Maternidad subrogada en Rutenia

The church of Hebron waa given the monaatery of St Stephen at Xaet in the archdioceae of Kaloeaa in Hungary by Arohbiahop Andrew (1176-1179) and replaced the Hencdictinc monka there. itit the Auguatiniana aoon diaaipated the monactery'a poaaeaaiona and were compelled by poverty to leave# Becauae in II98 only three canon# remained, the pope ordered the arohbiahop of iLalooaa to take action and reatore the monaatery ae he aa« fit and aa a reault the canon# of Hebron were removed#^*

How were the weetem poaaeaaiona of inatitutiona in the haat adminiatered? The Hoapital of St John grouped it# eommanderiea under prioriea whoae head made viaitationa, diaciplined offender# and eolleeted the eommanderiea ' tazea and relayed them to the General Chuter of the Order in the kaat# The prior waa appointed by the Chapter and waa reaponaible to it# livery five year# he waa required to viait tha central convent, taking hia own tax, the *paaaage*, ueually in the form

87# Cart# gen*. no#1>6#

88# Cart# St-Sep## no#l67| Kakielaki, De aacra antiouitate eatatu Ordinia Canonici. p#26#

of aODO/i horooo, amour and goods. Priori## in turn vara oollaotad into grand oooMsandariaa.^* Tho provincial organiaation of tha Order of the Temple can be observed especially In Spain. Convents, the basic local unite of adminiatrati<m, were grouped into provinces and

their heads, or oommmndera, were subject to the provincial master. In the later twelfth century, for example, the provincial master of Aragon had under him more than thirty oonvanta in the Corona de Aragon and another two in havarre. Like the Hoapitallera, tha Templars in the Last seem to have received a third of the revenues of western provinces, usually in kind.^^* %hile the evidence for monasteries is leas revealing than that of the Military Orders, similarities in the system of provincial administration can be aeen. Their obediences, churches and dependent monaaterles, in a particular area were grouped under the rule of a priory. The Holy Sepulchre*# priories at

Constantinople and Thsssalonika had jurisdiction over different areas of the Latin Lmpire in Greece. This is shown by a letter of Prior William in about 1212, addressed to the Christian population of

Thsasalonika, in which he announced the appointment of a prior or provisor of the Holy Sepulchre’s churches in that province and Romania where, he said, they were not subject to the house at Constantinople.^^* In France the Holy Sepulchre's chief priory was at Vignareia in the diocese of I images. In 12$7 îhigh de fiysun waa appointed prior with authority over all churches and prioriea belonging to the church of Jerusalem in

90. Hilay-saith, kni^hta of st John, pp.341-42, 360-63.

91. A.J. Foray, The Tetaplars in the 'CorctMi dc Arag^«. pp.87-89, 323-24.

that kingdom. In Poland tha Holy Sapulohra acquired extensive property when laza of Jieetaow brought with him from the Holy Land a canon to establish a house. The convent at oàieehov in the diocese of Cracow, in the charge of a provost, waa richly endowed and its importance can be judged from the fact that it had custody of part of the Holy Gepulohre's a r c h i v e s . I n Germany the chief priory of the

Holy Sepulchre seems to have been at Benkendorf in the see of Constance and was also ruled by a provost.^^* G. Teasier has made a study of the particularly important holdings of the Holy Bspwl^ure in Spain. Lven before Alfonso I*s bequest to the church, the oanoeas had oany properties throughout tb# peninsula and when they gave up their third of Aragon it was in return for the extension of their rights in that kingdom. It was soon clear that the Holy Sepulchre had become suffi­ ciently strong in Jpain to warrant the proper organisation of its possessions. By 1141 the church had appointed a oanon Gerald as prior over its properties in Aragon. In II46 he was given land by Iiaymond

of Le Fuy in Calatayud in the province of Saragossa whsre he was to build a ohurch and ten years later, with the title of prior in Spain, he declared that regular clergy had been installed at this new house and were to owe obedience to himself and the canons and patriarch of Jerusalem and to render a quarter of their revenues annually to the Holy Sepulchre. This priory seems to have had authority over all the other houses of the Holy Sepulchre in Lpain.^^*

