 to lead the opposition to the canons' postulation of Raleigh at the papal court. However, to Hostiensis's probable discomfort, Pope Innocent IV confirmed the postulation and translated William from Norwich to Winchester. Hostiensis never returned to England.

During the vacancy at Winchester, Henry III had given Hostiensis the guardianship of the Hospital of the Holy Cross, just outside of Winchester. He was called a royal clerk. He drew a salary from the exchequer. At the request of King Henry III, Innocent IV (13 November, 1243) granted the bishop of Hereford the authority to dispense Hostiensis from the strictures of c. 29 (De multa) of the Fourth Lateran Council forbidding the occupation of more than one benefice by a cleric.(4)

Matthew Paris told the story that Hostiensis absconded with the money that Henry III had given him to bribe officials at the papal curia in Rome and used it to obtain a bishopric in `his own country.'(5) That bishopric was Sisteron. There is no way to check Matthew's story. Money, however, was not unimportant to Hostiensis. Pope Innocent IV granted the request of Henry III, his queen, and Richard of Cornwall, that Hostiensis be granted the right to retain a second benefice with the care of souls. This second prebend could have an annual income of three hundred pounds sterling. He was permitted, moreover, retain these benefices if he accepted the bishopric of Sisteron. He must, however, appoint worthy vicars who were acceptable to the local bishop (May 30, 1244). After the bishop of Sisteron died in 1241, a long dispute ensued over the rights of election. Finally, in 1243 the bishop of Avignon, Zoën Tencararius, a canonist who wrote an important apparatus of glosses on Compilatio quinta, appointed Hostiensis the new bishop of Sisteron. Hostiensis also became a papal chaplain at this time. We do not know when he took up his duties at Sisteron, but he remained there until 1250.

In 1250 Hostiensis was translated to the larger and more prosperous archbishopric of Embrun. Ecclesiastical and secular affairs continued to preoccupy him. He accompanied Hugh of St.-Cher on a papal legation to Germany in 1251-1252. While in Germany he was accused of accepting a bribe to work for the deposition of the archbishop of Mainz. This accusation, as that of Matthew Paris, cannot be corroborated. In Embrun he had difficulties with his subjects and levied an interdict on the city. However, we know nothing of the circumstances surrounding these actions. He witnessed an arbitration agreement between King Louis IX of France and his brother, Charles of Anjou in 1257. King Henry III continued to entrust him with English affairs (a fact that almost certainly disproves Matthew Paris' accusations). In 1258 he went to Rome representing the king. Pope Alexander IV sent him as papal legate to northern Italy in 1259 to replace Phillip Fontana who had been captured by the allies of Manfred.

Jacques de Troyes, whom Hostiensis probably met while in Germany, became Pope Urban IV and promoted Hostiensis to cardinal bishop of Ostia in May, 1262. Because of the title attached to his new office, later lawyers and modern historians normally refer to him as `Hostiensis'. Although he appears rather often in the registers of Urban IV (25 times) and rather less frequently in those of Clement IV (4 times), we do not know much about his role within the papal curia after he became cardinal. We may assume that the references he made to court cases in the second recension of his Lectura are quite likely those in which he may have been involved. His long discussion of the case of the royal abbey Notre-Dame of Jouarre, for example, is probably due to his participation in the case (Lectura to X 2.22.10 v. tantum venditio). But he gave no indication what his role might of been.

He participated in the long papal conclave in Viterbo after Clement IV's death in 1268, but withdrew from the proceedings because of illness. He wrote an extensive discussion of a cardinal's right to renounce his electoral rights in the second recension of his Lectura (X 1.9.10 v. humiliter obedire) and mentioned his personal circumstances. Even though Hostiensis was not present when the cardinals finally elected Pope Gregory X on 1 September, 1271, the cardinals solicited his assent to their choice. By this time he was gravely ill. On 29 October, 1271 he drew up his testament in Viterbo. Shortly afterwards he died, on either the 6th or 7th of November, 1271.

