THE SITUATION OF DOMINICAN POLITICAL THOUGHT AND ACTIVITIES IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND

by

BARRIE ALFRED BRILL

B.A., University of British Columbia, 1966

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department

of

History

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

May, 1968 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an

advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the

Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further

agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly

purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his represen•

tatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for

financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Department of History

The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada

Date May 2nd, 1968 THESIS ABSTRACT

Chairman: Father T. J. Hanrahan.

Title: The Situation o£ Dominican Political Thought and

Activities in France and England.

Examiners: This thesis investigates the political thought and activities of the French and English Dominicans. It began historically with a question concerning the nature of the work of John of Paris. Can his De potestate regia et papali be described as a fundamentally theological and philosophical exposition? Such a description would seem to imply a partial separation from the political situation in which he wrote and would see his treatise in relation to the vast mass of the theological literature of the day. In order to test this it would be sensible to undertake a comparative study and to try to see the situation of John of Paris and other Dominicans to discern the effects of this situation on their thought. To understand the major issues of medieval political thought, the preliminary chapter gives a brief account of the development of this thought. The influence which the Order of Preachers exerted on its members cannot be neglected. The heart of this thesis is found in two rather lengthy chapters dealing with the thought and activities of the members of the in both France and England. The result of this examination placed the political writings of the Dominicans in France -- of which John of Paris is the major example-- in a position apart from that of their other theological and philosophical works. In England, the philosophical and theological productions of the Dominicans are similar to those which were produced by the Dominicans in France except in one major respect, that of treatises dealing with political thought. The conclusion of this thesis is that the total situation in which these men found themselves must be taken into account in any attempt to understand their thought. In view of this it is evident that Leclercq's view must be modified to the extent that the political situation in which John of Paris wrote explains in part the fact that he wrote a treatise dealing with political affairs. The De potestate regia et papali cannot be regarded merely as a theological and philosophical exposition comme les autres. -iii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Chapter I 5

Chapter II 26

Chapter III 45

Chapter IV . 90

Conclusion 136

List of Abbreviations 139

Notes for Introduction 140

Notes for Chapter I . . . 141

Notes for Chapter II . 149

Notes for Chapter III • 158

Notes for Chapter IV 186

Notes for Conclusion 203

Bibliography 204

Appendix I 224 -iv-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to Father Hanrahan who has directed my Graduate work in Medieval History. His understanding, patience, and assistance has.contributed more to this work than I will ever be able to acknowledge.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the Staff of the Library of the University of British Columbia who were able to find many scarce works for me. I would also like to thank the Staff of the Libraries of the University of Washington and the University of California, Berkeley, who made my visits to those institutions so enjoyable. INTRODUCTION

This thesis had its origin in an investigation of the political thought of the French Dominican, John of Paris. His major political treatise was the De potestate regia et papali which was written during the last stages of the conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV.

The modern editor of the treatise, Dom Jean Leclercq, O.S.B., denies that the De_ potestate regia et papali is merely polemic and argues that it is a serious attempt to solve basic theological and philo• sophical issues."- Such a judgement of the treatise of John of Paris tends to ignore the political situation in which ±'he Dominican was writing. Leclercq fully realizes that John of Paris signed the appeal for a council against the and he also acknowledges the fact that many of the arguments developed in the De potestate regia et papali echo the charges made by Philip IV and his ministers against the pontiff. In spite of these facts, Leclercq insists that the treatise is primarily a theological and philosophical exposition rather than an exercise in polemic. The investigation of the political thought of the French and English Dominicans and the situation in which they were working will offer another interpretation of the work of John of Paris.

In both France and England relations with the Papacy were dis• rupted by the issuance of by Boniface VIII. This bull involved the issue of clerical taxation which was concerned with the relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers. In France, Philip IV reacted to the bull in a most vigorous way. Edward I also regarded Clericis laicos as a threat but his solution to the problem posed by the bull was very different from that of Philip IV.

It was during this conflict that John of Paris composed his tract, the De potestate regia et papali. Since the conflict posed the same problem in both England and Prance, it might seem logical to assume that similar treatises discussing political thought would be written in England, But no treatises similar to that of John of Paris were written during the conflict in England. It would seem that the different nature of the conflict in the two kingdoms explains, in part, at least, the fact that one finds a number of treatises dealing with political thought written in France during the conflict, while, at the same time, in a roughly similar conflict, no literature of this kind can be found in England.

John of Paris revealed himself to be fully conversant with the political literature of the period. This Dominican was working in one of the most vigorous provinces of the Order. The Dominican province of

England did not have to bow to France since it produced many important scholars. In England, as elsewhere, the Dominican became in• volved in secular activities. One might think that these men who were directly involved in the secular world would give a theoretical justifi• cation for their secular activities in their scholastic works.

If a Dominican scholar wished to discuss political matters, he was given an adequate opportunity in his theological studies when he composed a Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Thomas

Aquinas in his Commentary on the Sentences provided one of the most im• portant passages on the relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers to be found in the corpus of his work. Naturally, one wonders whether other Dominicans would emulate their confrere and use their

Commentaries on the Sentences as a vehicle for political discussion.

When the works of individual Dominican authors in England are investigated, one finds little political comment in them. Therefore, it can be said that Dominican political thought did not exist in a vacuum nor was it something that was necessarily diffused throughout the entire Order. It becomes apparent that a discussion of political thought by a Dominican author was usually occasioned by the specific situation within which he was working. Furthermore, it seems that many of the elements contained in the political thought of Dominican authors was conditioned by the influence of the structure of the quasi-democra• tic Order of which they were members.

In order to understand the political thought of the Dominicans, it is necessary to have some conception of the main features of medieval political thought as well as the nature of the medieval state. A dis• cussion of these related subjects constitutes the first chapter of the thesis. The second chapter describes the main features of the structure of the Order of Preachers, its educational organization, and finally, the attitude of the governing bodies of the Order to the secular activi• ties undertaken by some Dominican friars. In the third chapter, we turn to France where the conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV

is presented in some detail, along with an examination of the role played by the French Dominicans in this crisis which provides the necessary background to the scholarly work of John of Paris. The

fourth chapter of the thesis includes a detailed examination of the

conflict over Clericis laicos in England together with material which illustrates the political activities of the English Dominicans in the period from 1250 until 1350 and an investigation of the scholarly works of some English Dominicans in order to ascertain the nature of their political thought. In the conclusion, an attempt will be made to draw some tentative judgements concerning the political thought of the

French and English Dominicans. CHAPTER I

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THOUGHT

The major problem which faced any medieval political theorist -

theologian, philosopher, or legist - was the relationship between the

temporal and spiritual powers. The theories advanced concerning this

crucial relationship varied but the theorists usually addressed them- 1

selves to similar questions. The period from about 1250 until about

1350 is crucial. In this period, many of the traditional political doctrines were modified in the light of developments in law,

Roman law and philosophy. This period begins with the death of the

Emperor Frederick II, the Stupor mundi, in 1250. In this last great

struggle with the Empire, the Papcy had emerged victorious. With

the death of Frederick, the problem of the Empire and its relations with the Papcy was brought to a conclusion except for a brief contro- 2 versy between Pope John XXII and Lewis of Bavaria. But while the

Papcy had won a victory over the Empire, it met with defeat during

the pontificate of Boniface VIII in a dispute with Philip IV of

France and .

In this chapter, there will be three major divisions:

(1) Basic Political Issues of the Middle Ages.

(2) The Development of , Roman Law and Aristotelian

Philosophy.

(3) The Development of the State. -6-

(1) Basic Political Issues of the Middle Ages

Much of the political thought of the Middle Ages was influenced

by Augustine's view of the state. For Augustine, writing early in

the fifth century, the state was necessitated by the sinful nature of 3 man. In order to promote the peace and welfare of mankind, God

allowed states to develop. Augustine's view of the state, which was

not severely challenged until the recovery of the Politics of

Aristole in the thirteenth century, exerted a profound influence upon

Christian attitudes toward secular governments throughout the Middle

Ages.

At the end of the fifth century, clearly stated

the relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers. In a

letter to the Byzantine emperor Anastasius, Gelasius declared: ... Two there are, august emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, the sacred authority of pontiffs and the royal power. Of these the burden laid upon priests is heavier since they will answer for kings themselves to the Lord at the divine judgement. Indeed, you know, most clement son that, although you take precedence over all mankind in dignity, never• theless you bow your head faithfully to those who control spiritual matters and seek from them the means of your , and therefore you know that, in the order of religion and in those things concerned with the administration and reception of the Holy Sacraments, you ought to submit yourself rather than rule. Accordingly, you know that, in these matters, you ought to be dependent upon their judgement rather than to wish to bend them to your will.^ This statement clearly enunciated the principle that there were two

separate powers or authorities which ruled the world. Each of these

was independent of the other and remained supreme within its own sphere. -7-

Nonetheless, Gelasius realized that the two powers or authorities could not avoid relations with one another and that they were mutually dependent upon one another. At the same time, Gelasius also clearly stated the principle that the spiritual authority was to the temporal.

The dualist conception of Pope Gelasius became one of the corner• stones of medieval political theory. However, the Gelasian doctrine was to be significantly altered in subsequent periods. By the ninth century, an essential change had occurred. In his introduction to the De Institutione Regia, written about 830 for a son of Louis the

Pious, Jonas of Orleans prefaced his citation of the Gelasian two power concept with this explanation which well illustrates the change which had occurred: "All the faithful must know that the

Universal Church is the Body of Christ, that the same Christ is its head and that there are in it principally two distinguished persons, namely the priestly and the kingly • Jonas of Orleans then quotes the words of the letter of Gelasius to the Emperor Anastasius.

While in the Gelasian concept, the world had been ruled by two powers or authorities, by the Carolingian period, this relatively neutral concept of the world has been superceded by a concept of the Church as the Body of Christ. The Church, as the Body of Christ, has become an institution in which both the spiritual and temporal powers function.^

Thus, the Empire and kingdoms were incorporated into the Church and did not stand beside the Church as in the original' concept of Gelasius.