93. Alexander IV , no*2413#

94. ## hakielski, M sajgft_jptiquitata e#4f1"

9

96. G. Tessisr, *Lss dibuts de l'Ordre du baint-L^pulchre en Lspagne b propos de deux privilèges d'Alexandre I I I * , BEC^cxvi (195&)# pp.19-22,

Other ohurohee had property that waa axtanaive enough to be organised on a aiailarly large aoale. Joaaphat, for example, owned many ohurohea and lands in southern Italy. In a document of 1172 the prior of St Vincent of iiontalto in Calabria waa called master-prior of all Josaphat'a prioriea in the Kingdom of Sioily, but this is a forgery. But in 1227 n copy of an agreement made between the abbey and a layman and hia wife for the oars of some property was to be kept at the ohur^ of St Vincent. Between 1248 and 12)9, however, Stephen, the author of a series of forged documents, was oalled prior of the abbey's houses

in that kingdom and in 1290, when the abbot and convent of Josaphat had taken refuge at the ohurch of St Mary Magdalene at uessina, the prior of that bouse was oalled the master-prior.^^*

Obediences in the %eat were administered by canons or mcmks sent from the convent in the East. The priors of the larger houses, whether in Syria or Europe, were clearly of some consequence among their fellow clergy and there are examples of a provinoial prior returning to the mother-con vent to become its prior or abbot i Faoundus and Faoundinus, both priors of St Philip at Agira, the chief Sicilian house of St Mary

9Ô.

of the Latins, became abbots of the convent in Jerusalem.^ There survives in the archives of the Holy Sepulchre a letter that is clearly the format for the installation of priors. In it the prior of that church announced to all obediences that a canon had been appointed over the houses of a particular region and required the brothers to do

homage to him. He forbade the new prior to sell, mortgage or alienate

97. Aaioo, Keg. fol. no*.273 (a forgery), 323#366# White, Latin Monaaticiam, p.208# K.A. Xehr, Die lùtkmâm d«r normaMULaWr-

sisilischen Kbnige. Eime diplcmatieeh# %te%eu# b m g#

P.

the servent M end property of his ohuroh, wjoining him to restore these possessions where deoeged. He was given licence to admit brothers and sisters to the ohurch#^*

There is little evidence for the amount of control exercised by the main convent over its provincial branches# In the Order of ht John the master kept priories constantly under supervision, ordering visi­ tations, appointing priors and intervening in local administration#^^*

The abbots of monasteries also were not slack in their watch over their western houses, sending monks as their deputies or visiting kurope

personally. But tha natme of the relevant documents is such that this supervision is to be seen almost exclusively in the sowaomic affairs of local houses. In 1133, for example, King Hogmr of Bioily said that ,ibbot ieter of ot Mary of the Latins had come before him to ask for the renewal of privileges oonoeming hia monastery's Sicilian possessions which had been lost in a fire at Lt fhilip of Agira. In October I198 a monk of the abbey was sent to the iuaprese C<mstance for the confir­ mation of privileges and in 1201, when he waa prior of Lt Fhilip'a, he sought permission from the laperor Frederick II to have the abbey's bicilian casalia restored. * sometimes the mothex-cburch gave a

clerk an official delegations in a charter dated to 1162 Peter de Volpes, prior of the church of hasareth and vioar-ganeral of the archbishop,

appointed alter of Lalemo as procurator and vicar-general for the 102

church's properties in Italy. * But this document appears to be a 99# Cart# no.3.

100. kilsy-Gaith, Kniichts of Lt.John. p.363.