Hostiensis's testament is a valuable guide to his last wishes and to his personal relationships at the end of his life. He requested that if he died at or near the Roman curia, his body should be buried in the nearest Dominican church. If far from the curia, he wished to be buried in the metropolitan church of the province. Several modern authorities state that he died in Lyon and was buried there in the Dominican convent. Not only is there no evidence for this, but it is completely improbable that a dying man would have undertaken such a long journey. The papal curia was not in Lyon. Gregory X learned of his election in Acre and travelled directly to Viterbo, arriving in February, 1272, If he was buried in accordance with his wishes, we do not know with certainty where. Diplovatatius reported that he was buried in the cathedral church of St. Lawrence in Perugia. If so, when the romanesque church was replaced by the present structure (1345-1490) the monument did not survive. Perugia is an exempt bishopric subject only to the Holy See. If he were buried in Perugia, he may have died on while underway to wherever it was that he wished his final resting place to be.

His testament also reveals how carefully he planned to have his juristic legacy live on in the schools and in the courts. He gave copies of the second recension of his Lectura to the university of Bologna, the cathedral church of Embrun, the university of Paris, the vicechancellor of the Roman curia, and the new pope. He gave copies of his Summa to the vicechancellor and Paris.(6)

Hostiensis's first systematic work was his Summa, finished around 1253 while he was archbishop of Embrun. Although modern authors often refer to it as the `Summa aurea', this name was not given to it until the Roman edition of 1477 (Hain *8960). The manuscripts refer to it as `Summa' or `Summa copiosa'. In his testament, he calls it simply `my Summa'. Although the Summa is an exposition of the titles of the Decretals, Hostiensis added many titles, some fifty in all, to those of the Liber extra of Greogry IX. He finished the work in 1253, after having worked on it since the 1230's. In a colophon he wrote that he began the Summa while in `minori officio' and completed it in `officio maiori'. The text of the printed editions confuse Hostiensis's statement slightly and have misled historians. The following passage is based on the readings in two reliable, early manuscripts, Munich, Staatsbibl. 14006 and 15707:

Ego enim licet multa habuerim contraria ac me distraxerint alia ardua negocia et diuersa, adiutorio tamen illius in quem semper speraui in omnibus suffultus uim mihi intuli, opus quasi desperatum et nimis difficile, quinimmo insufficientie mee impossibile quid in minori officio inceperam (exceperam Ed. 1574), et demum incendio amiseram, in maiori constitutus officio renouaui, (reuocaui Edd. 1537, 1574) cursum operis consummaui, fidem seruaui, non ego autem, set gratia Dei mecum.

The reference to his having held a minor office must not be an allusion to the priorship of Antibes, which he would not have considered minor, but could refer to an earlier period when he was called a simple `clericus' in a document from the court of Raymond Berenger dating, most likely, before 1234. Most modern authorities have assumed that references in the Summa to his teaching career in Paris and to the current year being 1239 must be parts of the Summa that survived the fire. The implication of the colophon is that nothing survived. A more likely explanation is that these passages are from after the fire. Since the Summa is cited in his Lectura to the Novellae of Innocent IV and since he does not mention any events or legislation after Innocent's pontificate, the date of 1253 for the Summa is probably accurate.

Goffredus de Trano's Summa provided the primary model for Hostiensis. He referred to a teaching career in Paris in many glosses, citing French theologians, Hugh of St. Cher, William of Paris, Phillip of Aix, who were active in the 1230's. A primary source for his Summa was the Summa of Azo that he sometimes borrowed from almost word for word.

Unlike many contemporary jurists, Hostiensis did not revise or add `additiones' to his Summa after 1253. After he had become cardinal he did, however, respond to a request from Bologna to clarify a statement that he had made under the title `De sententia excommunicationis' about the responsibility of a cleric to obey a command of his prelate. He wrote a quaestio discussing the problem at length and sent it to Bologna. From the number of French manuscripts that contain it, he probably also sent it to Paris. At first the university scriptoria appended it to manuscripts of his Summa, but later the text was incorporated into the title in which the question had first arisen. All the printed editions contain this third stage of the Summa's text.

