3276

October 15. Anagni. Pope Alexander IV writes to Patriarch [Jacobus Pantaléon] of Jerusalem, papal legate, and the archdeacon of Acre, stating that it was related in his presence, on behalf of Archbishop [Hugo] of Nicosia, that Pope Innocent [IV] had sent a letter to the archbishop, bishops, and other prelates and rectors of the churches of the Kingdom of Cyprus ordering them to pay a tenth of all their ecclesiastical incomes for three years to Patriarch [Opizo Fieschi] of Antioch for the fortification of Castle Cursarium (Quṣair), naming the archbishops of Caesarea (Cesariensis) and Nicosia (Nicosiensis) as executors. Eventually when the archbishop of Caesarea (Cesariensis) had legitimately committed his charge in this affair to Archbishop [Guillelmus?] of Mamistra (Mamistranus), the archbishop of Mamistra (Mamistranus), asserting that the archbishop of Nicosia (Nicosiensis) did not want to pay this tenth, de facto promulgated a sentence of excommunication against the latter, although he could not de iure, because the archbishop of Nicosia had never committed his own charge in this affair to the archbishop of Mamistra or anyone else. Afterwards, since the same patriarch tried to obtain a letter from Pope [Alexander] to Treasurer [Jordan] Berritensis concerning the fact that the archbishop of Nicosia was to be denounced publicly as excommunicate, the archbishop of Nicosia’s procurator contradicted this letter in a public hearing and obtained from the pope the assignment of Cardinal-Bishop [István Báncsa] of Palestrina (Penestrinus) as auditor for the parties in this business. When the auditor had heard the statements, on the pope’s mandate and with the advice of the cardinals, he declared that the aforesaid sentence of excommunication did not hold de iure and that the archbishop of Nicosia had not been bound by it, as is fully contained in the letter patent written by the auditor and signed with his seal. Therefore the pope agrees to the archbishop of Nicosia’s entreaties and orders the patriarch of Jerusalem and/or the archdeacon of Acre to have announced publicly on papal authority, wherever seems fitting, that the sentence of excommunication does not hold and that the archbishop Nicosia was not bound by it. The pope includes verbatim Cardinal Stephanus’ letter, dated Anagni, 25 September 1259 (q.v.), which the pope already summarized, except that Stephanus reports the claim of Hugo’s procurator that, since the archbishop of Caesarea (Cesariensis) had no authority over his co-commissioner, the archbishop of Nicosia (Nicosiensis), he could not transfer any such authority to the archbishop of Mamistra (Mamistranus).