101. Kahr, jJtt Urtaart.» d«r W W g # . pp.430>i3> no.1 4 # Acta imp, ined. saec. XIII i. nos.75.88.

102. Codice diplomatioo del sacro militare ordins gero#oli##itmo oemi

forgery. Fete:^ oalled hiaeelf vieax-general of Arohbiahop Robert, although the arohbiahop of Kaaareth in 1162 was Lethard, the former prior of the ohuroh. There is some confusion as to whether Lethard or At tard «a» Robert's immediate aueoeesor,^^^* but even so Archbishop Robert bad been dead since about 1134 and Prior rstar's commission would have been at least eight years out of date, a circumstance that the archbishops of hasareth were unlikely to overlook. There were also anachronistic references in the document to the fCingdom of Cyprus, at that date still in the possession of the Greek lÆpirs, and to the Kingdom of hspies. Nevertheless the document may have reproduoed an authentic

list of Nasareth'e obediences. And it should be mentioned that while Peter claimed authority over all Namareth's oLurchss in Europe, he

committed to u, alt or of Lalexno care of the churches in Italy alone. If we accept that the document may have eome foundation in truth, it is possibls that offioials with responsibility for Paaareth's properties in particular regions, such as was givsn to Walter of alemo, did exist. Peter's own oommieaion appears ad hoc rather than a permanent post.

The church of Bethlehem also male use of an official oalled the procurator and vicar-general in lombardy and ermany.^^*

But there is much less evidence for the intervention of the mothe]^ convent in the internal affairs of a local priory or in the way in which it ran the property in its charge. Certainly the distance and the difficulties of communication made close supervision almost impossible. Rebellions and problems of discipline in subject-bouses did arise: in

103. aee below p. 191

.

1137 Pope Insaocmkt II deolefed that the prior and chapter of the Holy Bepulohre had complained that certain hcuaee and prioriea bad been dieobedient to them and their envoya and he iaaued a reprimand to the procurators of these places. In 128) the abbot of St Mary of Josaphat sought permission to viait his houses in the best to correct

the negligence of their administrators, which had disturbed the payment of r e s p o n s i o n s . I t seems probable that, like the Military Orders, monasteries were content to allow the heads of local houses some free­ dom in their administration, as long aa they oonadentiously sent the revenues they owed to the East.^®^*

A church's control over its obediences m %ht be limited above all in two ways. Firstly, It was liable to the interference of its own bishop in the runnine of its properties: in 1132 the pope reminded the patriarch of Jerusalem that the prior and chapter should have freedom to administer all their possessions and obediences as they pleased. By 1168 there had been an attempt by the patriarch to interfere, to the extent of giving away obediencea that belonged by right to the canons.

The reference in this case eeeme to have be#a to the church of St Peter at Jaffa. In the same year the pope forbade the patriarch and prior, without the consent of the chapter, to send a canon of the Holy Sepulchre

to serve in an obedience in ^Xirope, or to suspend or remove eaiume, loâ

except in eases of manifest guilt. * Deoondly, the ownership of

105# Cart. Et-s^p.. no.i49.

106. Chartes de Terre Sainte, no.59.

107# Forey, Tha Templar# in the «Corona de Armèn'. p. 332# 108. Cart. Lt-Gèp.. nos.148,156,157,162.

ohurohee which, &• we have aeen, could cause disputes with local hisbops in the East, created the same problem in Europe and the same kind of agreements had to be made. Tribute waa customarily paid to the local diocesan ohurch. The Holy 5^ulchre at Barletta, for

example, paid one pound of incenee each year. khen Bishop Bioolaa of klleto granted Lt Lawrence's at Arena to Josaphat in 1200 he demanded an annual tribute of four pounds of wax and four of incense, while fatriarch Thomas of Constantinople in 1203 demanded one pound of wax and another of incense from the same abbey for the ohurch of ut Mary of Taranito.^^* The bisWp might also define his rights over an obedience# the bishop of Kileto's gift in 1200 stipulated that Josaphat'e procurator, later called a prior, at St Lawrence's should attend diocesan synods, render procuration to the bishop making a visitation and protect him in life and limb.^^^*

The -aiTOpean priories of churches in the Latin Last could be put to various uses* The survival of so many monastic charters is due to their preservation in weetem houses. At Lt Philip of Agira the archives of St M#ry of the Latins were deposited, at Aiechow, part of the Holy Sepulchre's and at Varazse near Genoa and at Claneey in France, those of Eethlehem, although most of the last collection were later lost.^^^* And when after 1187 estates were drastically out and new

