Perhaps there are, in the whole history of diplomacy, no documents which have aroused more passionate discussions and given occasion to more divergent commentaries, than the bulls of Alexander VI. relating to the colonial expansion of Spain. Promulgated at a critical moment in the evolution of Europe, a moment marked by the rise of the modern states and the decline of the papacy, they belong to a period of political and religious transition. If they have obtained so extraordinary a prominence, it is because of the mass of various and important events with which they were associated: the rapid enlargement of the geographical horizon, colonial expansion, religious propaganda, the foundation of international law, the transformation of the relations between Church and State. They have been published in the great diplomatic collections, and the chief of them (Inter caetera, May 4) is found in the Corpus of the Catholic canon law. It is nowise surprising that they have been considered from very different points of view: they have been of interest alike to geographers and to historians, to theologians, statesmen, and jurists, and the opinions expressed regarding them have varied with the different epochs, quite as much as with the different minds of those expressing them. To relate the history of the discussions occasioned by these documents would be to set forth comprehensively all the transformations of modern and contemporary historiography.
Even to-day, despite the searching investigations to which these /2/ bulls have been subjected, despite the publication of a number of sources already considerable,2 opinions are much divided, and several problems, enigmas even, are still to be solved, with respect to their scope and meaning.
In the first place what was the role of Alexander VI. himself? Did he undertake a veritable partition of the world? And did he do this in the capacity of an arbiter, of a supreme judge, of a guardian of the peace, or otherwise? Was he protecting the interests of the two leading colonial powers, or only those of one of them? What was, at the beginning, the importance of the line of demarcation, and who was its author? What force did the Spanish sovereigns and the princes of the period ascribe to the bulls in question? The opinion which has long prevailed is that which regards Alexander VI. as an arbiter. This opinion was sustained especially by Hugo Grotius,3 and one of its principal upholders at the present time is L. Pastor.4 According to this author, the pope, at the time of the conflict which arose between Spain and Portugal with respect to the lands discovered by Columbus, was invited to act as mediator; he decided in a peaceful manner a series of very thorny boundary questions, and these decisions are to be regarded as one of the glories of the papacy.5 Another view, held by e. g. Bourne, /3/ S. E. Dawson, and H. Harrisse,6 is that Alexander VI. intervened in the conflict between Spain and Portugal, not as an arbiter, but as supreme judge of Christendom, or guardian of its peace. It is asserted that, at least in respect of certain dispositions appearing in the bulls, he took the initiative in order to prevent strife. Finally, an opinion completely differing from all the preceding has been expressed by E. Nys. He believes it possible to prove that the role of Alexander VI. was absolutely a nullity, his bulls containing neither an arbitral decision nor even an ascription of sovereignty.7
Among the problems which have most exercised the acuteness of scholars is that of the dates of the first three bulls and of the order in which they were issued. The first bull Inter caetera, granting to the Spanish monarchs the sovereignty over the lands discovered and to be discovered toward the westward, is dated May 3, as is also the bull Eximiae devotionis, which repeats that portion of the first bull stipulating that that sovereignty shall be exercised in the same manner as that of the King of Portugal in his possessions. The second bull Inter caetera reproduces its predecessor almost completely, except for this stipulation relative to Portuguese sovereignty, in the place of which appears a provision establishing a line of demarcation in the Atlantic. This bull of demarcation is dated May 4.
An examination of the subscriptions and of the habitual chancery indications will permit us to solve this problem, which has hitherto appeared insoluble. Thanks to the originals of the two bulls Inter caetera and to the papal registers containing transcripts of the three bulls, we can determine whether the documents were drawn up or issued on the dates indicated, and at the same time can determine exactly the nature of these documents. In the first place, it /4/ can be stated that they issued from the camera apostolica and not from the offices of the chancery properly so called. The originals in fact bear, at the right, under the lower fold, the signature of the personal secretary of Alexander VI., Ludovicus Podocatharus. This person, a Cypriote by birth, had already played an important part in the chancery under Innocent VIII.; “abbreviator” of the parcus minor (1478), bishop of Capaccio (1483), he had, as a physician, become one of the familiars of that pope and had won the confidence of the vice-chancellor Rodrigo Borgia.8
It was Podocatharus who ordered the issue of the three bulls: he charged the abbreviator, G.-B. de Ferrariis, to draw up the bull Inter caetera of May 3. This abbreviator of the parcus major had been one of the most devoted agents of Alexander VI. during the latter’s cardinalate. Born about 1445, he was a clerk at Modena in 1462; he became a familiar of Innocent VIII., a scribe and abbreviator assisting the vice-chancellor Rodrigo Borgia in the issue of letters apostolic (before 1491), and notary apostolic (July 17, 1492). He took pains to increase the revenue of the chancery and of the camera apostolica by raising the cost of issue of documents. Alexander VI. considered him a “marvellous instrument for drawing money” from new recipients of benefices or of ecclesiastical offices, and rewarded him by making him bishop of Modena (1495) and then giving him the lucrative post of datarius (1496), of secretary (1496) and of regent of the chancery (1499), and finally by raising him to the cardinalate (1500) and to the archbishopric of Capua (1501). He ran, it will be perceived,9 a brilliant career, and /5/ by 1493 he was an important and influential personage. He was one of the witnesses of the taking of the oath by Cardinal Ascanio Sforza when the latter was installed as vice-chancellor. Thus it is the signature of one of the most important officers of the chancery which we find in the middle of the lower fold of the bull in question, in the place reserved for the abbreviator, that is to say, between the two holes made in the parchment to admit the cords of the seal.