Hostiensis's Summa enjoyed enormous popularity. There are almost 100 extant manuscripts. As Azo's Summa for Roman law, Hostiensis's remained a standard text of canon law until the early modern period. It was printed for the first time in Rome, 1473 (Hain *8959). This edition was followed by many others. Two sixteenth-century editions have been reprinted: Lyon 1537, reprinted Aalen 1962 and Venice 1574, reprinted Torino 1963. It is quite misleading, however, to assume on the basis of the manuscripts and the printed editions that the Summa was much more influential than the Lectura. First, Martin Bertram has compiled an extensive list of manuscripts (over fifty) of the Lectura that survive. Secondly, one cannot evaluate the influence of a work by simply counting manuscripts. Every canon and Roman lawyer who wrote after Hostiensis knew his Summa and his Lectura and used them both extensively.

Shortly after completing his Summa, he wrote a commentary on the Novellae of Innocent IV. He did not comment on the final version of the Novellae, but the one that Keßler calls the Collection of 37 chapters, plus Novella 40 and three extravagantes (Is qui, Sane quia, and Ad perpetuam). Bertram has discovered many more manuscripts (twenty-five) than were previously known. Thus the work was more influential than historians have assumed. Since there was no longer much point copying this work after the publication of the Liber sextus, his commentary must have been widely used and disseminated. There were two printed editions, Paris 1512 and Venice 1581, in which the printers appended his work to Book five of his Lectura, which is the same arrangement as in many manuscripts.

Hostiensis's most important work was his Lectura on the Decretals of Gregory IX, or if we adopt the name he gave it in his testament, `Commentum super decretalibus.'(7) He labored on this commentary over a long period of time, finishing it definitively only at the end of his life. He wrote two versions of the work. The first, which survives in one manuscript, was finished sometime before the pontificate of Pope Clement IV (1265) whom he does not mention in it. The text is almost completely preserved as a marginal gloss in Oxford, New College, 207. The Oxford manuscript lacks Hostiensis's commentary on Rex pacificus, which, from references to it later on in the text, was part of the original.

He refers to several datable events in the text of the Oxford manuscript that establish, if only roughly, a terminus a quo. He mentions that Innocent IV was dead and that he currently held the office of archbishop of Embrun. When he discussed the proper calculation of the indiction of a dating clause, he chose the year 1262 as his example. That was quite likely the year in which he wrote the passage. Consequently, it seems that this version of his Lectura was probably completed between 1262 and 1265. The care that Hostiensis took when he stipulated in his testament that copies of his final version of the Lectura be sent to Bologna and Paris indicates that he wished to insure that his earlier text was replaced.

In the last recension, completed at the end of his life, Hostiensis expanded the text in the Oxford manuscript considerably. He did not delete any material from the Oxford manuscript, but added much. These additions range from sentences and phrases inserted into earlier glosses to entirely new glosses (sometimes creating doublets to some lemmata) on words in the decretals he had not commented on before.

The recension of the Oxford manuscript is invaluable because one may now trace changes in Hostiensis's thought between his first and last recension. One example is illustrative.(8) Later jurists debated his views on the legitimate dominium of infidels, and his opinions have received extensive attention from modern historians. However, he seems to have decided late in life that the infidels did not possess just dominium, perhaps reflecting renewed enthusiasm for crusades in the late 1260's and early 1270's. In his first recension of the Lectura, he wrote in a gloss to X 1.2.1 (Canonum) [Oxford, New College 205, fol. 4r]:

Aliis etiam quam subditis non potest lex imponi, ut C. de incest. nup. Neminem <Cod. 5.5.2> et pagani et infideles non sunt subiecti, infra de diuort. Gaudemus, respon. i. <X 4.19.8> ideo nec par astringitur, ut infra de elect. Innotuit <X 1.6.20>, ff. de arbit. Nam magistratus <Dig. 4.8.4>.