Generally, this conception of Christian unity which had evolved during the Carolingian period remained dominant until the pontificate of

Gregory VII. -8-

Certainly a factor which contributed to the difficulty of properly ordering the two powers was the conception of kingship which had evolved during the period from until that of Gregory VII. The temporal power had acquired a quasi-sacerdotal character which tended to obscure any sharp distinction between itself and the spiritual.

From the pontificate of Gregory VII, there was a distinct change.

The pontiffs, from Gregory VII to Innocent III, tended to view rulers less and less as functionaries of the Church and more and more as the leaders of people and the holders of territories.1^* When the sacra-, mental system of the Church was finally settled in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, royal consecration was not to be found amongst the sacraments. The quasi-sacerdotal character of kings and emperors had been intimately connected with consecration. It was the central• ized Church of the Pope in which attempted to eradicate the spiri• tual nature of royal consecration. As far as the Papacy was 11 concerned, royal consecration had lost its spiritual significance.

Gregory VII's own thought concerning the relationship between the two powers is well illustrated by his letter to Bishop Hermann of Metz: 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt~ bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what• soever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' (Matth. 16: 18, 19). Are kings ex• cepted here? Or are they not of the sheep which the Son of God committed to St. Peter.^ -y-

For Gregory, rulers were under the Pope. He conceived of his own office as that of the pastor of the flock of Christ. In order to protect this flock, he was prepared to take any measure which were necessary. In the , he claimed the power to depose an 13 emperor and to absolve subjects from their fealty to an overlord.

Gregory never claimed to be the temporal ruler of the world. The powers accorded to him were to be used for reform and for the protec• tion of the welfare of Christians. Thus, he had the power to depose an emperor or a king -- a power which might;be needed to preserve the welfare of Christians.^

In the Gregorian period, the term Christianitas, that is, 15

Christendom, appears. The term was often used by Gregory in his letters and continued to be used ..in the papal chancery after his death. The term is important since "It signifies the Christian people and peoples as distinct from the Church as the supernatural

Body of Christ and from the Church as the 'corporation' of the clergy." Indeed, the beginning of the concept of the Church as a clerical corporation is. closely allied to the reappearance of the 17 idea of Christendom. The conception of the Church was changing since it was now not only the Body of Christ but also a clerical corporation. These developments in the Gregorian and post-Gregorian period were significant since they allowed the question of the relationship of the two powers to reappear in a much clearer form.

In the Carolingian conception of Christian unity, both the temporal and spiritual powers had functioned within the Church. With the appearance of the idea of Christendom, the two powers no longer -10-

function within the Church but rather they function within a

Christian society. Between the Carolingian period and that of Gregory

VII, the temporal power had been endowed with a spiritual character which made a sharp differentiation between the powers difficult to achieve. The situation certainly began to change in the Gregorian period. From the time of Gregory VII, there were really two traditions existing side by side — the Carolingian tradition in which the temporal and spiritual powers were embodied within the Church and the Gregorian tradition in which the temporal and spiritual powers functioned within a Christian society which was distinct from the Church. -11-

(2) The Development of Canon law, Roman law and Aristotelian Philosophy.

At the beginning of the twelfth century, ecclesiastical law was a wholly unorganized body of material consisting of the canons of various councils, papal letters and papal which were gathered into local or private collections. However, Canon law was organized in the Concordia discordantium canonum or Decretum of Gratian, about 1140, into a coherent body of law. It seems probable that the revitalization of Roman law, which occurred in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, prompted the canonists to wield their own law into a system 18 comparable in scope to Roman law. Gratian's work was quickly adopted as a universally acceptable code of ecclesiastical law. The Decretum, emphasizing the role of the pope as supreme judge and legislator in 19 the Church, promoted the centralization of the Church under the pope.

It is significant that within two or three generations, a universal ecclesiastical law and a universal secular law appeared in the early twelfth century. Both laws were studied carefully and methodically in order to explain contradictions and other difficulties.

The Decretum of Gratian contained many texts which provided the canonists with ample opportunities to discuss the relationship of the temporal and spiritual powers. Many statements of Gelasius I were incorporated into the Decretum including the celebrated Duo sunt 20 passage. Subsequent canonist discussion of the problem of the two powers is well illustrated by the various interpretations of D. 96 c. 6

(The emperor should not usurp the rights of the Pontiff, nor should the 21

Pontiff usurp the rights of the emperor). Two eminent canonists of the late twelfth century at Bologna, Huguccio and Alanus, presented their commentaries on this text which revealed the two major trends in -12-

canonist thought concerning the question of the two powers.

Huguccio, in his commentary on D. 96 c. 6, stated that until the coming of Christ the two powers were not separated but were joined in one person. However, Christ himself separated the offices and the rights of emperor and pontiff. The reason for the separation or the creation of the two offices, according to Huguccio, was that "If the

emperor or the pontiff held all offices he would easily grow proud but now since each needs the other and sees that he is not fully self- 22

sufficient he is made humble Huguccio went on to state that

each of the powers was directly derived from and instituted by God.

Thus, the two powers were independent although, at the same time, they were mutually dependent upon one another. In this sense, Huguccio can

really be considered as following the dualist tradition of Gelasius.

Alanus clearly represented another tradition which was developing

in canonist thought. He stated that the pope held both swords and went on to argue that: Again if the emperor was not subject to the pope in he could not sin against the church in temporalities. Again the church is only one body and so it shall have only one head or it will become a monster.^ Alanus saw few restrictions which could impede the exercise of papal 24

power in temporal affairs. The only concession which he was willing

to make to the inherent dualism of the text upon which he was commenting

was that the pope himself could not hold both swords and thus dispense

with secular rulers entirely. Thus, at the beginning of the thirteenth

century, there were two traditions in canonist thought -- dualism in a

modified Gelasian sense and the monist or theocratic view which envisaged

the spiritual power in a way which made temporal rulers wholly dependent -13-

upon the papacy.

In the thirteenth century, canonist thought concerning the two powers was developed more fully particularly by Innocent III and

Innocent IV. Innocent III intervened in temporal affairs on many occasions but the professed reason for his action was never that he possessed supreme temporal jurisdiction as pontiff. Innocent III always found another justification for his action. For instance, in

1204, Innocent III intervened in a dispute which had broken out between

Philip Augustus of France and John of England over Normandy. Innocent attempted to mediate in this dispute which ostensibly erupted over the feudal relationship between the two monarchs. In the Novit, the pope clearly stated his position: "For we [i.e. the pope] do not intend to judge concerning feudal matters .... but to settle matters related to sin ...." Innocent III declared that Philip Augustus was pursuing a sinful path, a path which had led to the outbreak of war.

It was clearly the onerous burden of the pope to preserve and to defend the peace of Christendom. In addition, the case involved a breach of a solemn oath which was also a matter which clearly fell under the jurisdiction of the Church. In such a situation, Innocent III felt that he possessed the right to intervene.

The decretal Per venerabilem of Innocent III was the outcome of a petition of Count William of in 1202 to the pope for the legitimization of the children born of his mistress. While the pope clearly possessed the right to legitimize children so that they could become clerics, the central issue at stake was that William of

Montpellier desired the legitimization of his bastard sons so that they could become his heirs in the temporal sphere. Shortly before this -14-

request, Innocent III had legitimized two illegitimate sons of Philip

Augustus.

Innocent III refused the request of William of Montpellier although he pointed out that the papacy possessed the power to grant such a request. The pope's reason for this refusal was that while the king of France had no temporal superior, William of Montpellier had a superior in temporalities, the king of France, to whom he should make his request. In Per venerabilem, Innocent III stated that he possessed considerable powers within the purely temporal sphere -- powers which he did not choose to exercise in this particular case. In the same decretal, Innocent steadfastly maintained that the pope could act as the supreme judge in all cases whether spiritual or temporal, particularly when there were difficulties or ambiguities. The judge• ment of the pope was to be accepted by all under pain of excommuni-

?8 cation.

Of course various interpretations can be placed upon Innocent Ill's theoretical justification for his intervention into temporal affairs,

Centainly, Innocent Ill's provided a firm foundation for extensive papal intervention in temporal affairs. Nevertheless, when . he intervened, Innocent usually chose a basis upon which the disputing 29 parties were likely to accept. In any assessment of the pontificate and the thought of Innocent III, it should be remembered that he always envisaged two powers within Christendom, while, at the same time, he maintained that the pope was placed at the head of both orders since he had inherited the power of Christ who had been both priest and king.

Innocent Ill's intervention into the temporal sphere was usually coupled with subtle reservations and qualifications which were often disregarded by the canonists who used his legislation as the basis for their own thought.

The canonists placed various interpretations upon the thought and the claims of Innocent III. The renowned canonist Sinibaldus Fieschi, who became Innocent IV, has often been presented as an upholder of papal 30 absolutism in temporal affairs. However, recent research has shown that Innocent IV tended to follow the reservations of Innocent III in 31 his activities as pontiff and in his canonical thought. Hostiensis was the only canonist of the mid-thirteenth century whose reputation equalled that of Innocent IV. In general, Hostiensis followed the theocratic tradition in canonist thought which had been most clearly ennunciated by Alanus at the beginning of the century. He too felt that the pope ought not to retain both swords. Secular rulers wielded the temporal sword in order to perform those sordid tasks of political coercion which were necessary and which the clergy could not perform.

This concept of the "separation" of the powers was a highly distorted form of dualism -- in fact, the dualist position was interpreted in such a way as it ceased to exist in a viable form in the thought of Hostiensis.

Thus, by the mid-thirteenth century, two traditions coexisted in canonist thought. These traditions were to persist. The first tradition was that of dualism which recognized that there were two separate powers or orders in society. These were at once separate and yet at the same time mutually dependent. The spiritual power was recognized as superior to the temporal in some respects. Along side this tradition, developed the monist or theocratic position. It too recognized that there were two powers or orders in society. However, recognizing that the spiritual was superior, it re-interpreted the relationships between the two powers -16-

in such a way that the spiritual completely dominated the temporal power.