The minute of the bull of May 4 was drawn up by another abbreviator, J. Bufolinus. His name, written in an abbreviated form, has been incorrectly deciphered up to the present time. The scribe of the Bishop of Barcelona, P. Garcia, who provided the vidimus of this bull, dated July 19, 1493, wrote Jo. Lur., and this reading has been taken over into the printed cartularies. The abbreviator in question was already in office under Innocent VIII. in 1492;10 he appears upon the list of June 5, 1493, as well as upon that of 1496.11 He belonged no doubt to the same family as J. P. de Bufalinis de Castello, who was also an abbreviator of the parcus major and scribe apostolic, and who died in 1470.12 He did not himself sign the bull, but allowed his place to be taken by his colleague A. Santoseverino, whose paraphe follows the words “Pro Jo. Buf.” on the lower fold of the document. The name of this other abbreviator is found on the various lists of the offices of the parcus major from 1493 on.13
The minutes, passing to the bureau of the apostolic scribes, were examined first by the chiefs of the latter, the rescribendarius and sometimes the accountant (computator), in order to fix the tax due to this bureau (this tax was obligatory, as was also that of the abbreviators, even in the case of those bulls which were said to be expedited gratis). They wrote upon it their names and the first syllable of the month in which the expediting had begun. Thanks to /6/ the papal registers, we know the indications which were placed upon the drafts of the three bulls. They were as follows:
|Inter caetera, May 3.||Eximiae, May 3.||Inter caetera, May 4.|
|Gratis de mandato......
ap[ril]i B. Capotius
|Gratis de mandato s. d. n. pape
jul[io] J. Nilis
|Gratis de mandato s. d. n. pape
jun[io] pro R[escribenda]rio15 A. de Mucciarellis]
The rescribendarius being appointed for a period of three months, it can be seen that the one who had been designated for the second quarter of the year 1493 was B. Capotius. He is mentioned as still among the apostolic scribes on June 5 of this year. But the diary of Burckard informs us that he was ill at this time and for this reason could not furnish the chamberlain with the list of pontifical scribes, nor take part, the next day, in a procession in which it would have been his duty to represent their corporation.16 It will be perceived that he was absent when the draft of the bull of May 4 reached the bureau of the scribes and that his place was taken by A. de Mucciarellis, one of the eldest of their number. The latter had already exercised the functions of rescribendarius under similar circumstances in September, 1489.17 As he on that occasion performed these duties until the end of the month, it is probable that the same was done in 1493 and that consequently he signed the other bulls of the month of June. At any rate he signed that of June 25, appointing Friar Buil as missionary.18 For the third quarter of the year a new rescribendarius was elected and, in fact, we see on the bull Eximiae (May 3), the expediting of which began in the month /7/ of July, the name of another scribe, J. Nilis. This appears also on the bull of September 26.19
It has been made plain that the bulls were taxed and issued at considerable intervals; the first bull Inter caetera (May 3) belongs to the month of April, the second Inter caetera (May 4) to June, and the bull Eximiae (May 3) to July. If then, instead of arranging the bulls in accordance with their formal dates, we arrange them in the order of their expediting, the bull Eximiae should be placed last.
Before being sent to their destination, the bulls had to be registered and collated, additional causes of delay. In the registers they appear in the order of their expediting.20 From calculations which have been made, it appears that the expediting of a bull took at least twelve days. In urgent cases a whole month elapsed between the sending of instructions from Spain and the arrival in that country of the bull requested.21 These new chronological data will permit us to place more exactly the other diplomatic and narrative sources which relate to the pretensions of the Spanish sovereign and to the attitude of the Holy See toward Spain and Portugal. We have henceforth a solid basis for studying the contents of the /8/ bulls themselves, and for comparing their different forms in the light of other contemporary documents.
In the first place, we may now follow with security the route pursued by the first bull Inter caetera after its expediting. It is this bull and not – as has hitherto been supposed – the second bull beginning with the same preamble, which was sent by Podocatharus on May 17, 1493, to the nuncio at the court of Spain.22 Therefore it could not have been delivered to those for whom it was intended till in the last third of that month. Consequently, it could not have been till the end of May or till June that the Spanish sovereigns addressed to their ambassadors in Rome the instructions necessary for obtaining a new bull intended to replace the first. That second document was expedited, we have perceived, in the month of June and reached Spain before July 19, for on that date a notary, secretary to the Bishop of Seville, delivered a vidimus of it, dated at Barcelona.23
The different bulls are addressed solely to Ferdinand and Isabella, kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Granada; the intitulation of the bull of May 4 also reads, after Aragon, “of Sicily”.
If the two bulls Inter caetera are compared, it appears that their preambles are identical; they treat, as does one of the analogous bulls granted to the kings of Portugal, the theme of the extension of the faith in barbarous lands. The bull Eximiae has a shorter preamble, but it relates to the same subject. In the bull of September 26 (Dudum siquidem) the intitulation is followed immediately by the narration.
The “narrations” of the two bulls Inter caetera present remarkable differences. While the first recites the discovery of “lands and islands remote and unknown in the western regions, said to be toward the Indies, in the Ocean Sea”, a discovery due to Christopher Columbus, the second insists upon the fact that there is question of “continental lands” discovered beyond the ocean and adds flattering terms to the name of Columbus – a man absolutely worthy, and highly to be recommended, and capable of executing an enterprise of such magnitude. We shall see that this addition was probably made at the request of Columbus himself. As to the narrations /9/ of the bulls Eximiae and Dudum siquidem, they recall respectively the grants made by the two bulls Inter caetera.
Let us examine separately the “dispositions” of the two bulls Inter caetera. By that of May 3, the pope, in the plenitude of his apostolic authority, grants to the Spanish sovereigns the lands and islands discovered in the west, toward the Indies in the Ocean Sea, as well as those yet to be discovered in that direction, provided they do not already belong to any Christian prince, and forbids all persons to approach them for commerce or for other purposes without authorization from these sovereigns. It provides that, in these regions, those sovereigns shall exercise the same rights as those previously granted by the Holy See to the kings of Portugal in the lands discovered for these princes, in Africa, in Guinea, at Elmina, and elsewhere. The bull of May 4 grants the islands and continental lands (terras firmas) discovered or to be discovered, not solely in the west, but also in the south, and as well in the direction of India as in all other regions. It establishes a line of demarcation not to be passed by the subjects of other princes without authorization from the Spanish sovereigns. That line of demarcation is placed, in strange phraseology, at one hundred leagues “to the west and to the south” of the Azores and the Cape Verde Islands. It is designated in the same terms at the end of the disposition. This expression, “to the west and to the south”, was without doubt substituted for the words “to the west and in the Ocean Sea”, as anyone may convince himself by comparing those passages in the other bulls which indicate the direction of the discoveries and, especially, that in the bull of June 25, designating Friar Buil as missionary. This last, in fact, expedited at the same period as the bull Inter caetera of May 4, contains the words “versus partes occidentales et Mare occeanum”. The same expression is also found in the bull Eximiae. At that period it was customary to locate the Ocean Sea toward the south of our hemisphere, around the equatorial zone. Beyond extended the “Southern Indies” (Indiae Meridionales), an expression subsequently applied to South America. At bottom then, the transformation of “Mare occeanum” into “meridiem” is not so violent as one might at first suppose; it indicates more precisely the direction which Columbus intended to follow in his second voyage, but it has introduced into the text of the bull the contradiction already often signalized. As to the position of the Azores, with reference to the Cape Verde Islands, it has already been rightly remarked that the easternmost of the Azores is traversed by the same meridian as the westernmost of the Cape Verde Islands.
