PETER'S CHAINS
774
PETERSPENCE
man fell half dead. Rising to his knees he recited the
first artii'lc of the Symbol of the Apostles, and oflfer-
iii^liis blood :ui a sacrifice to God, he tlipjjcd his fingers
in It and wrote on the ground the words: "Credo in
Deiini". The murderer then pierced his heart. The
body was carried to Milan and laid in the church of
St. Eustorgio, where a magnificent m,ausoleuni, the
work of Balduccio Pisano, was -erected to his memory.
He wrought many miracles when living, butthey were
even more numerous after his martyrdom, so that In-
nocent IV canonized him on 25 March, 1253.
Marciiese, Vita'di S. Pieiro Martire (Fieaole, 1894); Hinds, A Garner of Saints iljondon, 1900); Perrens, 5i Pierre martyr el Vhcrisie des Patarins a Florence in Rev. Histor., II (1876), 337-66; Adu SS. (1078), .\pril. III, 678-86.
A. Allaria.
Peter's Chains, Feast of. See Peter, Saint.
Peterspence, otherwise known to the Anglo- Saxons as "Romfeoh" or "Romescot", is the name trachtionally given to an annual contribution or trib- ute (originally of a penny from each householder holding land of a certain value) paid to the exchequer of the Holy See by various peoples of Christendom. In the Middle Ages this form of contribution seems .almost to have been confined to England and some few other northern nations, and it was unquestionably in England that it took its rise. Neglecting some vague and unreliable traditions which ascribed the origin of "Romescot" to Ini, King of Wcssex, in 727, we are possibly on firmer ground if we identify the begin- nings of this contribution with a sum of .365 mancuses yearly, promised by Offa of Mercia, and confirmed to the pope's legates at the Synod of Chelsea in 787. The promise is mentioned in an extant letter from Pope Leo III to Kenulf, Otto's successor (Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", III, 445, 525; cf. ibid., 538). It is stated that the money was to be applied to the rehef of the poor and to providing lights for the churches of Rome, and, rather strangely, notliiiig is said of the support of the Anglo-Saxon Seliool ("Schola Saxonum") in the Borgo, which Pcpc Alex- ander II and later chroniclers closely associated with the beginnings of Peterspence. Again it seems cer- tain that Ethelwulf after his visit to Rome with his son Alfred (c. 855) ordered that three hundred mancu.ses were to be sent to the Holy See each year (.\sser, ed. Stevenson, 15, 211). Whether this was a new grant, or a confirmation of the tribute of Offa, is not clear (cf. Liebermann, "Ueber die Leges Ead- wardi", 55); neither is it certain whether this sum of 300 mancuses was to be provided out of the royal exchequer or collected in pennies from the people. We only know that not long afterwards, during the reign of Alfred, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks of the conveyance to Rome of "the donation of the Wessex folk and their king " (cf. Chron /Ethelwardi, a. d. 888), and that in the code known as the "Dooms of Edward and Guthrum", which no doubt represents the legislation of Alfred's reign, we find for the first time explicit mention of "Romfeoh" as a contribu- tion paid by the people. Under Edmund (941-4(5), at a great council of the clergy and laity held in Lon- don at Easter time, "Romfeoh" was declared to be one of the dues which must be paid by every man un- der pain of excommunication, and a later ordinance under Edgar speaks of it as the "hearth-penny" and enjoins with threats of hea\'y penalties that it must be paid by St. Peter's Massday, i. e. "Lammas", the feiust of St. Peter's Chains (1 August). That the tax was in fact collected and sent to Rome in coins of small value, archa>ological evidence has provefl. In 1883 a hoard of 835 coins was discovered in Rome, apparently near the site of one of the old papal palaces. Almost all these pieces without exception were Anglo-S.axon silviT pi-nnirs, 217 of them be.'iring the imprint of King ICdward the Elder, and 393 that of Athclstan, none of them being later than the year 947.
There can be no doubt that this find represents an in-
stalment of Peterspence sent to Rome just as it had
iK'cn collected; and the conchision is ciiiilirmed by
some other arcli:rologic,-d iliscoveri<'s of earlier date.
A remarkable letter of King Ciiiit, wiitten from Rome in 1027 to his people in England, (•xpriv.ses in solemn terms his devotion to the iloly Sec :iiid en- joins that Peterspence and some oIIut <'ccle.viMsticnl ta.xes should be paid before his return to England. "Cnut", says Dr. Jensen, "undoubtedly renewed and confirmed the donation from England to the pajial court on the occasion of this pilgrim.age to Rome." The manner of levying the tax is, however, imperfectly understood, for, as Liebermann h.as .shown (Eng. ilist. Rev., 1896, p. 746), M. Fabrc is niishiken in siippcjsinR that he has found the text of C'luit's agreement in the " Liber Censuum". In spite of Cnut's good will, con- siderable negligence about the payment of Peters- pence continued under the later Anglo-Saxon kings. After the Norman Conquest, St. Gregory VII ad- dressed a formal demand to King William in 1074. "Concerning the Peterspence to be collected in Enfj- land", he wrote, "we charge you to watch over it as if it were your own revenue. " After some delays the Conqueror wrote a conciliatory reply and, while refusing feudal homage to the p.ap.Tcy ,as not justified by any precedent, he formally recognized the claim to Peterspence and promised that tlie arrears .should be made up. But though the contribution on the whole was paid, and though various efforts and ac- commodations were made by the popes and their representatives in England, it seems clear that the collection of Peterspence was at hardly any time carried out in a way that was satisfactory to the Holy See. Innocent III on 28 Jan., 1214, wrote indignantly to the English bishops that "certain prelates having colh'cted these pence [denarios] in our name, have not been ashamed to retain the greater jiart for theni.selves. They paid us only 300 marks, usurping for their own use 1000 marks or more" (Potthast, "Regesta", no. 2635). This language, as Dr. Jensen forcibly urges, seems inconsistent w ith the idea of any formal composition assented to by the Holy See, in virtue of which the popes agreed to farm the whole proceeds of Petersjx'iiee for a payment of 300 marks. It seems, however, that this annual payment of a sum of 300 (or more strictly 299 marks) was the solution practically arrived at, and we even know the pro- portions in which this amount was levied upon the different dioceses of England.
.\nother point to be noted is that both before and after the surrender of the kingdom by King John, who made England the fief of the Holy See (see England), a certain confusion seems sometimes to have existed between Peterspence and the feudal tribute, called in Latin rrnsits, which was paid as the price of the papal protection. The two, however, were really (|uitc distinct. In 1317 Edward II acknowledged that the aiuuial feudal tribute of 1000 marks had not been paid for twenty-four years, and his agents undertook solemn engagements to pay off the arrears by instal- ments. This promise was never fulfilled. Edward HI paid this tribute for a time, but would not accept any responsibility for any outstanding debts. After 1343 no further payments were made, antlin 1.366 the tribute was fonnallv repudiated, and abolished by Parliament. On the other hand the .sum of 300 marks, which was annually due to the pope as Petenspenee, can be shown to have been collected and sent at least intermittently down to Henry VIII's breach with Rome. It was abolished in 1534, and though temporarily revived imder Mary, it was not found possible at that time to levy it throughout England.
In Sweden, Norway, and Iceland, cotmtries whose religious traditions can be shown in a number of fiifferent ways to have been borrowed fi-oin Eng- land, it seems clear that a contribution of a