The only concession to dualism in this tradition was the recognition that the pope could not hold both swords at the same time. Neverthe• less, in this view, temporal rulers existed only at the sufferance of the papacy.

In the last half of the thirteenth century, canonist thought concerning the relationship between the two powers could draw upon two traditions. In general, it was dualist when faced with a particular practical problem. However, when the balance of the two powers was seriously threatened, the canonists and often yielded to the temptation of framing an answer in monist and theocratic terms. The dualist conception had originally been developed in order to curb imperial pretensions, however, temporal claims based upon another foundation were very difficult to combat with dualist arguments. On the whole, the theocratic or monist position was used by the canonists only to combat serious threats to the balance of the two powers and this position was only a momentary aberration -- a reaction to a definite 32 threat.

The study of Roman law provided the strongest theoretical basis for royal claims in much the same way as the study of canon law provided the theoretical basis for papal claims. Although Roman law had never ceased to be studied during the earlier Middle Ages, the scientific study of the law only began when a virtually complete text of the Digest was recovered at Pisa and when Irnerius began to teach Roman law at Bologna 33 in 1084. The study of the Corpus Iuris Civilis revealed a ruler who 34 powers appeared as concessions granted by a completely sovereign ruler. possessed vast legislative powers. In Justinian's texts, clerical The legal conception of Roman law facilitated the development whereby theorists began to view the Church as well as kingdoms and the empire 35 in terms of law. The Church and political entities were beginning to be thought of as institutions whose personnel had specific rights and juridical powers. Thus, Roman law contributed to the process by which rights and duties were clarified and their relations were defined in legal terms.

The most difficult problem which faced the legists was that the

Corpus Iuris Civilis was dominated by the idea of the Empire. It was difficult to apply the maxims of Roman law to the political organizations which existed apart from the Empire. It was the canonists who solved this problem for the legists. In the decretal Per venerabilem,

Innocent III had stated that "the king [of France] recognizes no superior in temporalities." This led the legists of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to develop the axiom Rex superiorem non recognoscens est imperator in regno suo, that is, a king who does not recognize a 37 superior is emperor in his kingdom. The question of whether a king was independent of the Empire did not matter since if the ruler was recognized as "emperor in his kingdom" then the notions of Roman law applied to him equally as well as to the Emperor himself.

With the recovery of the works of in the thirteenth century, an entirely new element was added to political discussion. The first complete translation of the Politics of Aristotle had been com- 38 pleted by the Dominican, William of Moerbeke, about 1260. It seems that the ideas of the legists and canonists helped to prepare the minds of the philosophers for the reception of the ideas found in Aristotle which facilitated the rapid incorporation of these ideas into medieval -18-

thought.

The Politics of Aristotle stated unequivocal)Ty that man was, by nature, a social and political animal while the conception of the work could be said to be that the community or state was a human institution which could satisfy all the social needs of mankind.^ The spirit of

Aristotle's Politics was wholly secular. This was in sharp contrast to the Augustinian view of the state which had prevailed up to this time.

For Augustine, the state had been necessitated by the sinful nature of man. However, for Aristotle, the community or state evolved because of man's nature, it was natural and good in itself and it was not the result of sin.

The dangers inherent within Aristotelian works was recognized by the papacy itself. This recognition with certain qualifications can be seen in Gregory IX's prohibition of the use of the natural works of

Aristotle in 1231. In this prohibition, Gregory IX stated that "these are said to contain both useful and useless material" and he directed the scholars at Paris in "examining these books in a manner which is convenient, subtle and prudent, you may cut out completely that which you may find there which is erroneous, scandalous or offensive to readers and that which is suspect having been completely removed, the rest may be studied without delay or offence.The pope's attitude towards

Aristotle's treatises on nature was characteristic of the view taken by the ecclesiastical authorities on all the works of Aristotle. There was a recognition that the Aristotelian works contained material which must be studied, but, at the same time, this study must be directed.

In many ways, the work of marks the culmination of the effort made by medieval scholars to build a philosophy based upon -19-

Aristotelian ideas. Aquinas felt that there might be many forms of

truth, and because they were truth, these various forms were ultimately reconcilable. Aquinas acknowledged that each of the forms of truth might have an unequal degree of validity but that all the varied forms had to be taken into account. Thus, Thomist philosophy was not merely

Aristotelian in content since the synthesis produced by Aquinas in• cluded not only Aristotelian ideas but also Platonic, neo-Platonic and 42

Christian ideas as well. The Thomist synthesis embodied a

Christianized Aristotle which was less secular in spirit and was firmly directed to serving the needs of a Christian society. However, it was

Aristotle himself, rather than the Christianized Aristotle of Aquinas, who was read and studied by the students and the masters of the universities. -20-

(3) The Development of the Medieval State.

The twelfth and thirteenth centuries witnessed the development of what can be called national states. There were many rulers in Europe who recognized no temporal superior and who considered their position as that of an "emperor in his own realm." During the same period, feelings of nationalism were being expressed in many of the independent kingdoms of Europe. There was no Latin word for the state in the Middle Ages which corresponds to the contemporary sense of the state as a geographic ^ 3 and political unit. While historians have often used the term "state" with reference to the political entities of the , a fundamental question remains to be answered, that is, what was the nature of the medieval state? Our discussion of this problem will be limited to the kingdoms of France and England.

Modern theorists are unanimous in requiring three prerequisites for the contemporary state: a territory, a population and a governmental 44 system. Certainly, it is obvious that the political entities of the later Middle Ages such as England and France fulfill these basic require• ments .

Generally, the twelfth century had recognized spheres of influence rather than a definite boundary to the state. The power of the king tended to weaken as it extended out from the seat of government. How• ever, by the thirteenth century, the power of the government of the king was thought to extend to a precise boundary without diminishing in strength. -21-

In both England and France, the royal government gradually increased its control over the people within its territory during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. While local units were tolerated and allowed a share in the government, the central government of the monarch was recog• nized as the dominant power within the realm. Local units were forced to recognize that their power was held only at the acquiescence of the 46 central government. Another feature of the central governments of

France and England was the increase in the number of paid governmental . As the governments extended their rights, there was usually an increase in the amount of business which they had to undertake. In both France and England, local notables were used to perform various governmental functions in their localities without pay. Together, the increased number of paid officials and the use of local notables to perform the business of government likely contributed to the prestige of 47 the central government. Royal courts met more frequently and welcomed appeals from subordinate courts extending the king's power and authority into every corner of the realm.

The English and French lawyers developed ideas which supported the practices of their respective governments. The idea that there was a definite superior in the kingdom, who supervised the work of local 48 governments, appeared in England earlier than in France. The Dictum of Kenilworth had stated: " . . . the king, and his legitimate orders and instructions, must be fully obeyed by each and every man, great and 49 small, in the realm." Much earlier, Glanville had stated "what pleases the prince has the force of law.""^ In the same passage, Glanville also asserted that laws could be made, in doubtful cases, by the king with the advice of his magnates. At the end of the thirteenth century, the French legist Beaumanoir wrote: "... the king may make such estab• lishments as please him for the common welfare, and those which he establishes ought to be obeyed.Clearly, by the end of the thirteenth century, the kings of France and England were not only acting as the supreme authorities within their realms but were recognized as such in the treatises of the lawyers.

By the mid-thirteenth century, the governments of both England and 52

France justified taxation on the grounds of necessitas. As a concept, necessitas meant more than public need and included what later would be called raison d'etat. In an emergency, it was generally felt that the king had the right, and, according to some theorists, the duty, to over• ride the limits upon his power set by custom and tradition in order to preserve and to protect the kingdom. In fact, both Edward I and Philip IV, at the end of the thirteenth century, used the maxim derived from Roman law, quod omnes tangit (what touches all), in order to justify their 53 actions in the face of a grave emergency. This maxim expressed the concept that whenever the state was threatened, that is, a case of necessitas existed, then all the members of the kingdom, both clergy and laity, should discuss the matter in common and contribute from their goods together. This concept stressed the corporate nature of the king• dom. It was employed successfully by both Edward I and Philip IV in order to obtain revenue from the clergy of their kingdoms. By the end of the thirteenth century, the rulers and their advisers both in France and England had developed the concept of necessitas to the point where it was closely akin to the secular notation of raison d'etat.

The development of the corporate nature of the state was intimately 54 linked with the development of nationalism. Until the mid-thirteenth century, at least, nationalism had been regarded with suspicion by lay and ecclesiastical rulers alike. The development of nationalism threatened both Christendom and the Empire with regional particularism. However, the growth of centralized governments in countries such as England and

France tended to reduce the differences between the constituent areas and increased the differences between countries.

In fact, by 1300, the governments of England and France were actively promoting the nationalistic feelings of their people. During his struggle with France, Edward I told the magnates that the King of France "has set out to eradicate the English language wholly from the land.""*^ The senti• ments of the king were echoed by the chroniclers. For instance, after the seizure of Gascony by Philip IV, Edward I demanded heavy taxes from every person in the realm. The chronicler Langtbft described the need for taxa• tion with the following words:

England is now much poorer than it was. Nevertheless ought every one pray to God That our king Edward be quite successful, And that he may by our aids recover his right. If he were overcome, as may God not will him to be, The church of England would be reduced to such an ill condition, That neither clerk nor layman would find wherewith to live.

The proud Frenchman would bring us so low, And cause us to be honoured no more than dogs. One may seek money, money comes and goes; Then it is better worth to give it as long as one has it, Than to live like a caitiff in suffering so extreme.57

Langtoft's statement probably expresses the feelings of many Englishmen at this time.