The mention of rights analogous to those enjoyed by the King of /10/ Portugal in his possessions is not repeated in the bull Inter caetera of May 4. It forms the main object of the bull Eximiae (May 3), expedited as we have seen in July. The text of the latter resembles those of the two bulls Inter caetera.24
As to the bull of September 26, it amplifies that of May 4 by extending the sphere of influence of Spain not only into the western and southern regions but also into those of the East and of the Indies and provides, as does its predecessor, that the discoveries shall be made to the westward and the southward (versus occidentem et meridiem). No mention is made of the line of demarcation, but it does not follow, as H. Harrisse thought, that it was suppressed. On the contrary, this bull in fact confirms all the dispositions made in the preceding bulls and merely amplifies and extends them.25 In any case, the fact that the line in question is not mentioned on this occasion proves that this line had not the original importance which has been subsequently attributed to it.
As in other documents of this sort, the different bulls contain derogative clauses. These are especially developed in the bull of September 26; they declare that all the grants previously made, “whether to kings, to princes, to infantes, to religious or to military orders”, respecting the regions, seas, islands, or lands in question, are revoked, whatever may have been the motives of these donations (piety, extension of the faith, or redemption of captives) and despite the most rigorous clauses inserted in these grants, unless in cases when these grants have been put into effect and when, in consequence, actual and effective possession has been taken. It is expressly provided – a curious fact – that previous possession shall not in itself constitute a title.26
/11/ Finally, in the first three bulls, the date is still preceded by the customary formulae relative to the mode of promulgation and to the penalties incurred by those committing infractions. In the bull of September 26, the formula of promulgation is lacking, but the penal clauses are to be found in the “disposition”.
As has been seen, the four bulls belong to the same category of papal acts. They do not belong to the class of great and solemn bulls presented in consistory and therefore having the name of consistorial bulls. Drawn up in the form of letters, they have the name of briefs; it is thus that the pontifical secretary Podocatharus designates the bull Inter caetera of May 3.27 But these briefs are provided with the bulla; they are, then, brevia bullata.
To sum up, no one of these different bulls has the appearance of an arbitral decision. They are acts of papal sovereignty, in favor of a single power. They are essentially grants, as one sees by running through the series of designations given to these acts by the documents themselves. We may remark in passing that the bull Inter caetera of May 4 omitted the term investitura as well as in the “disposition” the word investimus – words which were found in the Inter caetera of May 3 – in order not to give ground for supposing that a feudal investiture was contemplated.
It might be objected that, if these acts have not the form of an arbitral decision, they may yet have been the result of a more or less active intervention of the sovereign pontiff in the colonial politics of Portugal and Spain in order to harmonize their interests and maintain peace. To determine the matter, it is necessary to inquire under what conditions the bulls were issued and how their texts were put into shape.
At the moment when Columbus was undertaking the exploration of the Atlantic, the Spanish sovereigns had renounced for the benefit of Portugal all colonial expansion “beyond or on this side of the Canaries over against Guinea”. Sixtus IV. (1481) had confirmed this treaty as well as the bulls granted to the Portuguese by Nicholas V. and Calixtus III. The same pope had assured to the Portuguese the discoveries which should be made in Guinea and beyond in the direction of these “southern regions”, sanctioning thus the bulls of his predecessors, notably that which Nicholas V. /12/ (1454) issued in consequence of the Portuguese discoveries “in the Ocean Sea toward the regions lying southward and eastward”.28
Out in the Atlantic the maps of the period place the mysterious island Antilia or Island of the Seven Cities. In 1475 and in 1486 the King of Portugal had granted it, together with neighboring islands and lands, to F. Telles and to Dulmo respectively.29 He considered the “Ocean Sea” as his domain, imagining, as did all his contemporaries, that it lay chiefly in the equatorial zone.
On the return from his first voyage Columbus, as is well known, landed in Portugal. King John II., declaring that he had operated in “the seas and limits of his lordship of Guinea”, had the discoverer brought before him (about March 6, 1493) and Columbus declared to him that he was returning from “Cypangu and Antilia”, islands which formed the approaches to India.30 Shortly after, Peter Martyr, the Italian humanist, chaplain of Isabella, spoke of the “western Antipodes” discovered by Christopher Columbus in contrast to the “southern Antipodes”, toward which the Portuguese navigators sailed. But it was believed that the chief transoceanic lands lay in the southern hemisphere, balancing thus the Eurasian continent. Zurita, chronicler of Aragon under Charles V. and Philip II., alludes to the fact that the ancients represented this southern world in the form of islands, large and small, separated by great distances.31
/13/ John II. went to Torres Vedras to pass Easter (April 7). Two days before, he sent to the court of Spain the alcalde mayor of that town, Ruy de Sande, to ascertain whether Columbus intended to pursue his discoveries to the south, or would confine his enterprises to the west. But this envoy did not arrive till after the departure from Barcelona (April 22) of the Spanish ambassador charged to announce to the King of Portugal the discovery, on behalf of the Spanish sovereigns, of the islands and continents situated in the direction of the Indies.32
Ferdinand and Isabella had not waited till this time to obtain from the sovereign pontiff a monopoly of the discoveries and the right of commercial exploitation in the Oceanic Sea and in the islands of the Indies. As early as March 30, they had addressed their congratulations to Columbus, “Admiral of the Ocean Sea and viceroy and governor of the islands discovered in the Indies”.33 They no doubt hastened to address to their agents or permanent ambassadors at the court of Rome the instructions necessary to enable the latter to assert title as soon as possible, over against the claims which would without question be asserted by the King of Portugal.