The pope could not issue laws binding peoples who were not subject to him, and he specifically exempted pagans and infidels from papal dominium. Innocent III's decretal, Gaudemus, was a proof that infidels had their own law, which bound them even after they became Christians and even if their law violated canonical precepts. In his second recension, he wrote a long gloss to X 3.34.8 (Quod super hiis) v. pro defensione in which he argued that the pope had jurisdiction, de iure, over all infidels. At the birth of Christ, all `honor, principatus, dominium, et iurisdictio' was translated to Christians.(9) When he revised his commentary, Hostiensis did not edit his comments on X 1.2.1 to bring them into agreement with those at X 3.34.8. The early manuscripts of his second recension of X 1.2.1 have the same wording as in the Oxford manuscript.(10) Jurists noticed the discrepancy. In later manuscripts, and in the printed editions, the crucial passage in X 1.2.1 was revised to conform to his views expressed in X 3.34.8. The passage then read, with interpolations in italics:

Et pagani et infideles non sunt subiecti spiritualiter, infra de diuort. Gaudemus, respon. i. <X 4.19.8> nam temporaliter subsunt, quod dic ut plene not. infra de uoto, Quod super his § Rursus <X 3.34.8>. Aliis igitur quam subditis non potest quis legem imponere, ideo nec par astringitur, ut infra de elect. Innotuit. <X 1.6.20>

This example should make clear that a full appreciation of Hostiensis's thought will not be possible until the relationship of his two commentaries is fully explored.

Hostiensis began revising his Lectura during the pontificate of Clement IV. There are many references to court cases and decisions in the later recension of his text that are omitted from the earlier. The famous passage in which he discussed a cardinal's right to renounce his participation in a conclave and his own difficulties at Viterbo may have been a late addition to a work that was already substantially completed. One manuscript, Munich, Staatbibl. 28152, fol. 56r-56v, labels this entire text an `additio'. Although the text of the Lectura is preserved in many manuscripts, there were only three editions: Paris 1512, Strasbourg 1512, and Venice 1581 (reprinted Torino 1965).

Three minor works may be attributed to him: two with certainty, one with doubt. Wretschko discovered a glossed tract in Munich Staatsbibl. 4111, fol. 40r-45v, treating the procedure to be used in an episcopal election. The glosses are signed `Henricus Hostiensis'. Wretschko noted that Hostiensis cited his Summa, but did not notice that he cited his Lectura as well (fol. 42v: `ut plene no. extra de elect. Quia propter § i. super uerbo `qui debuerunt' [recte: debent]'). The passage cited occurs in both the first and second recensions of his Lectura, but the citation is most likely to the first. Since the glosses carry his cardinal's title, he probably wrote the work after 1262.

He also prepared an abbreviation of his Lectura that he entitled Diamargariton. Helssig identified this work in Leipzig Universitätsbibl. 993. This manuscript contains excerpts from his Summa and his Lectura. The work is not of great juristic interest. Helssig could find no changes of doctrine in the work. Although the prologue makes Hostiensis's authorship fairly certain, the text must still be examined to determine whether there are any passages from the second recension of his Lectura. If any would be found, this evidence would cast serious doubt on his authorship, as he very likely could not have finished an abbreviation of his Lectura in the short time that remained to him after its completion.

We do not know if Hostiensis attended the First Council of Lyon. His name is not in any of the attendance lists we have and does not appear in any of the narrative sources. It is likely, nevertheless, that he did. Watt has argued that a short tract written at the Council supporting the deposition of Emperor Frederick II may be from his pen.

Modern historians have noted two areas where Hostiensis made significant contributions to juristic thought: doctrines of episcopal and papal authority. He was the first to apply the term `potestas absoluta' to the pope. While exalting papal power, he also used corporate theory to argue that bishops and the cardinals had a right to share in the governance of the church. His thought is a complex pattern of authoritarian and constitutional thought. But he balanced these tendencies. Diplovatatius wrote that Baldus accused Hostiensis of favoring bishops because of a bad conscience and worse knowledge. Later historians repeated this accusation. An examination of Baldus's consilium reveals that he meant no general appraisal of Hostiensis's thought in the passage. Baldus had only noted that in the particular case he was discussing, he thought Hostiensis was wrong. Hostiensis created a ecclesiology in his work that was sophisticated, rich, and varied.(11)