In France, the government appealed quite openly to the forces of nationalism. Repeated efforts were made, on the part of the government, -24-

to portray Boniface VIII as anti-French and as a heretic. In the assembly

held at Paris in June, 1303, Guillaume de Plasian, one of the chief

advisers of Philip IV, accused the Pope of stating that "he himself would

rather be a dog or an ass or any brute animal, rather than a Frenchman," which, as Plasian adds involved since "he would not say if he 58 believed that the French had a soul." -

However, utterances of nationalistic sentiments were by no means

limited to the ministers of the French king. After the defeat at

Courtrai in 1302, a certain French cleric delivered a patriotic sermon 59

on the text I Machabees 3: 19-22. The cleric, whose name remains un•

known, began his sermon by exalting the holy character of the royal house

of France. The French kings were since they protected the Church;

they sired new saints; and they were able to work miracles, that is, they

could heal scrofula. These arguments were designed to prove the right•

eousness of the French cause against the Flemmings. After all, a holy

dynasty was not likely to wage an unjust war. As the sermon progressed, virtually all goodness and the welfare of Christendom itself was tied to

a French victory: The peace of the king is the peace of the kingdom; the peace of the kingdom is the peace of the Church, knowledge, virtue and justice, and it aids the acquisition of the ."0 The cleric has tied the secular policy of the king of France to the most cherished programs of the papacy. He has no difficulty in making this

straightforward conclusion:

Therefore, he, who wages war against the king [of France], works against the whole Church, against doctrine, against holiness and justice, and against the Holy Land. 61- It is interesting to note that , one of the chief legal advisers of Philip IV and the instigator of the incident, similarly identified the interests of the French state with the interests of the Church. He defended his actions against Boniface VIII on the grounds that they were done to defend the French kingdom, which, as he claimed, was an integral part of the Church. The welfare of each part of the Church was vital to the welfare of the whole Church in the mind of Nogaret.

Although the medieval kingdoms, such as France and England, appear to be fragile creations when compared to the modern state, the power they possessed was real enough to alarm Boniface VIII, and, indeed a determined monarch such as Philip IV or Edward I was able to withstand any blow delivered by the papacy. Such monarchs demanded, and, in the final analysis, received the loyalty of all their subjects. Once the superiority of the government of the king was recognized by the Church, these governments had no further quarrel with the Church. Lay govern• ments were further strengthened by the development of patriotism or nationalism. Thus, by 1300, many of the political entities of Europe may be called states. CHAPTER II

:THE .•• INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE AND EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF

THE DOMINICAN ORDER

The significance of the political activities and the scholastic productions of the members of the Dominican Order cannot be fully appre• ciated without some understanding of the institutional structure and educational organization within which they worked. A key to obtaining this knowledge can be found in the name of the Order itself —- the Order of Preachers. Preaching was the means by which the Dominican saved souls. This fact was noted in the introduction to the constitu• tions of the Order which stated that". . . it is recognized that from its foundation our Order was established particularly for preaching and the salvation of souls . . . Preaching was an onerous task which could not be undertaken by anyone without careful training. The fifth master- general, Humbert de Romans, in his Super Constitutiones Fratrum

Praedicatbrum recognized this fact when he wrote ". . . study is not the end of the Order, but it is exceedingly necessary for its stated ends, namely, the work of preaching and the salvation of souls, for without study neither can be reached. . . ."^ Therefore, while study, particu• larly of , was not an end of the Dominican Order, it facilitated the successful accomplishment of the dual purposes of the Order— preaching and the salvation of souls.

In this chapter, there will be three major divisions: (1). The.Institutional Structure of the.Dominican Order.

, (2).. The .Educational Organization of the.Dominican Order.

(3) The.Attitude of the .Authorities of the Dominican Orderto

Secular Activities.

These features of the Order of Preachers will be discussed in.a general way. ^ (1) The Institutional Structure of the Dominican Order.:

St. Dominic, the founder of the Order of Preachers, was a.student, a priest, a canon and a member of a chapter which had adopted the

Augustinian Rule and the discipline of Premontre. The one distinguishing feature of this future was his desire to labor for the salvation of souls. This consuming desire led him from his native Spain to the south of France, in Languedoc, where he.worked to convert the Albigensian heretics. It was here, from 1205 until about 1207, that he laboured and gradually was joined by a group of companions. This small group went to

Toulouse to study in order to become more efficient in their task of saving the souls of men. Innocent III asked Dominic to.choose a rule for his group which should be presented for approval by the papacy.

When confronted with this task, Dominic had to bear in mind that the

Fourth Lateran Council had decreed that no new orders should be allowed and that all new bodies should choose one of the rules which were already in existence."* Naturally, Dominic, himself an Augustinian canon, took the so-called Rule of St. Augustine as the basis for his Order, adding to it the constitutions which were chiefly drawn from the observance of

Premontre.-*

In origin then, the Order was a . The Order of Preachers was confirmed as such by Honorius III on December 16, 1216.

On the same day, in another bull, the pontiff described the Dominicans as champions of the faith and lights of the world.^ The Dominican friar was very different from the quasi-monastic canon of Premontre. Whereas the Praemonstratensian canon belongs to a particular abbey and has the cure of souls in a particular , the Dominican friar belongs to the whole Order and the whole world. It.is true that the friar belongs to a particular house and province but he.is under no vow to stay.at a parti•

cular place and will move when he is directed by his superiors.

Dominic, at first, broke with established monastic tradition by renouncing the possession of property although the use of revenues de• rived from property was retained. The first general chapter held at

Bologna in 1220 decreed that even these revenues should be relinquished.

Q

The Order adopted the ideal of absolute material poverty. The.admini• strative authorities and the constitutions of the Order provided a balance which directed the institution so that it could pursue Its pri• mary aims of preaching and the salvation of souls with as few.hindrances as possible.

The friars of the Dominican Order were canons who lived.according to the Rule of St. Augustine. The Rule of St. Augustine was supplemented by the cOnstitutiones, that is, constitutions, which were directly con• cerned with . such matters as the daily life of the individual friar as well as the government of the entire Order.y Provision was made so that

the constitutions could be altered— any modification, deletion or

addition which.was approved by.three successive annual general-chapters was incorporated into the constitutions.*^

The Dominican Order was divided into provinces'. to facilitate Its

administration. The entire Order was governed by a general-chapter which supervised the work of the master-general while each.province was

governed by a provincial chapter which directed the provincial .

The chapters met annually and each kept records which have been called

acta.^ The acta represent the final decisions reached by these bodies

and, consequently, there is no indication of the discussions which preceded the legislation. The co-existence of these two types of

documents, the constitutions and the acta, enable s; the historian to

trace the constant preoccupations of those authorities who controlled

the Order and allows.him to test one type of document against the other.

The Dominican Order was a self-governing body which was subject

only to the authority of the pope. It.was ruled by a master-general who was chosen by a general chapter composed.of the representatives of

each province,of the Order. Each province had a corresponding organi•

zation and was directed by a provincial prior who was elected in the

provincial chapter in which members from every convent in the province were

represented. The individual convent was governed by a prior elected by

the friars of that convent. Perhaps the most significant feature of the

Order was the elective system by which those who governed.the Order at

every level were placed in their positions. Furthermore, their tenure in

office, with the exception of the master-general, was limited to a speci•

fic number of years . After the friar had served his term in office, he

returned to his former duties. Each.officer of the Order was answerable

for his.actions.to the chapter which.elected him or to the chapter above

him. Both these bodies could and did punish or depose those officers whose work was not judged to be satisfactory.

Many features of the Dominican Order are striking, particularly the

quasi-democratic nature of the structure of the Order.-^ Every superior

in the Dominican Order was elected.and was responsible to the elected

chapters. This was in sharp contrast to the older religious orders.

Furthermore, the chapters formed the basis of the authority in the Order

which did not filter down throughout the structure of the Order but rather

authority moved upwards through the ranks of the Order. -31-

The basis of the Order was the.convent in which the prior was elec• ted by the friars and was responsible to them for his actions. The.next level of the.government of the Order was the provincial chapter. This body elected the provincial prior. The provincial chapter was not appointed by the general chapter or the master-general but rather those attending it were elected by each of the convents of the province. Those atten• ding the provincial chapter also elected the representatives of the province who were to attend the general chapter of the Order. In this way, authority in the Order.moved upwards through the ranks of the friars. The general chapter.of the Order supervised the work of the master-general and elected new masters-general when the office became vacant. The general chapter of the Order was primarily a legislative body while the provincial chapter tended to-be more concerned with discipline. Thus, within the Dominican

Order there were definite features which may be described as democratic as well as a division of power between the various administrative bodies of the Order. These features distinguished the Dominican Order from the older religious orders.

The Dominican Order possessed a highly efficient organization. The

Order was never divided by.controversy in the same way as the during the Middle Ages. Each friar, upon entering the Order, promised

1 3 obedience to the master-general. The somewhat dry legalistic expressions of the constitutions left no doubt as to the powers accorded to each officer of the Order. The Order had a definite purpose and everything included in the constitutions was directed to the fulfillment of that purpose. .-32?

(2) The Educational Organization of the Dominican Order

It has already been indicated that study was essential to the Domini•

can Order if it was to fulfill its dual purposes, preaching and the

salvation of souls. For this reason, it is necessary to investigate the

place which study and learning occupied in the Order. That study and

learning were essential tools for the preachers was recognized by one of

the most distinguished English Dominicans of the thirteenth century,

Robert Kilwardby. Kilwardby stated that "The chapters, conferences,

tractates and studies of this Order intend to do nothing other than to

prepare men for the salvation of souls, and, once prepared and trained in

life and knowledge, to assign them to the conversion of sinners."-^ The

pursuit of study and learning conditioned many aspects of Dominican life.

The intellectual tendency of the Order can be seen at the moment of

its foundation. Before the Order had been organized, Dominic and his

followers attended the lectures of Alexander Stavensby at Toulouse.

Later, the Dominican friar was a common sight in the university towns of

Europe. When Dominic, in one of his last acts, sent thirteen friars to England, these men chose Oxford as the site of the first

Dominican convent in England.''-'

The Dominican Order was founded at a time when there was a great need for education. The lower clergy was poorly educated and the Papacy wished

to see the extention of sound of theological training to this level. It has been estimated that at the beginning of the thirteenth century there were no more than a dozen persons who possessed a Master's degree in

theology outside the schools which possessed a theological .^

The Lateran Councils of 1179 and 1215 had attempted to provide a remedy

for the ignorance of the lower clergy by ordering the establishment of -33-

theological schools for the clergy. ' Nonetheless, this project failed since there were not enough properly trained men available to fill these positions even if the various churches and cathedral chapters had been willing to establish the proper facilities. It seems that the establish• ment of the Dominican Order partially overcame this great need.