The reception which the Curia would give to this demand could not fail to be most favorable. The many bonds which attached Alexander VI. to Spain during the first years of his pontificate are well known, as also the care with which he strove then to maintain them in spite of all sorts of difficulties. Though he had not lived long in his native country he had remained a true Aragonese, and had constantly surrounded himself by compatriots and by other Spaniards in the course of his cardinalate. Legate a latere from 1471 to 1473 and in 1480, he had rendered notable services to his sovereign, and the latter had requited them by favors perhaps still greater. Ferdinand had permitted Rodrigo Borgia to add to the bishopric of Valencia those of Cartagena (1482) and Majorca (1489). He had invested his oldest son, Pedro Luis, with the duchy of Gandia, near Valencia, and had thus made the latter one of the most important members of the Aragonese nobility (1485). He had even promised him his own cousin-german, Doña Maria Enriquez, in marriage. When Ferdinand legitimized Caesar Borgia (1481) he declared that he owed to the latter’s father the deepest gratitude. He could not do otherwise than favor the nomination of Caesar to the bishopric of Pampeluna (1491) and then to that of Valencia after the accession of Rodrigo Borgia to the throne of St. /14/ Peter.34 Alexander VI. entrusted the custody of the castle of Sant’Angelo to a Spaniard, Juan de Castro, bishop of Girgenti, and took for his confessor another Spaniard, the Carmelite Baltasar Gracian de Villanova.35
An upholder of Spanish-Neapolitan policy during his cardinalate, Alexander VI. treated it with solicitude at the beginning of his pontificate, and was able to derive from his relations with the Spanish sovereigns valuable advantages for his family. As is well known, he sacrificed everything, both spiritual and temporal interests, to his children; in the first place to Juan, whose fortunes and influence depended entirely upon the prosperity and strength of Spain. The death of Pedro Luis, duke of Gandia, had caused that duchy in 1488 to pass to Juan, for whom the pope obtained the hand of Dona Maria Enriquez, fiancée of the deceased (August, 1493).
Meanwhile, however, Alexander VI. allowed himself to be drawn away by Cardinal Ascanio, to whom he owed the tiara, toward the Milano-Venetian alliance, hostile to the King of Naples and favorable to France. Ascanio Sforza, brother of Ludovico il Moro, after becoming vice-chancellor exercised for some time a considerable ascendancy over the pope, and so caused him to attach himself to that alliance, represented as intended to insure the peace of Italy (April 25).
It was just at this time that the Spanish sovereigns requested the bull of donation of the islands recently discovered. To secure their pardon, so to speak, for his equivocal course, Alexander VI. took pains to give them satisfaction and at the same time to address to them a formal document attested by a notary (instrumentum publicum), by which he declared that he “desired that even his allies should preserve entire and inviolable the bond which united him to these sovereigns, and this under all circumstances whatever”. He also informed Ferdinand and Isabella of the conditions of the alliance which he had concluded with Milan and Venice, and made his excuses for not having offered his mediation between Spain and France by declaring that he had supposed peace to have been concluded by the restoration of Perpignan and Roussillon to the first of these powers. Finally he sent them, by the hand of the same nuncio, the correspondence exchanged between the Emperor and the /15/ King of France relating to a plan of peace. The pope visibly exerts himself to please the monarchs to whom he was soon about to grant the title of “Catholic”, and informs them of his whole policy. The conclusion of the letter which Podocatharus addresses in his name to the nuncio in Spain contains this interesting recommendation: “Moreover tell them distinctly with what care we lay ourselves out to satisfy them in all things and to furnish to all the world proofs of the paternal affection we have for them”.36
Evidently then Alexander VI. could refuse nothing to Ferdinand and Isabella; eager to give them evidences of his good-will he did not hesitate to comply entirely with their request relative to the discoveries made by Columbus, without examining whether their claim menaced the rights of other sovereigns or not.37 He was to continue in this attitude of favor until the time when he came under the influence of his son, Caesar, that is to say, after the death of Juan, duke of Gandia (1497).
The question has often been discussed, whether Ferdinand and Isabella needed a papal grant in order to acquire the sovereignty of lands discovered by one of their agents. This question directly depends upon that of the nature of the papal power, and opinions relating to the latter vary according to place and time. By the terms of the bull itself, the pope disposed, in favor of the Spanish monarchs, of the temporal sovereignty (dominium) of lands discovered or to be discovered in a certain region.
While the Catholic sovereigns clearly held at that time that they had in temporal matters no superior within their own dominions, including all lands of which they had made effective acquisition,38 the bulls in question were titles to future discoveries, and were de- /16/ signed to repeal bulls which previous popes had promulgated in favor of the kings of Portugal. Proof that Ferdinand and Isabella attached a great value to them is seen in their anxiety that the things which they desired should be incorporated in them, and also in the revisions to which, as we shall see, they subsequently caused them to be subjected.
Before the end of May, negotiations had begun between John II. and the Spanish monarchs. They were conducted with peaceful intentions on both sides. In the course of them, Ferdinand and Isabella obtained a fuller knowledge of the extent of the claims made by the Portuguese king, and of his intention to reserve to himself discoveries made toward the south and the Ocean Sea. Thereupon the dispositions made by the bull of May 3 became inadequate, for Columbus counted with certainty, as we have seen, upon making new expeditions, and first of all toward the south. He was urgent that this bull should be replaced by another, containing a new stipulation with respect to the maritime and colonial dominion of Spain. The Spanish monarchs desired to include in that dominion the whole Atlantic, as is proved by the confirmation of privileges which was granted to Columbus on May 28: “This sea”, they say, “belongs to us to the west of a line passing through the Azores and the Cape Verde Islands and extending from north to south, from pole to pole”.39 It is manifest with what insistence they claim the Ocean Sea in both hemispheres. Columbus however suggested that the line should be set further to the west, a hundred leagues from the Portuguese islands in question. That fact is explicitly shown in a letter which the sovereigns addressed to him later (September 5) and which reports a rumor that had been spread of the existence of very rich lands” between that line and the southern part of Africa, lands of which they feared that they might be deprived in virtue of the terms of the bull already amended.40 The text of the latter /17/ must have been drawn up during the month of June and sent then to the Spanish agents at the court of Rome. The determination of Columbus to operate in the south of the Ocean Sea as well as in the west gave rise to the repetition of the words “toward the west and the south “which determined in so strange a fashion the position of the boundary in the ocean between the Spanish and the Portuguese dominions.41
It was, then, at the instance of Columbus that the line of demarcation was mentioned in the papal document. Was he himself the author of that line, and if so on what basis did he select it? It does not appear to have been suggested to him by his sovereigns. The instructions which they gave him at the beginning of September, 1493, and a little earlier, with a view to his second voyage, were merely that he should sail as far as possible from the Portuguese possessions. On the other hand, everything leads us to believe that both the papal chancery and the pope himself were entirely strangers to the establishment of this line. If they did not take the initiative in the case of any of the essential stipulations contained in the bulls in question, why should they have done so in precisely that one which concerns the delimitation of the two colonial domains, so advantageous to Spain?