Sources and Bibliography: His works, manuscripts, and editions are cited above in the text. His testament is printed in A. Paravicini Bagliani, I testamenti dei cardinali del duecento. Miscellanea della Società Romana di Storia Patria, XXV, Roma 1980, pp. 19-22, 133-141; The `consultatio' he may have drafted at Lyon is discussed by J.A. Watt, "Medieval Deposition Theory: A Neglected Canonist `Consultatio' from the First Council of Lyons," in Studies in Church History, II, London 1965; T. Diplovatatius, Liber de claris iuris consultis, edd. F. Schulz, H. Kantorowicz, G. Rabotti, Studia Gratiana X, Bologna 1968, pp. 141-145; G. Tiraboschi, Storia della letteratura italiana, Rome 1783, pp. 272-273; J. F. von Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf Gegenwart, II, Stuttgart 1877, pp. 123-129; M. Sarti e M. Fattorini, De claris archigymnasii Bononiensis professoribus a saeculo XI usque ad saeculum XIV, I, Bologna 1888-1896, pp. 439-445; R. Helssig, "Eine bisher übersehene Schrift des Henricus Hostiensis," in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht3 XIV (1904), pp. 70-82; A. von Wretschko, "Ein Traktat des Kardinals Hostiensis mit Glossen betreffend die Abfassung von Wahldekreten bei der Bischofswahl," in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht3 17 (1907), pp. 73-88; P.-J. Keßler, "Untersuchungen über die Novellengesetzgebung Papst Innocenz' IV.", in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung der Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt. XXXIII (1944), pp. 65-83; C. Lefebvre, "La doctrine de l'Hostiensis sur la préférence à assurer en droit aux intérêt spirituels," in Ephemerides juris canonici, VIII (1952), pp. 24-44; C. Lefebvre, `Aequitas canonica' et `periculum animae' dans la doctrine de l'Hostiensis," in Ephemerides iuris canonici, VIII (1952), pp. 305-321; N. Didier, "Henri de Suse: Évêque de Sisteron (1244-1250)," in Revue historique de droit français et étranger4 XXXI (1953), pp. 244-270, 409-429; N. Didier, "Henri de Suse en Angleterre (1236?-1244)," in Studi in onore di Vincenzo Arangio-Ruiz nel XLV anno del suo insegnamento, II, Napoli (1953), pp. 333-351; N. Didier, "Henri de Suse, prieur d'Antibes, prévôt de Grasse (1235?-1245)," in Studia Gratiana, II, Bologna 1954, pp. 595-617; C. Lefebvre, "Hostiensis," in Dictionnaire de droit canonique V (1953), col. 1211-1227; G. Le Bras, "Théologie et droit romain dans l'oeuvre d'Henri de Suse," in Etudes historiques à la mémoire de Noël Didier, Grenoble 1960, pp. 195-204; A. Rivera Damas, Pensamiento politico de Hostiensis: Estudio jurídico-histórico sobre las relaciones entre el Sacerdocio y el Imperio en los escritos de Enrique de Susa. Studia et textus historiae iuris canonici, III, Zürich 1964; R. Kay, "Hostiensis and Some Embrun Provincial Councils," in Traditio XX (1964), pp. 503-513; J. Muldoon, "`Extra ecclesiam non est imperium': The Canonists and the Legitimacy of Secular Power," Studia Gratiana, IX, Bologna 1966, pp. 551-580; J. Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels: The Church and the Non-Christian World 1250-1550, Philadelphia 1979, pp. 5-18; P. Fedele, "Primato pontificio ed Episcopato con particolare riferimento alla dottrina dell'Ostiense," in Collectanea Stephan Kuttner. Studia Gratiana XIV.4, Bologna 1967, pp. 349-367; P. Fedele, "Ricordo di Enrico da Susa," in Ephemerides iuris canonici, XXVIII (1972), pp. 21-26; D. Cecchi, "Il matrimonio-contratto dall'Ostiense ai canonisti tre-cinquecenteschi," in Rivista di storia del diritto italiano, XL-XLI (1967-68), pp. 35-69; B. Tierney, "Hostiensis and Collegiality," in Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Toronto, ed. S. Kuttner, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, Series C, V, Vatican City 1976, pp. 401-409; J. A. Watt, "The Use of the Term `Plenitudo potestatis' by Hostiensis," in Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Boston, ed. S. Kuttner and J. J. Ryan. Monumenta Iuris Canonici, Series C, I, Città del Vaticano 1965, pp. 161-187; J. A. Watt, "The Constitutional Law of the College of Cardinals: Hostiensis to Johannes Andreae," in Mediaeval Studies XXIII (1971), pp. 127-157; J.A. Watt, "Hostiensis on `Per venerabilem': The Role of the College of Cardinals," in Authority and Power: Studies on Medieval Law and Government Presented to Walter Ullmann, edd. P. Linehan and B. Tierney, Cambridge 1980, pp. 99-113; C. Gallagher, Canon Law and the Christian Community: The Role of Law According to the `Summa aurea' of Cardinal Hostiensis, Analecta Gregoriana CCVIII, Roma 1978; Il cardinale Ostiense: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi su Enrico da Susa detto il cardinale Ostiense (Susa, 30 settembre - Embrun, 1 ottobre 1972), Segusium: Società di Ricerche e Studi Valsusini, XVI, Susa (Torino) 1980; Repertorium fontium historiae medii aevi primum ab Augusto Potthast digestum, V, Roma 1984, pp. 439-440; E. Vodola, "Hostiensis (Henry of Susa)," in Dictionary of the Middle Ages VI (1985) 298-299; K. Pennington, Pope and Bishops: The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Philadelphia 1984, pp. 63-74; K. Pennington, "A `Quaestio' of Henricus de Segusio and the Textual Tradition of his `Summa super decretalibus'," in Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law XVI (1986), pp. 91-96; K. Pennington, "An Earlier Recension of Hostiensis's Lectura to the Decretals," in Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law XVII (1987), pp. 77-90; M. Bertram, "Handschriften der Summe Hostiensis mit der `Quaestio' am Ende," in Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law XVI (1986), pp. 96-97; M. Bertram, "Handschriften und Drucke des Dekretalenkommentars (Lectura) des Hostiensis," in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kan. Abt. CVI (1989) 177-201.