(a) Dominican Legislation Regarding Studies

The Constitutions of the Dominican Order made adequate provision for study. The acta of the general chapters and the provincial chapters indicate that the governing bodies of the Order were constantly attempt• ing to regulate and to promote studies within the Order.

The basis of the educational system within the Dominican Order was the convent. The constitutions of the Order stated that no convent could be established without a doctor or lector in theology.18 The studies undertaken in Dominican convents were designed to provide the average friar with a rudimentary knowledge of theology.ly The basis for studies was Holy Scripture. All friars of the convent were required to be present 20 at the lectures and could only be excused for an urgent reason. u The lectures given in Dominican convents were not intended solely for the benefit of the friars alone since they were,open to all who wished to attend.21 In this way, the Dominican convents could provide the means by which the lower clergy could obtain a better education.

Special privileges were granted to the lectors and the students in the

Order to facilitate learning. The constitution of the Order directed that the Divine Office should be conducted "briskly and shortly lest the friars lose their devotion or impede their studies."22 Study, in the Dominican

Order, took the place of manual labour and the involved liturgy which constituted a distinct departure from established monastic tradition.

Should the educational system of the priory break down there was nothing to take the place of study and lectures which could result in idleness on the part of the friars. The general chapter of 1259 decreed:

If sufficient lectors cannot be found to lecture publicly, at least let someone be provided from those who can hold private lectures, or lectures on the Histories or on the of Cases or something of that kind, lest the friars be idle.23

Dispensations could be granted to a friar by his superiors for three things -- to advance study, preaching or the salvation of souls.^ The

Order also watched to see that any friar who displayed an aptitude for teaching was not lost and directed that such friars should be sent to proper schools where they could obtain the necessary instruction.2-'

(b) The Curriculum and Organization of Dominican Schools

The Dominican Order possessed a highly developed educational system designed to meet the particular needs of the Order. By the end of the thirteenth century, the complete system had been established in its essential features.2^ By this date, the educational system included provincial schools as well as schools where friars from all the provinces of the Order could be found. The basis of the organization was the com• bination of a number of convents into particular groups, each of which 2 possessed common schools for a specific type of study within that, group.

In the general chapter held in in 1335, the provincial and provincial chapters were directed to provide for the study of arts, philosophy and theology.28 The acta of the general chapter of Genoa in

1305 seem to indicate that this system had already developed by this date.29 The legislation of these general chapters extended a system -35-

which had already evolved in the provinces of Toulouse and Spain.3°

According to this system, there were three types of schools — studium

artium, studium naturalium, and the studium theologiae.

It has already been shown that each Dominican convent was a school.

At the conventual schools, the friars were given basic instruction in

morals and Scripture. If a friar showed promise, after a period of two

years, he might be sent to one of the special schools of the Order to

receive further instruction. The next level of instruction available to

a gifted friar was instruction in arts. There was a certain suspicion of

such studies in the earliest days of the Order. The constitutions of

1228 stated that the friars should not study "the books of the Gentiles

and philosophers" although they were permitted to look at them occasionally while, at the same time, the friars were directed that they should not

study the "secular sciences" or the "liberal arts" without a special dis•

pensation from the master-general,3-~- Nevertheless, this attitude of

suspicion soon gave way. Humbert de Romans, the fifth master-general, noted this change in attitude with regard to the study of philosophy when he observed that "First no one was permitted to study such things; then

some were permitted but with discretion and rarely; now, the reins are

fully loosed over study of this kind."32 In 1259, the general chapter

ordered each province to open schools of arts where the young friar might

receive training.33 in the general chapter of 1261, this regulation was

finally confirmed when it was decreed ". . . that the younger and easily

taught friars should be instructed in ."34 This legislation seems

to have been put in force since by 1262, the province of Provence had

three studia artium for twenty-seven convents ,J-J

The next stage in the educational system of the Order for the promis•

ing friar was the studium naturalium or philosophiae. The friar would -36.-

likely spend two years at such a school.36 Of course, this study of natural philosophy for two years was merely to prepare the friar for the most important study of all -- theology.

No student could attend a studium theologiae unless he had studied natural philosophy for at least two years.37 The basis for theological

study was the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Aquinas was not added to the curriculum until the early fourteenth century. The period of study at the studium theologiae was limited to three years.3^ Often the period of study would be shortened to only two years. It should be remembered that these studia theologiae were vastly different from the general schools of theology which existed in each convent. These schools were advanced schools of theology designed to train their students to be teachers rather than popular preachers.

At the pinnacle of the educational system within the Order stood the university convents or studia generale. Only the most promising friars were sent to study at the universities. Naturally the authorities of the

Order attempted to insure that only the most able friars could attend since the university studies constituted a considerable financial drain on the Order. The general chapter of 1305 decreed:

However, no one shall be sent to a studium generale either in his own province or outside it unless he has studied sufficiently the logic and natural philosophy in the prescribed order (i.e. three years of logic followed by two years of natural philosophy); and for at least two years, he has studied the Sentences in some particular studium; and the testi• mony of the lector, cursor and the master of students indicates that he has a real hope of being in the future, suitable for the office of lector. In those studia generalia let the master of students hold siputations on some subject every week of the year unless a legitimate hindrance occurs. Moreover, the chief lectors are bound to continue to hold their classes up to the Feast of St. John (June 24th). Let all friars attend the schools each day and hear the lectures there, otherwise, if they without reason• able cause and special licence of the prior or his vicar should happen to be absent, on that day, they will be deprived of wine and food. And if the priors do not enforce the observance of these penalties, they shall be made to undergo them, otherwise let them be strongly proceeded against in the provincial chapter on the testimony of the visitors. Furthermore, the students, who are found to be notably negligent or incapable by the prov• incial prior, should be dismissed from their studies and occupied in some other duty.39

Clearly, the general chapters were attempting to control and to insure

that the educational system would function properly.

In England, Oxford became a studium generale of the Order in 1261.^

Earlier, the general chapters of 1246, 1247, and 1248 had ordered the province of England to establish a studium generale at Oxford to which each province in the Order could send two students each year J^- The sup• port of a studium generale was a great financial burden and it seems that the English authorities ignored their directions for this reason. In 1261, the general chapter deposed the provincial of England, Simon of Hinton, gave him a severe penance, and sent him to lecture in Cologne while the diffinitores of the province were also deprived of their offices and

severely penanced.^2 in this way, the general chapter broke the opposi• tion to the establishment of Oxford as a studium generale. In 1320,

Cambridge was also recognized by the general chapter as a Dominican studium generaleOn the whole the relations of the Dominican Order with Oxford seem to have been cordial.

(c) The Defence of St. Thomas Aquinas

Possibly the most serious controversy which erupted between the

Dominicans and the universities of Paris and Oxford involved the doctrines

of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas had been an innovator, his innovations including a unique approach which clarified many philosophical and theo•

logical problems. Aquinas had systematically utilized Aristotle in his

work in a way which made it necessary for every serious student to pay

attention to his approach. Nevertheless, his teaching on many questions

was not fully understood with the result that some of his followers fell

into erroneous positions.

These philosophical errors came to the attention of Pope John XXI

prior to March,.1277, and he ordered an inquiry into the matter,"*"* Bishop

Tempier of Paris, who was charged with the investigation, reacted some• what hastily and condemned two hundred and nineteen propositions taught

at Paris on March 7, 1277, before the pontiff had reached a final deci•

sion. 45 of the two hundred and nineteen propositions contained in this

, at least sixteen have been shown to be connected with the name

or teaching of Aquinas although his name is not mentioned in the document

itself.46 xhe Paris articles were quickly followed by a similar condemn• ation at Oxford. .On March 18, 1277, the Dominican' of Canterbur;

Robert Kilwardby condemned thirty propositions relating to grammar, logic

and natural philosophy in a special meeting of the masters of Oxford.47

Once again, the name of Aquinas did not appear in the document but the

fact that the condemnation was directed against the Thomist position is AO indicated in the correspondence of Pecham. ° 49

The philosophical details of the condemnations are not our concern. 7

Although the name of Aquinas did not appear in the official condemnations,

the Dominican Order soon rallied to the defence of the teachings of

Aquinas. Kilwardby was a representative of the so-called Augustinian

school who had received his education before the works of Aquinas were

studied and read. Generally, it was the older scholars who upheld the -39-

Augustinian position. The Archbishop of Corinth, Peter Conflans, himself

a Dominican, wrote to Kilwardby concerning the condemnation. While the

letter of Conflans has been destroyed, the severity of its tone can be

gleaned from a comment made by William of Ockham who stated that ". . .he

(Conflans) rebuked him (Kilwardby) sharply, writing to him in a letter in which he asserted openly that he had condemned truth."50

During the general chapter of 1278, it was reported that some of the

English friars had made disparaging remarks about the works of Aquinas.51

The general chapter acted on this report by sending two friars to England,

Raymond of Meuillon and John Vigorosus, to investigate the situation in

England. The visitors were given full powers to punish, to remove from office and to exile from the province any friars "who have brought scandal into the Order by disparaging the writings of the venerable father, Friar

Thomas Aquinas."^2 it seems that the general chapter had received exaggerated reports about the situation in England since the commission of the visitors was not renewed the next year and nothing more was said in the acta about England.53

Possibly the Dominican opposition to the work of Aquinas was weakened by the promotion of Robert Kilwardby to the cardinalate in 1278. It has been suggested that this promotion may have been the result of the

influence of the Dominican authorities in the since the Order would likely desire the removal of Kilwardby from his position of power in England.If this conjecture has a basis in fact, the Dominican authorities had no cause to rejoice in the promotion of the Franciscan,

John Pecham, to Canterbury — since he fully endorsed Kilwardby's con•

demnation.