The supposition of Alexander von Humboldt42 attributing to Columbus the authorship of the line of demarcation appears accordingly very plausible, and in the present state of the sources, practically certain. Whether Columbus, in establishing the line, was guided by facts of physical geography observed in the course of his first voyage – changes in the stars, the aspect of the sea, the temperature, the variation of the compass and the like – drawing inferences from these as to the beginning of the Orient and the end of the Occident, may be doubted, but it is no longer possible to deny him an essential part in the planning of the famous line of demarcation.43
/18/ The present sources do not permit us to discover with certainty why the bull of May 4 and the bull Eximiae of May 3 were antedated. That of May 4 did not arrive in Spain until the middle of July. On the 19th of that month the first vidimus of this document was drawn up, and on August 4 the sovereigns sent this vidimus to Columbus with a letter in which they said,
You know that we have applied to Rome for a bull respecting the islands and land which you have discovered and which remain to be discovered. It has come to us today, and we send you an authentic copy of it to publish, so that all the world may know that no one can enter into these regions without authorization from us. Take it with you, that you may be able to show it in every land.44
We do not enter now into the history of those diplomatic negotiations between Spain and Portugal, which, beginning on August 18, 1493, resulted in the treaty of Tordesillas (June 7, 1494). Early in the course of those negotiations the Spanish sovereigns, in a letter of September 5, addressed to Columbus, asked his advice as to whether it was not necessary to modify the “bull” – evidently that of May 4. His reply was no doubt affirmative. Such a modification might be brought about through a simple additional and amplifying bull. Columbus intended to pursue his discoveries to the very Orient itself, where the Portuguese hoped to arrive soon. He wished to plant the standard of Castile in the eastern as well as in the southern Indies and it was no doubt for this reason that he requested the papal ratification of the Spanish monopoly of conquests beyond the sea, by way of the west, in all regions not occupied by Christians, especially in the Orient and in the Indies.45 The bull, dated September 26, revoked, it will be recalled, all contrary dispositions in previous bulls granted to kings, princes, infantes, or re- /19/ ligious or military orders (this stipulation is evidently directed at Portugal), even when granted for motives of piety, the spread of the gospel, or the ransom of captives. It also gave expression to the principle that the possession of territories, to be valid, must be effective; but its chief object was to secure to Spain access to the Orient, where it was customary to locate India properly so called. The position of India is however not clearly defined in the papal document; it names it at first in connection with the “oriental regions”, and then after a mention of these regions.
That the King of Portugal did not succeed in preventing so considerable an extension of the sphere of influence of Spain must probably be attributed to the fact that at this time he was making it the chief objective of his policy to procure that his natural son, Dom Jorge, should be recognized as his heir presumptive to the prejudice of his brother Manoel, and to obtain for him the hand of a Spanish infanta.
The decision of the Spanish and Portuguese ambassadors that the line of demarcation should be set at a point 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands differing considerably from that set forth in the bull of May 4, 1493, the contracting parties agreed to insert in the treaty of Tordesillas a clause stipulating that the papal confirmation should be sought; but that no papal motu proprio should dispense either one of the two parties from observing the convention. The maintenance of the treaties was thus guaranteed against the arbitrary action of the plenitudo potestatis of the sovereign pontiff. The confirmation of the treaty was not obtained under the pontificate of Alexander VI., nor until January 24, 1506.
The other European states bordering on the Atlantic, contrary to what has generally been believed, made no account of the bulls issued in favor of the first two colonial powers. Their phrases were considered as infringing upon royal sovereignty; the expressions motu proprio and plenitudo potestatis, as well as the derogative clauses, were refused allowance in France as threatening the liberties of the Gallican Church. The kings of France, like those of England,46 whose line of conduct with respect to the pope they had imitated, did not recognize the supreme jurisdiction of the Holy See even in ecclesiastical matters; naturally they were still less disposed to recognize it in temporal affairs.
/20/ To sum up, then, the bull of demarcation, like the other bulls delivered to Spain in 1493, constituted at first a grant exclusively Spanish; it was in large part, if not wholly, shaped by the chancery of Ferdinand and Isabella; the line of demarcation itself, which played so important a part in subsequent transactions, had been suggested and probably first devised by Christopher Columbus. Moreover, the different bulls of that year were but successive increments of the favors granted to the Spanish sovereigns, Alexander VI. being at that time but an instrument in their hands. Friction with Portugal was increased rather than diminished by the granting of these bulls. Far from recognizing the prior rights of that country in the Atlantic, the Holy See restricted them more and more, in the interest of Spain. The difficulties between the two powers were smoothed away by their own diplomatic means and Portugal, distinctly repudiated the incidental arbitration of the pope or of any other authority. If later she relied upon the bull of demarcation, it was because new circumstances brought her into that attitude, for the force of a diplomatic document arises less from the conditions under which it has been shaped than from the events with which it is subsequently associated and which usually modify its range of application.