1. Salimbene, The Chronicle of Salimbene de Adam (Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 40; Binghamton: 1986) 322-323.

2. (Basel: 1574) p. 3 s.v. Bern. Parm.

3. On the importance of this manuscript, see below.

4. Hostiensis defended the right of the local bishop to make these dispensations from the provisions of c. 29 in his Lectura, see Pennington, Pope and Bishops: The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia: 1984) 146-49.

5. Chronica maiora (Rolls Series 57; London: 1872-1882) 4.286, 353

6. Agostino Paravicini Bagliani has printed Hostiensis's testament in I testamenti dei cardinali del duecento (Miscellanea della Società Romana di Storia Patria, 25; Rome: 1980) 133-141.

7. On the term `Commentum' as a technical description of a legal work, see Frank Soetermeer, "Une catégorie de commentaires peu connue: Les `commenta' ou `lecturae' inédits des précurseurs d'Odofrède," Rivista internazionale di diritto comune 2 (1991) 47-67.

8. Roberto Grison has examined his treatment of cardinals in an article that will appear shortly in the Archivum historiae pontificiae.

9. See the works of James Muldoon cited in the bibliography.

10. Munich, Staatsbibl. 28152, fol. 4r, Paris, B.N. 3999, fol. 4v, Paris, B.N. 8927, fol. 4v. This passage is an important piece of evidence for separating the earlier from the later manuscripts. These three manuscripts appear to be particularly good witnesses of the Lectura's text.

11. On Hostiensis' theory of ecclesiastical power, see K. Pennington, The Prince and the Law, 1200-1600: Soveriegnty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: 1993), chapter 2.