In 1279, the general chapter held in Paris stated that disparaging

remarks concerning Aquinas would not be tolerated and that those who -40-

spoke in such a manner should be punished.55 in 1286, the general chapter instructed every friar to defend and to promote the doctrines of Aquinas.56

In 1309, the general chapter of the Dominican Order stated:

We will and strictly enjoin that all lectors and sub-lectors lecture and determine questions accord• ing to the doctrine and works of the venerable doctor, Friar Thomas Aquinas, and that they teach their students in the same and hold them to study these works with diligence.57

The same general chapter stated that students living outside their prov• ince might sell their books with two exceptions — the Bible and the works of Thomas Aquinas.58 it is clear that the governing body of the Dominican

Order had a very high regard, indeed, for the works of Aquinas.

Individual Dominicans defended the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in their scholastic works. . The English Franciscan master, William de la Mare, questioned one hundred and seventeen propositions derived from the work of

Aquinas. His Correctorium Fratris Thomae was likely written at Oxford during the years 1278 and 1279.60 Following the issuance of this work, at least five refutations were written by Dominicans. Of these, two were certainly written by English Dominican scholars while a third was from the pen of the French Dominican, John of Paris.The Correctorium of

William de la Mare was adopted by the Franciscan general chapter of 1282 and was to be utilized by the Franciscans who employed the works of

Thomas Aquinas in their studies.62 The fact that a number of the works attacking that of William de la Mare were written by English Dominicans would seem to Indicate that the opposition to the positions of Aquinas in

England was not as serious as the general chapter of 1278 had been led to believe. (d) The Literary Activity of- the Dominicans

The defence of Thomas Aquinas contributed to the development of a

particular type of theological literature. The bulk of the literary pro•

duction of the Dominicans was directly related to their philosophical,

theological and scriptural work. In their philosophical and theological

training, many Dominicans would compose Commentaries on the Sentences of

Peter Lombard. In their scholarly exercises at the universities, they would likely compose disputed questions.

Of particular interest to the members of the Order of Preachers was

scripture. In fact, many Dominicans composed detailed scriptural com• mentaries. Another type of work undertaken by the Dominican friars was the compilation of detailed verbal biblical concordances.63 Such works enabled the preacher to embellish his sermons with a large number of

scriptural quotations.

For the historian of political thought, some of these sermons as well as the biblical commentaries are of interest since they sometimes contain

certain comments about the period in which they were written.64 In their

scholastic works, such as the Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter

Lombard, remarks might be made by a particular author concerning political matters. It should be remembered that one of the most significant dis•

cussions of the relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers

contained in the works of Thomas Aquinas is to be found at the end of the

second book of his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. Dominicans

did compose treatises dealing specifically with political affairs such as

the De regimine principum of Aquinas and the De potestate regia et papali

of John of Paris although such works were not as common as Commentaries

on the Sentences. -4"2-

(3) The Attitudes of the Authorities of the Dominican Order

to Secular Activities.

Although the Dominican friar was supposed to devote himself to

preaching and the salvation of souls, the friars were often drawn into

other fields of activity. The Dominicans were particularly useful for

diplomatic negotiations since the training which many of them had re•

ceived would equip them for undertaking consultations. The friar was

free of family ties, episcopal jurisdiction and the vow of stability.

Furthermore, many friars had studied in the foreign houses of the

Order thus coming into contact with other movements of thought and

customs which made them much less parochial in their outlook. The

Order of Preachers, by substituting learning for manual labour, pro•

duced many learned and prudent men. whose advice and aid was sought by

, kings and popes.

The Order itself did not look favorably on the secular activities

of many of the friars. Demands for the services of the friars in•

creased which constituted a direct threat to the fulfillment of the

basic mission of the Order. Furthermore, such secular activities,

such as the undertaking of diplomatic negotiations, endangered the

Order in other ways. First, usually the best friars were chosen,

particularly those who had been well educated. In this way, the

Order lost some of its best scholars for short periods of time, and,

in some cases, permanently. Secondly, since each friar who undertook

such activities had a companion or socius, the Order lost the services

of at least two friars. The authorities of the Order rightly thought

that the interests of the Order and the Church would be better served -43.-

if the friars occupied themselves with the primary tasks to which the

Order had dedicated itself rather than undertaking other tasks.

This attitude was reflected in the legislation issued by the general chapters. The constitutions of the Order allowed superiors 6 6 to grant dispensations if these were considered absolutely necessary.

In this way, friars could be released to undertake other duties.

Humbert de Romans, in his commentary on the constitutions of the Order, listed the things which impeded the welfare of souls. He stated that

"The second impediment is vexatious employments, such as , visitations, and violent corrections, the exactions of last wills, the decisions of arbitrators, as a result of which the devotion of men for 67 the friars is frequently disturbed."

The general chapter of 1239 ordered that "The friars should not frequent the courts of kings or princes without great necessity or for the fruit of souls, nor should they undertake to be arbiters, nor should they be concerned with wills, nor should they act as 68 executors." In 1268, the friars were instructed to avoid, as far 69 as possible, the undertaking of embassies. The general chapter of

1285 ordered the friars not to assist bishops "in administering tempo• ral affairs."^ In 1287, the general chapter once again took a strong stand against the secular activities of the friars. The acta stated: We strictly prohibit any friar to enter into counsels concerning marriage or indeed to conduct any great and arduous secular negoti• ations without the special licence of his provincial prior or vicar and whoever disobeys this direction, let him be severely punished by the priors and visitors.7^ Nevertheless, in spite of these directions, Dominican friars con• tinued to be occupied in secular activities. Some friars undertook very serious negotiations for various rulers. In a subsequent chapter it will be shown that, in England, the Dominican Order and

72 the monarchy were united by very intimate bonds. CHAPTER III

POLITICAL DISPUTES AND THE DOMINICANS IN FRANCE

Many of the developments which were outlined in the first chapter of this thesis became apparent in the conflict which erupted between

Boniface VIII and the kings of France and England over clerical taxation.

The conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV was the most serious dispute to develop between France and the Papacy during the period from

1250 until 1350. At present, our investigation will be limited to the dispute in France.

(1) The Causes and the.Course of the Conflict between Boniface VIII

and Philip IV.

(2) John of Paris, 0.and his Contribution to Medieval

Political Thought.

(3) The Dominican Order and its Role in the Conflict between

Boniface VIII and Philip IV. '

The details of the dispute between Edward I and Boniface VIII which developed over the same basic issues as in France will be presented, in some detail, in the next chapter of the thesis.'*' -46-

(1) The Causes arid the Course of the Conflict between Boniface VIII

and Philip TV

The underlying cause of the conflict between Boniface VIII and

Philip IV was national sovereignty.2 The conflict in both France and

England developed over the question of whether the king had the right to demand taxes from his clergy during a national emergency.3 What began as a dispute over clerical taxation soon developed into a bitter conflict not only on a personal level but also on a theoretical level.

Before 1296, clerical taxation was subject to two canons embodied in the Decretals of Gregory IX. Canon 19 of the Third Lateran Council of 1179 had stated:

. . . Therefore, we strictly prohibit other taxes to be levied, upon pain of , except when the bishops and clergy consider the necessity or advantage to be.so great that they, without any pressure whatever, think that a subsidy should be granted by the Church to provide for these common advantages or necessities when the resources of the laity do not suffice.'*

Taxation of the clergy was not prohibited but the taxes had to be levied by the clergy freely when they considered the necessity great enough to warrant a subsidy on their part. Rulers, who attempted to impose taxes upon the clergy were, by such an act, excommunicated. However, subsequent experience showed that the local clergy were not in a suffi• ciently strong position to refuse lay rulers. Thus, in 1215, canon 46 of the Fourth Lateran Council added the condition that on questions of taxation "... the Roman Pontiff should be consulted beforehand since

it is his task to provide for the common advantage."5

However, the canonical solution to the problem of clerical taxation was modified by the practices which developed during the thirteenth century. Many popes were willing to grant a portion of the ecclesiastical revenues to lay rulers on the premise that the revenues were to be used for crusading purposes.6 In many cases, the local clergy would grant a subsidy or free gift to a lay ruler without recourse to the Papacy.

In 1294, Philip IV's request for a grant had been refused by the

Pope.''' The French government then proceeded to deal with its clergy

Q directly, ultimately managing to wring grants from most clerics.

However, some members of the clergy objected to the exactions and appealed directly to the pope. The rulers of France and England were simultan• eously attempting to tax their.clergy in order to wage a "just" war against one another. Boniface VIII found this situation intolerable and attempted to frustrate the efforts of the French and English governments by issuing the bull Clericis laicos. It should be remembered that cleri• cal taxes were one of the major sources of revenue for the French monarchy.9

On February 24, 1296, Boniface VIII issued the bull Clericis laicos.10 This bull differed from existing ecclesiastical legislation on the question of taxation in several significant ways.First,

Clericis laicos indicated that free gifts could not be given to the king by the clergy without papal permission.!^ Earlier legislation had stated that taxes could not be imposed upon the clergy but this legislation had never mentioned free gifts. Secondly, while the earlier legislation had been primarily directed against zealous local officials, Clericis laicos specifically mentioned kings and emperors.I3 Finally, while the earlier legislation had threatened violators of ecclesiastical immunities with penalties, these were never automatic. However, Boniface VIII declared in his bull that not only those who received grants from the clergy but also those members of the clergy who gave grants "ipso facto incurred a sentence of excommunication.Thus, Clericis laicos inflicted penal- ties automatically. It seems that Boniface VIII, in framing his legislation, placed a strict interpretation upon the recommendation of Innocent III that the papacy should be consulted beforehand. The pope made any tax or "gift" of the clergy subject to the consent of the pontiff.

Philip IV interpreted the bull as an attack upon France and took direct action. On August 17, 1296, he issued a royal which prohibited the export of precious metals, jewels, plate and all other forms of wealth from France.^ This action placed Boniface in a diffi• cult position, since he relied heavily upon the revenue derived from the Church'in France to finance the operations of the papal government and to conduct its diplomacy.