H. Vander Linden.
Torna su ↑
[Nota a pag. 1]
1 This article constitutes a part of a study concerning the significance of the bull of demarcation in the history of colonial expansion. The author is professor of geography, diplomatic, and palaeography in the University of Liège, but is now resident in Oxford, England. Ed. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 2]
2 The study of the bulls of May 3 and 4 has been made easier since photographs of the transcripts of them in the papal registers have been published by Heywood, Documenta Selecta e Tabulario Secreto Vaticano quae Romanorum Pontificum erga Americae Populos curam. . . testantur (Typis Vaticanis, 1893), and by J. B. Thacher, Christopher Columbus, vol. II. The American Historical Review has published (XIV. 764-776, 1909) a photograph of the bull Inter caetera of May 3, and the Boletín del Centra de Estudios Americanistas (no. 7. April, 1915) reproduced another photograph of the same bull, and a photograph of that of May 4. The bull of September 26, Dudum siquidem, has not been found in the papal registers, but there are two copies of it in the Archives of the Indies at Seville (see V. Lloréns Asensio, La Primera Vuelta al Mundo, 1903, appendix). The text was published by Solorzano, De Indiarum Jure, I. 613 (1629). On this bull, see the article by Miss Frances G. Davenport on “The Privileges of Columbus”, American Historical Review, XIV. 767 (1909). Titles of bulls have throughout the present article been cited in normalized Latin spelling, in deference to custom, though in quotations from bulls, as in other quotations, the spelling of the originals has been preserved. Torna al testo ↑
3 Grotius, De Mare Libero, cap. III.: [Alexander VI.] “lectus inter illos [Lusitanos et Castellanos] arbiter”. Torna al testo ↑
4 L. Pastor, The History of the Popes, VI. 159-162 (second ed., London, 1901). The same theory is set forth by J. Hergenröther, Catholic Church and Christian State (London, 1876), II. 149-154, and by M. Gosselin, The Power of the Pope during the Middle Ages (London, 1853), II. 240-243. Torna al testo ↑
5 L. Pastor, op. cit., VI. 162, interprets the bull of May 4, 1493, relative to the colonial dominions of Spain, in accordance with that of 1497 relative to Portuguese Africa, and adds this singular remark: “If this formula [free consent of /3/ the inhabitants] is wanting in the document of 1493, it is merely because it was understood as included in the title itself”. The same position is maintained by J. Hergenröther, op. cit., II. 152. These scholars have omitted to read the essential part of the “disposition” of the bull of 1497: “illa [regna infidelium] conquirendi plenam et liberam facultatem elargimur”. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 3]
6 e. g. Bourne, “The Demarcation Line of Alexander VI.” (Yale Review, May, 1892, pp. 35-55). The author republished this article with some additions and modifications in his Essays in Historical Criticism (New York, 1901); see especially pp. 198-201, 203, where he shows the efforts of Alexander VI. to “satisfy both sides”. S. E. Dawson, “The Line of Demarcation of Pope Alexander VI., 1493, and the Treaty of Tordesillas, 1494” (Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada, 1899, sect. II., p. 467; see pp. 490, 495). H. Harrisse, The Diplomatic History of America (London, 1897), pp. 32, 35, 39. Torna al testo ↑
7 E. Nys. Études de Droit International et de Droit Politique (Brussels and Paris, 1896), p. 193. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 4]
8 J. Ciampini, De Abbreviatorum de Parco Majori. . . Antiquo Statu (Rome, 1691), p. 39; Anecdota Litteraria ex Manuscriptis Codicibus eruta [c. 1773], I. 273-314; Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, XVIII. 473, 521, 576 (1901); Burchard, Diarium (ed. Thuasne), II. 611, 670, appendix, L. Cardella, Memorie Storiche de’ Cardinali (Rome, 1793), III. 287, describes Podocatharus as secretary of briefs. On November 10, 1492, Pierre d’Aubusson, grand master of the Order of Rhodes, addressed to Podocatharus his congratulations upon the accession of Alexander VI.; in this letter he commends highly the qualities which the secretary had already exhibited, “virtus, prudencia, et litteratura” (V. Lamansky, Secrets d’État de Venise, St. Petersburg, 1884, p. 289). In the conclave of 1503 Podocatharus had the suffrages of all the Spanish cardinals. Pastor, History of the Popes, VI. 189. Torna al testo ↑
9 L. Celier, Les Dataires du XVe Steele et les Origines de la Daterie Apostolique (fasc. 103 of the Bibliothèque des Écoles Frangaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 1910, pp. 59-65). J.-B. de Ferrariis appears among the abbreviators of the parcus major on June 5, 1493 (Burckard, ed. Celani, I. 438), and also in 1497, 1498, and 1499 (ibid., II. 38, 113, 149). His name is found in the list of the scribes in 1497, 1498, and 1499 (ibid., II. 37, 110, 151). In 1498 he was also solicitor apostolic (ibid., II. 103). In 1500 he obtained the position of datarius, for which, according to the contemporary chronicler Giustiniani (quoted by Celani in his /5/ edition of Burckard, II. 332, note 1), Alexander VI. “could not easily find his equal”. He was poisoned July 20 or 27, 1502, perhaps by his secretary Sebastian Pinzon. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 5]
10 J. Ciampini, De Abbreviatorum de Parco Majori. . . Antiquo Statu, p. xiii: Jo. Buffolinus seu Buffolinius. Torna al testo ↑
11 Burckard (ed. Celani), I. 438, 607: Jo. Bufolinus. Torna al testo ↑
12 Ibid., I. 608, note 2. Torna al testo ↑
13 The “paraphe” of A. Santoseverino has also been read incorrectly. The cartularies copy it as Consenino, whereas the text gives Sco seuino. Antonio Santoseverino or de Sancto Severino is mentioned among the abbreviators of the parcus major in 1493, 1496, 1497, and 1499 (Burckard, ed. Celani, I. 438, 607; II. 38, 113, 149). In 1498 he is also found among the sollicitatores (ibid., II. 103). He was doubtless the son of Giambattista Caccialupi de Sancto Severino, jurisconsult of Siena, who exercised the functions of consistorial advocate from 1486 to his death in 1496 (ibid., I. 177, note 1, 380, 447, note 1). Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 6]
14 Didacus Serrano is the accountant. He appears as scribe and solicitor apostolic in 1493, 1497, 1498, and 1499 (Burckard, ed. Celani, I. 430, 436, 610; II. 36, 104, in, 115, 145, 150). Torna al testo ↑
15 Hitherto the reading has been, erroneously, Registerio or Reverendissimo. Torna al testo ↑
