Folia Theologica 3. (1992)
Charles Duggan: Decretal letters to Hungary
10 C. DUGGAN III. To the archbishop of Esztergom Porro licet, Amara nimis and Etsi questiones The scruples of archbishop Lucas of Esztergom Of the sixteen decretals considered in this paper, at least two and very probably three record the excessive conscientiousness of archbishop Lucas of Esztergom. And of these, Porro licet and Amara nimis are known only from the Cottonian and Peterhouse collections of the mid-1190s, and were printed for the first time in the Decretales ineditae in 1982, whereas Etsi questiones is known from seven collections, and was partly transmitted to the Decretales of 1234. Porro licet survives only in a damaged and partly illegible condition in Cott., and in a clean and legible text in Pet. Both transcriptions are imperfect and present textual problems, but the letter clearly replies to the archbishop of Esztergoms pangs of conscience concerning the mutilation he had imposed, before his ordination, on a self-confessed thief. The language of the letter implies that the sin of avarice was also in some way involved — ex quo de cupiditatis delicto penitens et contritus fuisti. Since the mutilation of the thiefs nose would not normally have resulted in death, the pope declared that, since there was no intention of killing, the matter was not an impediment to the archbishop’s election, ordination or promotion, and he re-glossed in this sense a passage wrongly attributed to St Augustine, which the archbishop had evidently cited against himself, and a text from Innocent I, both found in Gratian’s Decretum — presumably a further example of the chancery use of the Decretum in Alexander’s pontificate.12 An edition of this letter is provided in the Decretales ineditae, with a discussion of the textual and historical issues involved. The conclusions proposed there are that the letter dated in all probability in or from 1181, in the closing year of Alexander Ill’s pontificate, or conceivably at the outset of that of Lucius III, and that its recipient was unlikely to have been archbishop Lucas, who survived into that year, but was more probably Nicholas (1181-83), soon after his elevation. The arguments marshalled 12 Decretales ineditae 160 nn. 1 and 2 and 162-63; cf. Gratian C.23 q.8 c.33 and q.5 c. 29 (correctly attributed to St Jerome), and D.50 c.l ; cf. n. 11 above.