Clericis laicos, at best, was poorly timed and certainly the undiplomatic tone of the language used in the bull would only further alienate the rulers to whom it was addressed.-1-6 The bull also raised important questions as to its interpretation. How did Clericis laicos affect the former ecclesiastical legislation on the question of taxation? Did the pope plan to judge each case himself or could local ecclesiastical officials reach their own decision? What were the cir• cumstances under which the pope would agree to a grant? Finally, what was the local clergy to do if delay in granting a subsidy would likely place the whole country in danger?

In order to answer these vital questions, Boniface VIII wrote a series of letters to the French monarch and to the ecclesiastical hierarchy in France.!7 On September 20, 1296, Boniface sent a letter,

Ineffabilis amoris, to Philip IV which clearly indicated his position: For we did not state precisely that monetary aid could not be extended by ecclesiastics for your needs and for the defence of your kingdom by the same clerics, but we directed that it could not be made without our special licence . . . .-*-8

Nevertheless, as the dispute continued, Boniface retreated from his position. On February 7, 1297, after the French bishops had appealed to the pope to be.allowed to give a.tenth of their revenues to the king,

Boniface VIII made the first major concession. In the bull Romana mater ecclesia, the pope stated that in a desperate emergency, when there was not time to consult the papacy, the clergy could pay a subsidy to the king without first obtaining papal consent.-*-9 Finally, on July 31, 1297, in the bull Etsi de statu, Boniface VIII capitulated completely:

We add, moreover, to this our declaration that, if a dangerous emergency should threaten the aforesaid king or his successors with regard to the general or particular defence of the same kingdom, this constitution [i.e. Clericis laicos] shall by no means extend to a case of such neces• sity. Indeed, the same king and his successors are able to demand and to .receive from the prelates and ecclesiastical persons of the said kingdom a subsidy or contribution for such defence, and the said prelates and persons are held and are able to present it to the oft- mentioned king and his successors under the name of a quota or under any other name, even when the Roman pontiff has not been consulted and notwith• standing the above mentioned regulation or any exemption or other privilege, in whatever form of words it is framed, obtained from the apostolic see; and that the declaration of above-mentioned necessity is left to the consciences of the king and his successors . . . .20

With these words, Boniface VIII assented to the principle that only the king could decide when a state of necessity existed and, consequently, whether the pope should be consulted concerning clerical taxation. Thus, in little more than a year, Philip IV had won an easy victory over the pope. The.reasons for the capitulation of Boniface VIII on this question are not difficult to find. The conflict with France and England over the question of clerical taxation constituted only one of the problems which faced the pontiff. In Italy, the pope was confronted with the opposition of the powerful Colonna family who resented the favours which

Boniface showered upon his own relatives. Two members of the Colonna family were cardinals.

In the summer of 1297, an open breach developed between Boniface VIII 9-1 and the Colonna family. The Colonna issued a series of manifestos which accused the pontiff of heresy and and declared that the resignation of Celestine V, the predecessor of Boniface, had been invalid.

The Colonna were joined in this attack by the Spiritual Franciscans who were reluctant to accept the fact of the resignation of Celestine V — the only pontiff who had sympathized with their ideals. Boniface VIII was also engaged in a war in Sicily at this time which severely depleted the reserves of the papal treasury.23 The seriousness of the situation in Italy was used by Pierre Flotte, an advisor of Philip IV when he journeyed to the Curia before the issuance of Etsi de statu. Flotte met with the representatives of the Colonna faction while rumours spread that the French government might support the Colonna in their bid to obtain a general council.to judge the pope.^ The spectre of an alliance between the Colonna family and the Frenchseems to have finally forced Boniface to concede to the demands of the French.

After the issuance of the bull Etsi de statu, relations between

Boniface VIII and Philip IV appeared to become more cordial. On August

11, 1297, the of Saint Louis was announced — an action which was clearly intended to show good faith on the part of the Papacy. In the meantime, Philip IV hai suspended the ordinance prohibiting the 9 c export of bullion and other forms of wealth from France. J Gradually,

the fortunes of the pope began to revive as the efforts of papal diplo• macy were rewarded with some success. In 1300, Boniface.VIII declared a

Jubilee to celebrate the centennial of the Church while the pope granted

a full pardon of all sins of the pilgrims who visited the seven basilicas of Rome, in penitence, during the year.26 The thousands of pilgrims who visited Rome during the Jubilee certainly lifted the spirits of the pontiff•

While, ostensibly, the relations between France and the Papacy were

cordial, undercurrents of stress remained. It seems that Philip IV, after achieving an easy victory, thought that he could pressure the

Papacy into submission on any occasion.^However, the first flagrant

abuse.of clerical privileges after the dispute over clerical taxation

occurred in 1301 when Philip IV ordered the arrest of Bernard Saisset, 28 bishop of Pamiers, on charges of treason, heresy and blasphemy.

Saisset was taken to Paris, put on trial before the king, declared guilty

and thrown into prison.

These actions clearly defied the canonical principle that a bishop

could only be judged by the pope. Philip sent an account of his proceeding to the pope demanding the approval of the condemnation of

29

Saisset. Included in the alleged offences of Saisset was the charge

that he had "blasphemed God and men and had often stated that the most

holy lord Pope Boniface was the devil incarnate." u This charge did not

deflect Boniface from the central issue at stake in this matter. If the

Pope approved the actions of the king, he was clearly admitting that

Philip possessed unlimited power over the French episcopate. The -52-

question of the guilt of Saisset was not important, what was important, from the papal point of view, was the fact that Philip TV had the audacity to seize the prelate In the first place.

If Philip expected an easy victory, he was to be sorely disappointed.

Boniface issued a series of bulls demanding the immediate release /of

Saisset, ordering the French episcopate to come to Rome in the next year for a council to consider the state of the Church in France, and 31 revoking all papal privileges which had been granted to France. The bull Ausculta fili had been discussed in the and 32 was sent to Philip TV personally. Certainly, it was not the intention of the pope to claim new powers for the papacy in the bull but it con• tained the words "Therefore,.dearest son, let no one persuade you that you do not have a superior and that you are not subject to the supreme head of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, for who thinks this way is a fool . . . ."33 This idea was not elaborated upon in the bull and it really only referred to the generally recognized superiority of the spiritual power and did not constitute a new claim in the temporal sphere.

However, Philip TV and his advisers seized upon these words which were used as the basis for a propaganda campaign in which a crude forgery of the bull was circulated where the pope was made to claim flatly that he was the temporal superior of the king.34

In this way, the French.monarch made the central issue in the conflict appear to be the defence of the sovereignty of the French state. To

further mobilize public opinion in favour of the royal position, Philip TV summoned the first Estates-General which met in the spring of 1302. In

the summer of that year, the French armies were badly defeated at Courtrai.

Philip TV used this as an excuse to declare a national emergency and to -53-

forbid his bishops to attend the proposed council at Rome which was to beheld in November .3-> Boniface. steadfastly maintained that the French prelates should attend. When the council finally met, only thirty-five bishops attended—less than half of the French episcopate.36 Boniface could derive little satisfaction from this response.

During the council, Boniface issued the bull .3^ This bull made no reference to the political crisis, instead, it presented a series of theological assumptions relating to the nature of the church and the role of the pontiff within it. The final statement constituted a formal, dogmatic definition: "Moreover, we declare, state and define that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."38 These words, in their context, seem to merely refer to the spiritual superiority of the pope in Christendom.

They were based.on a carefully developed theological argument which con• tained Scriptural quotations, and passages from St. Bernard and 39

Hugh of St. Victor to mention only the most important sources. In his discussion of Church unity, Boniface dealt with the question of the subordination of the.temporal power to the spiritual power in some.detail.

The imagery of the two swords was employed and Boniface drew the conclu• sion that. "the temporal authority ought to be subject. to the spiritual."^

This conclusion, which had long been recognized by theologians and the predecessors of Boniface VIII as valid, had never been expressed so plainly by an.occupant of the papal throne.

After. Uriam•:sarictam, there was little, if any, hope for a compromise between Boniface VIII and Philip IV.. The king and his advisors took the view that Boniface was making new temporal claims for the papacy.

Whether or not this was the intent of the pope remains a matter of doubt, -54-

but, in.all justice,.it has to be admitted that the French court had some justification for its thinking when it is remembered that the bull was issued at the height of a serious political controversyThe controversy ended with the employment of brute force when Guillaume de

Nogaret, an advisor to Philip IV, and Sciarra Colonna captured the pontiff at Anagnl. The leaders could not agree on their next move after cap• turing the pope and while they were debating, the populace of Anagni rebelled and drove out the invaders.. Boniface VTII returned to Rome but died a few weeks later.

Philip TV emerged as the victor in his conflict with Boniface VIII.

With Clericis laicos, the central issue had been the position of the clergy within the nation, that is, were they independent from the juris• diction of their temporal overlord. Philip TV succeeded in obtaining from Boniface himself the answer that when the king felt that a state of necessity existed, this declaration superceded clerical privileges. The dispute over Unam sanctam revealed the fact that the king was able to control most.of the French clergy and to rally public opinion in his favour against the papacy. The royal position and that of the papacy received theoretical justification in the works of the political theorists.