16 Baptistas Capotius or de Capotiis came from Viterbo, as is shown by a document of 1475, cited by Celani in his edition of Burckard (I. 439, note 2). He is not mentioned in the list of papal scribes subsequent to June 5, 1493 (ibid., p. 436). He has been confounded with Bernardinus Capocius, or Capacius, clerk of Siena (ibid., II. 380), who became auditor and then datarius under Pius III. (Sigism. Titii “Historiarum Senensium”, in Archivio Storico Italiano, XXXII. 119). Torna al testo ↑
17“Antonius de Mucciarellis fecit pro eo [Franc, de Suno] officium rescribendariatus taxando et signando bullas more solito, qui et post obitum ejusdem abque alia deputatione officium hujusmodi usque ad finem hujus mensis septembris continuavit” (Burckard, ed. Celani, I. 276). A. de Mucciarellis, a native of Bologna, is mentioned as apostolic scribe in 1487 (ibid., p. 203). In June, 1493, he himself, in lieu of the rescribendarius, drew up the list of his colleagues (ibid., p. 436). He appears also in the lists of 1497, 1498, and 1499, in which last year he is listed as decanus et senior (ibid., II. 35, no, 150). Torna al testo ↑
18 This bull of June 25, 1493, copied into the papal registers, is reproduced by Heywood, Documenta Selecta, pp. 27-32. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 7]
19 Copy of the bull of September 26, in the cartulary of Columbus at Washington; I owe this detail to the obliging kindness of Miss Frances G. Davenport. Giovanni Nilis was both scribe and abbreviator apostolic during the years 1493, 1497, and 1498 (Burckard, ed. Celani, I. 435, 437, 608; II. 34, 36, 109, III. 149, 151). The same cartulary gives the name P. Gormaz after that of J. Nilis. He was no doubt accountant of the office of the scribes for the month of September. He appears in the list of the scribes in 1493 (ibid., I. 438). He was a canon of Saragossa, and in 1498 became bishop of Narni. Torna al testo ↑
20 The bull Inter caetera of May 3 is found in register 775, fol. 42 vo.; the bull Inter caetera of May 4, in register 777, fol. 192 vo.; and the bull Eximiae (May 3), in register 879, fol. 234. The first bull Inter caetera was registered by Nicolas de Casanova, scribe apostolic (Burckard, ed. Celani, I. 437), and collated by Aloisius de Campania, who appears as notary of the apostolic chamber in 1490 (A. Gottlob, Aus der Camera Apostolica des 15. Jahrhunderts, 1889, p. 175), and in 1500 (Burckard, ed. Celani, II. 235). He was also collector of the plumbaria from 1486 on (P. M. Baumgarten, Aus Kanzlei und Kammer, Freiburg i. B., 1907, p. 351), and Burckard mentions him as such in 1493 and 1497 (ibid., I., 429; II. 26). The other two bulls were registered by Dominicus Gallettus, scribe, solicitor, and secretary apostolic (ibid., I. 430, 437, 610; II. 36, III. 150, 304, 305). The second bull Inter caetera was collated by the notary L. Amerinus, whose service was prolonged into the pontificate of Leo X. (see the registers of that pope, ed. Hergenröther, nos. 118, 124, 150). Finally, the bull Eximiae was collated by Giovanni Ebu of Viterbo, bishop of Cotrona and papal secretary (Sigismundo de’ Conti, Le Storie de’ suoi Tempi, l. IX., t. II., p. 40; Burckard, ed. Celani, I. 649; A. Gottlob, Aus der Camera Apostolica des 15. Jahrhunderts, 1889, p. 187, note 2). Torna al testo ↑
21 Thus the bull of June 25 designating Friar Buil as missionary, requested on June 7, reached Spain before July 25 (Bol. Acad, de la Historia, Madrid, XIX. 185; Navarrete, Colección de los Viages, II. 77). Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 8]
22 The letter of Podocatharus to the nuncio in Spain, Frangois de Sprats (May 17, 1403), is given in [H. Harrisse], Bibliotheca Americana Vetustissima, Additions (Paris, 1872), p. 2, note 2. Torna al testo ↑
23 The cartularies of Columbus reproduced these vidimus; see, e. g., that of Paris (B. F. Stevens, Christopher Columbus: his own Book of Privileges, 1502, London, 1893, fols. 182-197). Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 10]
24 The bull Eximiae devotionis, dated May 3, but expedited in July, reproduces especially the text of the bull Inter caetera bearing the same date, to which indeed it relates; yet on the other hand the expressions terras firmas and versus partes occidentals et mare Oceanum bring it into close relation with the bull of May 4. Torna al testo ↑
25 H. Harrisse, The Diplomatic History of America, p. 68, is mistaken in saying that “by this Bull. . . the Line of Demarcation [was] virtually superseded”. The bull confirms the previous bulls in these terms: “Donationem, concessionem, assignationem et litteras praedictas, cum omnibus et singulis in eisdem litteris contentis clausulis, ad omnes et singulas insulas et terras firmas inventas et inveniendas. . . quae navigando aut itinerando versus occidentem aut meridiem hujusmodi sint vel fuerint aut apparuerint sive in partibus occidentalibus vel meridionalibus et orientalibus et Indiae existant. . . perinde ac si in litteris praedictis de eis plena et expressa mentio facta fuisset, extendimus pariter et ampliamus.” Solorzano, De Indiarum Jure, 1629, I. 613. Torna al testo ↑
26 “Quae suum per actualem et realem possessionem non essent sortitae effectum, licet forsan aliquando illi quibus donationes et concessiones hujusmodi factae fuissent, aut eorum nuntii, ibidem navigassent”. Solorzano, I. 613. Torna al testo ↑
[Nota a pag. 11]
27 “Breve super concessione dominii et bonarum illarum insularum nuper ab hominibus Regiis inventarum. . .”. Letter of May 17, 1493, to the Spanish sovereigns; [H. Harrisse], Bibliotheca Americana Vetustissima, Additions (Paris, 1872), p. 2, note 2. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 12]
28 The bull of Nicholas V., January 8, 1454, confirms the Portuguese acquisitions “versus meridionales et orientales plagas. . . usque ad Indos qui Christi nomen colere dicuntur” (Alguns Documentos do Archivo National da Torre do Tombo, etc., Lisbon, 1892, pp. 15—16). The bull of Sixtus IV., June 21, 1481, confirming the previous bulls and the treaty of Alcaçovas between Portugal and Spain, is found in the same collection, pp. 46—53. Torna al testo ↑
29 Alguns Documentos do Archivo National da Torre do Tombo, pp. 40, 58. The act of 1486 in favor of Dulmo is particularly interesting in that it grants “a large island, islands, or continent, which is presumed to be the Island of the Seven Cities”. This passage should be compared with that of Zurita, relating to the discoveries of Columbus (Zurita, Historia del Rey Don Hernando, 1610, fol. 17), where mention is made of a great island or of numerous smaller islands. Torna al testo ↑