109. BOS. 39,163# Amioo, deg. fol. no.312# Chartes de Terre Sainte, no.4).

110. Amico, Eeg. fol. no.312.

111. 'PiN^sturkuaden sus Unteritalion', p#49. Xn II30 (kehr. Die m m àr n . Mnix#. pp.430-33, 00.14} the abbot of ,3% Mary of the Latins said that the privileges of

his obediences in Sicily were kept in St Philip's, but since they had been destroyed in a fire, he waa aeeking their renewal. See Kiant, d# pp.548-49, % 1 , not* 2.

•ourees of rovoimo in tho hoot woro not roadlly available, Latin religious house# turned to their European possessions for support# In the late years of the twelfth oentury and the early years of the thirteenth, a sudden and marked oonoem on the part of monasteriea for their rights and properties outside Syria ean be seen. The abbot of 3t Mary of the Latina was at Palermo in June II87# In 1194, 1197 and 1198 the abbey secured confirmation of its Lieilian lands from the Emperor Henry VI and the Lcnpress Constance; and in 1201, between 1209 and 1212, in 1223 and 1224, privileges f r ^ Frederick 11.^^^* Lt Mary of Josaphat received a charter for its Sicilian properties in II94. By 1200 the abbot waa in Lieily and again in 1206 and 1227* In a

charter of 1200 Bishop hicolas of Mileto said that Josaphat had actually taken refuge in Europe# This may have been the monks' original inten­ tion, or the bishop may have concluded from the presence of a number of them in Italy that this was the case#^^^* But the convent was certainly resident in Acre in the thirteenth century# In theee years, too,

Josaphat was attempting to restore its properties in Antioch# In 1207 the abbot made arrangements for a Kastina with an oratory in Antioch to be given to Deacon John of the patriarchal church of St Peter to hold during his lifetime# He was to repair the oratory so that the monks might occupy it and resume divine services, to cultivate the land and build a house t h e r e . T h e outcome of these arrangements can be seen

112. 'Papsturkunden sue Unteritalien', nos.9-14; Acta imp, ined. saec. U J I i, nos.75,88; Latin Monastioiaa. pp.222-24, where the

author also stated that in the thirteenth century 3t Mary of the Latins was based at Agira. But it is clear from papal letters and local documentary sources that the convent was in Acre.

113. Amioo, keg. fol. nos.303,312,316,323# 114. Amioo, Hag. fol. no.318.

in an Arable document of 1213 reoently oommentod upon by C. Caben, who, though he waa aware of its relevanoe to Josaphat# did not realise

that the house referred to in the document as Our Lady of Oetheemane was the abbey itself. This is clear from oomparieon with the charter of 1207 mad from the priors, named as Arnold and Adam, his suoceseor, who can be found in the lists of personnel of St Mary of Josaphat for these years. Deacon John now declared that because the oratory was in such a ruined condition he himself was in debt and oould find no-one else willing to undertake the rebuilding except a priest, Kamari ibn Abraqili, who would only accept the place if he oould keep it. By then, however, the prior of St Mary of the Latins had taken over the administration of all Josaphat*e properties in Antioch. He decided that the ohurch could be of no use to the abbey and should be rented to the priest as he wished.

Vith the capture of Constantinople in 1204 by the Fourth Crusade, churches saw a new future in the lands of the Latin Inspire and

ecolesiastios from Syria flocked there to petition the authorities for endowment. In 1203 Cardinal Peter Ciqisisno, the papal legate, granting a church in Constantinople to Mount Thabor, wrote: 'Ae who are

required by the charge of legation on us to provide the churches of the

Holy Land in the empire of Komania ... with benefices and possessions, since the possessions and goods of those churches are witheld by the enemies of ths name of Christianity, hold it to be fitting that large benefices should be granted from the possessions of this empire to the aforeuwmtioned ohurohee of the Holy Land*. In a gift to bt Mary of