Interdict; which book?

Here you have something easy to access and to study: a well-documented wiki article about the contention between Innocent III and John Lackland.

It shows the role of the interdiction as a strong application of ecclesiastical power.

John treated the interdict as "the equivalent of a papal declaration of war".[169]

It also shows, that it's use required careful orchestration: making sure the English Church was not destroyed by it, that papal allies were not overly damaged and thus estranged, deligitimizing John by all means possible, playing up the threat of Philip II of France deposing John.
The result was a resounding success of Innocent III: through careful politics, certainly not through indiscriminate fire-and-forget use of interdiction.

That shows how one monarch reacted to an interdict, it does not define an interdict as an actual declaration of war nor necessitate any of the other intrigues and responses you describe as part of one.
by Analogy the war of Jenkins ear was fought with the justification that a man's ear had been cut off by a foreign government while he resided there. That example does not mean that every instance of cutting a man's ear off was a declaration of war. You have taken the most extreme example and presented it as the minimum.
War of Jenkins' Ear - Wikipedia

I did not say so either, but rather:

Even this you have not supported, however. All your wiki example demonstrated was how John reacted to an interdict, nothing about how involved it actually was or what level of involvement beyond issuing an interdict was required by the Holy See. On the other hand I have documented that interdicts at the time were common which suggests a possibility for one to be forgotten about, especially in changing administrations.

I showed you, what was required from the Holy See to win the contention with John.

What exactly do you even mean by "common"?

first the holy see arguably lost the contention with John given the way things actually turned out, secondly, how they dealt with that conflict is not the same standard as what is required to issue an interdict. You are moving the goalposts to declare victory.

Hmm. John took his English kingdom as a fief from the Pope! And this allegiance remained for centuries! This I would call a resounding victory for both Innocent and the Holy See. He also accepted the archbishop of Canterbury imposed by the Pope: Stephen Langton - so gave in to the initial contention.
John got the Pope's support against his barons. After becoming the liege of John, this was in the Pope's own best interest.

Which well documented examples do you have in mind?

John gave the pope titular power but retained control over his kingdom and stopped paying the agreed upon fines 1/3 of the way through, and in addition got papal support for everything he wanted to do from that point forward. To me that looks like England kicked the pope's posterior but allowed the papacy to save face by claiming to be a fiefdom in name only.

It's your claim, you find your own documentation. I have already posted references that interdicts were common and frequently have only a listed end or start date in the historical record.

This "titular power" was used by the Holy See again and again: already the politics and wars of young Henry III were firmly guided by the papal legate in England, the Cardinal Guala Bicchieri.

There is again the undefined "common".

Your "historical record" was last time the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia - a goto for first bearings, not for documentation.
And you did not even evaluate this old Encyclopedia properly: it tells that Afonso II of Portugal received the approval of the Holy See in 1211. So there cannot have been an interdiction over Portugal at that time, giving you a latest end date.

Oh yes, and when you provide better data about your cases of interdiction, please name the kind of interdict in question with each.

See for this: Thirteenth Century: A Question of Collective Guilt - which you read, right?.

From the beginning of the 13th century, popes and canonists increasingly distinguished between an interdict on places and an interdict on persons, and defined how one worked differently from the other. They further distinguished between general and particular (or specific) forms of such interdicts. This chapter discusses different interdicts including the general local interdict, the particular local interdict, personal interdicts, and mixed sentences.

Actually the one I keep coming across where I can find an end date but not a start date is the interdict of Pisa. However I will point out that common is not simply my take, it is literally part of the summary from the oxford scholarship article I sited above. Meanwhile everything you have presented has been either a reference to how John reacted to the interdict rather than the interdict itself (and how the Pope reacted to his reaction), and your assertion that I am reading everything wrong which does not agree with you.

From that chapter:

It considers interdicts imposed on three towns: San Gimignano, Dax, and Béziers. It is shown that the interdicts on these three towns largely worked because most clergy observed them. Even so, the lay powers who occasioned these sentences tried to disrupt their enforcement.

So essentially enforcement was left to local clergy with no effort being exerted by the Holy See to actually do anything beyond issuing the interdict.

Let's see: is it the interdict imposed by Celestine III on Pisa in very late 1197 and lifted by Innocent III soon after his election on January 8th 1198?

Celestine imposed it on Pisa, because the Ghibelline town refused to join the Tuscan League founded in November 11th 1197. There must have been some time between the founding of the league and the final refusal of Pisa to join it - so there was not much time between imposing and lifting the interdict: perhaps a month.

This makes sense. But these are interdicts against towns and targeting certain citizens, parties or institutions within, not realms.

It is a book, not an article. Did you really read it?

I didn't say that those ones were. On the other hand I have repeatedly mentioned the interdict of Pisa which I have found no indication of a strong papal campaign to enforce nor a strong indication that the local clergy followed the interdict. game wise this leads to interesting questions as to whether clergy who are intentionally disobeying an interdict are furthering the divine (serving God despite orders) or the infernal (thumbing their nose at divine authority) which may be a case by case basis.
However Pisa most definitely was a state in terms of its power and influence though it appears the papacy treated it as a city and gave little thought to enforcement of its interdict.

There wasn't any. The Tuscan League got founded November 11th 1197 - and the powerful Cardinal Lotario di Segni actively opposed its founding. Celestine III was then about 91 years old. He is told to have tried to renounce his office and recommend a successor. Certainly the college of cardinals did not let him do so.

Why Celestine imposed the interdiction on the powerful maritime Republic Pisa is hard to explain.
As the major Ghibelline city in the March of Tuscany Pisa naturally opposed the Tuscan League formed under the auspices of the Pope - so forcing it to join would indeed just have been the next logical step in establishing the League. But doing so would have been a major campaign, likely involving the cities already in the League at the side of the papacy in the first line and indebting the papacy to them.

Anyway, Celestine III died January 8th 1198. At the same day, Cardinal Lotario di Segni got elected Pope Innocent III by the college of cardinals, soon revoked the interdiction of Pisa and advised Viterbo and Perugia not to join the League.

He certainly did not forget to revoke the interdiction imposed by his predecessor.

I know he didn't forget to revoke the interdict, as I have stated repeatedly I could find records about it being revoked, not about it being established. I would not expect to find a record about an interdict being forgotten, since that would intrinsically mean it had not been. My point is simply that interdicts were not always the major event you have portrayed them as and it is possible for one to be forgettable if it was not vigorously pursued. Which is really much more about story possibility than it is about history.

I definitely don't wish to get mixed into your stories!

1 Like

you have nothing to worry about on that issue.