30 H. Vignaud, Histoire Critique de la Grande Entreprise de Christophe Colomb (Paris, 1911), I. 371, lays stress upon the fact that Ruy de Pina indicates Cypangu and Antilia as being the islands from which Columbus was returning. Columbus, however, like all his contemporaries, placed the island of Cypangu at the east of the Indies, in the “sea of the Indies”. Therefore I believe that I may repeat the assertion of my collaborator De Lannoy that Columbus believed that he had reached the eastern extremity of the Indies (De Lannoy and Vander Linden, Histoire de l’Expansion Coloniale des Peuples Europeens: Portugal et Espagne, Brussels, 1907, pp. 51, 278), an assertion which Mr. Vignaud (I. 376, note 28) believes to be untenable. Torna al testo ↑
31 See note 29. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 13]
32 Zurita, fol. 30 ro. and vo. Torna al testo ↑
33 Navarrete, Colección de los Viages, II. 21. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 14]
34 On Alexander VI., one may consult with profit, besides L. Pastor, History of the Popes, vols. V. and VI., the works of W. H. Woodward, Cesare Borgia (London, 1913); M. de Maulde la Clavière, Histoire de Louis XII., premiere partie (Paris, 1890), II. 302-320; and L. Thuasne, Djem-Sultan (Paris, 1892), pp. 304-319. Torna al testo ↑
35 Lettres de Charles VIII. (ed. Pelicier), IV. 28. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 15]
36 “Et insuper significabis quanto affectu omnibus in rebus eis satisfacere et in se paternam Charitatem nostram apud omnes testatam relinquere studeamus”, May 17, 1493. [H. Harrisse], Bibliotheca Americana Vetustissima, Additions, p. 3, note 2. By the same letter the pope acknowledged the receipt of the letters patent of the Spanish sovereigns in favor of Bernard de Villamari (doubtless the famous corsair Villamarin), whose arrival in Italy he expected and whom the Duke of Gandia was impatient to meet. Torna al testo ↑
37 Some writers affirm that the relations between Alexander VI. and the Spanish sovereigns were far from cordial at this time, citing a passage of Burckard describing the consistory held at the time when the Spanish ambassador Diego Lopez de Haro made his obedience. But this passage is an interpolation, derived from the diary of Infessura, which must be treated with caution. E. Nys also cites, in support of his opinion, certain unamiable words of the pope regarding Isabella (M. Sanuto, Diarii, II., col. 385), but these words relate to the year 1499. Torna al testo ↑
38 Grant to Columbus of permission to found a majorat, April 23, 1497: “no reconocientes superior en lo temporal”. Navarrete, Colección de los Viages, II. 222. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 16]
39 Navarrete, Colección de los Viages, II. 60: “. . . mar Océano, que es nuestro, que comienza por una raya ó linea que Nos habemos fecho marcar, que pasa desde las islas de los Azores á las islas de Cabo Verde, de Septentrion en Austro, de polo á polo; por manera que todo lo que es allende de la dicha linea al Occidente, es nuestro é nos pertenece”. Torna al testo ↑
40 Ibid., II. 109: “.. . algunos quieren decir que lo que está en medio desde la punta que los Portogueses llaman de Buena Esperanza, que está en la rota que agora ellos llevan por la Mina del Oro é Guinea abajo fasta la raya que vos dijistes que debia venir en la Bula del Papa piensan que podra haber Islas y aun Tierra firma, que segun en la parte del sol que esta se cree que seran muy provechosas y mas richas que todas las otras”. Up to this time debia had been interpreted as “should be”; now evidently the line referred to is that which, according to Columbus, was to be in the bull. Then it was indicated therein. Furthermore, the sovereigns say to Columbus, at a later point, that if he finds it necessary the bull will be modified: “se enmiende la Bula”. Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 17]
41 Among other evidences this determination may be perceived in the tract of N. Syllacius, De Insulis Meridiani atque Indici Maris nuper inventis [1494-1495] (New York, 1859), p. 90: “Quorum opera hispanorum regna auguste aucta: terrae incognitae deprehensae: innumerabiles gentes receptae: quae ad austrum pertinebant extimae, ultra aequatoris metas et signiferi fervores.. . .”. Torna al testo ↑
42 Humboldt, Examen Critique de l’Histoire de la Géographie du Nouveau Continent (Paris, 1814-1834), p. 251 ff.; Navarrete, Colección de los Viages, II. 226, 254; Oviedo, lib. II., c. XI. Torna al testo ↑
43 H. Harrisse, The Diplomatic History of America, p. 172, note 72, cites the mention in a letter of Duarte d’ Almeida to the King of Portugal of the “livro do Almirante das Indias, que fizera de Don Chr. Colón, seu pay das demarcates dos mares e terras de Vossa Altezza cos de Castilla”(from Raccolta Colombiana, Desimoni, Quistioni Colombiane, p. 78). This book is perhaps that which Colum /18/ bus had left at Barcelona at the time of the visit which he made to the sovereigns there in the month of May, and of which he asked for a copy. Reference is made to it in a letter which the sovereigns addressed to him on June 1 (Navarrete, Colección de los Viages, II. 72). Torna al testo ↑
[Note a pag. 18]
44 Navarrete, Colección de los Viages, II. 90. Torna al testo ↑
45 See note 25. In the “narration” of this bull there is mention already of these “partes orientales” and of the islands and continents “quae inde fuissent vel essent”, that is to say, of India. These words were translated exactly in Spanish by the secretary Gracian, August 30, 1554 (Navarrete, Colección de los Viages, II. 404), but Dawson has been led into error by the fact that inde was printed without a capital letter (appendix to his article in the Proceedings of the Royal Historical Society of Canada, 1899, sec. II., p. 467). It was by reliance upon this bull of September 26 that Ferdinand Columbus in 1534 drew up a declaration asserting the rights of Spain over all the Orient from the Cape of Good Hope eastward. (Altolaguirre, Cristóbal Colón y Pablo del Pozzo Toscanelli, Madrid, 1903, pp. 280-281.) Torna al testo ↑
[Nota a pag. 19]
46 The Church of England was independent in fact before the theologians of Paris had formulated the principles of freedom of the Gallican church. J. Haller, Papsttum und Kirchenreform (Berlin, 1903), I., who recalls the words of Froissart: “Engleterre est la terre le mieulz gardee dou monde”. On the prohibition of the formula motu proprio in France, see Giry, Manuel de Diplomatique, p. 703. Torna al testo ↑