The controversy between Boniface VIII and Philip TV inspired a large number of political treatises supporting either the papal position or that of the French king.^ The tone of this literature, particularly on the royalist side, was decidedly different from that of the earlier conflicts between the papacy and the temporal powers. The majority of the defenders of the position of the French monarch were lawyers -— many of whom were employed in the royal courts or even in the council of the -55-

king. These men.were trained in law and were well acquainted with the problems of administration. The political literature produced by such men seems to have been more critical of the papacy.and less restricted by authority than any of the literature produced in the earlier.conflicts between the two powers. In.fact, this dispute really marks the appear• ance of the professionally trained layman into the arena of political discussion.**"*

Probably the most thorough presentation of papal claims during the conflict was developed in the De ecclesiastica potestate written by

Aegidius Romanus or Giles of Rome, about the year 1301, before Uriam sanctam was issued."*-' In his treatise, Giles of Rome developed a sophisticated political philosophy which was inspired more by Augustine's notion of the state than by that of Aristotle.**6 '

The first part of the De ecclesiastica potestate presented a general argument for . The spiritual power which was vested in the pope was unique and supreme. According to Giles of Rome, this author• ity or power was inherent in the office of pontiff and thus was not dependent-upon the personal qualities of the man who held it. Giles of Rome argued that the spiritual authority had the power to institute the temporal authority and to judge it- Hugh of St .. Victor in.his book De Sacramentis Fidei Christianae..Part II, chap. 4 states that the spiritual power can establish the earthly power and can judge it if it has not been good. Therefore, the prophecy of Jeremias is verified as applied to the Church: 'Lo, I have set thee this day over the nationsj and over kingdoms, to root up and pull down, and to waste and to destroy, and to build and to plant (Jeremias 1:10)!^

Not only did the spiritual authority possess the power to institute and

to judge the temporal authority, but the.temporal authority was -So-

subordinated. to the spiritual since this followed the law of nature which revealed that the higher everywhere governs and controls the lower. Giles of Rome then.pointed out:

So, on the other hand, it.is necessary that these be ordered, for, as we mentioned, that which Is from God must be ordered; however, they would not be ordered unless one sword was subjected to the other and unless one was under the other; because, as Dionysius said, the law of divinity which God gave to all created things requires this: . . . that all should not be immediately subjected to the highest, but the lowest through the intermediate and the lower through the higher. Therefore, the temporal sword as inferior is to be subjected through the spiritual sword as through the higher, and one is ordered under the other as inferior to superior. But some might say that kings and princes ought to be subjected spiritually and not temporally, and accordingly that this doctrine ought to be under• stood to mean that kings and princes are spiritually but not temporally under the church'. . . . . But those who speak in this way have not grasped the force of the argument. For, if kings and princes were only subject to the church.spiritually, one sword would not be under the other, temporalities would not be under spiritualities, there would be no order in the powers, the lowest would not be subjected to the highest through the intermediate. If, however, they are ordered the temporal sword ought to be under the spiritual, kingdoms ought to exist under the vicar of Christ, and de jure, although some may act differently de facto,the vicar of Christ must have dominion over temporalities themselves.^

Thus, all legitimate political power was subject to the authority of the pope.

In the second part of the De ecclesiastica potestate, Giles of

Rome developed the concept of dominium which, for him, included not only the ownership of property but also the exercise of political

authorityThis was the most original part of the treatise. Giles of

Rome stated that:

Therefore, there will be this order: that the power of the supreme pontiff governs souls, souls ought.to.govern.bodies by right or such a body will be badly ordered with regard to that part which does not obey the soul, mind or reason. However, temporal things serve our bodies. It follows.that the priestly power, which governs souls, rules bodies and temporal things.^

Giles of Rome used Aristotle to prove that the legitimacy of the means employed depended upon the ends which, it served.-'-'- Thus dominium,that is, the ownership of property or the exercise of political power, was only legitimate when serving human ends which are spiritual ends in their highest form. Consequently, man must subordinate his political power and his property to spiritual ends in order to lead himself to salvation. Since the Church was the only way to gain salvation, man 52 must be subordinated.to the.Church.and, consequently, to the pope.

Therefore, the Church or pope must direct the temporal sphere since the Church and the pope serve.the highest human ends.

The final part of the treatise was directed to an explanation of some of the contradictions between.the theory which Giles of Rome had just expounded and the admissions made by various popes concerning the independence of the two powers. He stated that he believed that the two powers were distinct and that they.should remain so. Nonetheless, the

Church has the right to intervene in.temporal affairs in many cases.

Giles of Rome pointed out that although the two powers were independent, the temporal power was exercising an authority which had been delegated to.it by the Church.-'3 Giles of Rome claimed virtually a complete power for the pope who could act in both.spiritual and temporal affairs. Even a cursory study of the De ecclesiastica potestate of Giles of Rome indicates.that he was a supporter .of the monist or theocratic position. -58-

Generally, the tracts produced to support the position of Philip IV were short exercises in polemic rather than systematic treatises in political philosophy. A characteristic royalist tract produced during the controversy between Boniface VIII and Philip IV was Antequam essent clerici.54- This treatise was drafted.in the form of an answer to the bull Clericis laicos; It was once suggested that Philip IV himself was the author of the tract and that it was a royal reply to Clericis laicos which was delivered to the pontiff.55 However, modern research has indicated that Pierre Flotte, an advisor of Philip IV, was the author of the treatise.56 Certainly, it was never sent to the pope.

The tract.begins with the words "Before there were clerics the King of France had custody of his Kingdom . . . .•"57 The author of this treatise then discussed the nature of the Church which, as he pointed out, was composed of laity as well as clerics.58 ' The author agreed that certain liberties .of the clergy were necessary but that these liberties could not be allowed to stand in the way of those things which were nec- 59 essary for the good government and for the defence of the kingdom. As far as the author of this tract was concerned, any refusal on the part of the clergy to grant a subsidy to the king during an emergency was not a clerical privilege but amounted to the clergy abusing their position within society. The most significant feature of this tract was the fact that the author treated the clergy-as citizens of the state. As citizens of the state, it was the duty of the clergy to contribute to the general welfare of the realm. The author of Antequam essent clerici did not recognize any peculiar rights or privileges'. for clerics -— they were, first and foremost, citizens of the state. The most important treatise produced.during this conflict which supported the position of the king -59-

was the De potestate regia et.papali of John of Paris.

I -60-

2. John of Paris, O.P., and his Contribution to Medieval

Political Thought.

It was the Dominican, John of Paris, who presented the most reasoned and carefully articulated defence of the king in the conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV. John of Paris was only one of the many theologians and philosophers produced by the Dominican Order who composed treatises dealing with political affairs. The names of

Thomas Aquinas, Tholemy of Lucca, Hervaeus Natalis, and Peter de la

Palu immediately come to mind as Dominican political theorists.^

(a) John of Paris: Biographical Details and Literary Activity.

Very little is known of John of Paris and what is known is obscured by the fact that there were several thirteenth and fourteenth century writers known by this name.^* John of Paris is also known as 62 John Quidort which seems to have been his family name. Quidort was a Dominican and a member of the community of Saint-Jacques in Paris.

It seems that John of Paris may have completed his Master of Art's 63 degree before he entered the Dominican Order. The date of his birth 64 is unknown and the estimates vary widely between 1240 and 1269.

Professor Gilson places the date of his birth between 1250 and 1254 which seems reasonable when the other aspects of Quidort's life are considered.^

As a defender of many of the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in his

Correctorium corruptorii. John of Paris has been regarded by many scholars as a loyal follower of Aquinas.^ Twice in his scholarly career, Quidort faced theological . On the first occasion, dated prior to 1284, Quidort defended sixteen of his propositions 67 derived from his teaching on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. These propositions had been denounced to the Master-General of the Dominican

Order. The second time he fell afoul of the ecclesiastical authori- ties was in 1304 over his doctrine concerning the Eucharist. His opinions were censured by four bishops and he was deprived of his 69 licence to teach and to preach. John of Paris appealed directly to

Pope Clement V for a judgement but he died at the Curia, which, at that time, was located at Bordeaux, on September 22, 1306, before a final decision had been made.^ It seems that Quidort may have studied under Peter of Tarantaise 71 between 1259 and 1269. If this is so, the earlier date proposed for his birth would be correct. The great number of his works would indi• cate that he had led a productive, if turbulent, scholarly career by

1304. The fact that he did not become a Master in Theology until

1304 would seem to indicate that he was never fully trusted by the 72 ecclesiastical authorities.

Quidort*s works include the De potestate regia et papali,,^ the

Correctorium corruptorii,^"* a Commentary on the four books of the

Sentences of Peter Lombard,^"* the Tractatus de unitate formae, the

Tractatus de iride, the Be adventu Christi secundem carnem. as well (b) The Political Thought in the Commentary on the 7 ft as the other controversial work, the De confessionibus audiendis. Sentences of John of Paris.

Quidort's Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard seems to have been written at Paris between 1292 and 1296.^ While such J -62-

Commentaries on the Sentences were primarily a theological exercise and formed part of the scholarly program which the theology student had to follow in order to become a Master in Theology, such Commen• taries often provided the student with the opportunity to discuss political matters if he were so inclined. It should be remembered that one of the most significant discussions of the relationship of the temporal and spiritual powers to be found in the works of Thomas

Aquinas was at the end of the second book of his Commentary on the 7 8

Sentences. For this reason, the Commentaries on the Sentences should be investigated in order to ascertain whether other Dominicans emulated their confrere and revealed a concern for political matters in their theological exercises.

When the relevant texts of Thomas Aquinas and John of Paris on the Sentences are compared, similarities soon become apparent.

Quidort began his discussion at the end of the second book of his

Commentary (dist. 44, quest. 1) by asking "Whether the power to rule 79 is from God alone." This section of his Commentary closely paral- 80 lels the discussion which is found in Aquinas. Both authors investigated the state of innocence in order to ascertain whether 81 there was domination when man existed in that state. At this juncture, both authors cite the same authorities in the course of 82 their exposition. In the last part of this section of the 83 Commentary, Quidort discussed the question of religious obedience. This section of his Commentary also resembles that of Aquinas and both authors, once again, cite the same authorities in their dis- 84 cussion. From this examination, it becomes readily apparent that

John of Paris closely followed the work of his Dominican confrere not -63-

only in the questions which he raised but also in the authorities which he employed to substantiate his argument. This impression is heightened when the texts of Aquinas and Quidort are compared with that of Peter Lombard.

While Peter Lombard discussed the power of sinning and the origin of sin, the authorities which he employed to illustrate his exposition 85 were not those which were employed by Aquinas and Quidort. John of

Paris did not rely upon the text of Peter Lombard but he certainly

appears to have leaned heavily upon the work of Aquinas. In fact, it

seems more than likely that Quidort had the text of Aquinas before him when he wrote his Commentary on the Sentences. The resemblance of the

two works, particularly in the authorities which are utilized in the

course of their presentation, makes it difficult to draw any other

conclusion.

Nevertheless, there are differences in the two works. The Commen•

tary of Aquinas is a more comprehensive work. Furthermore, Aquinas delved into a political discussion in the course of his exposition.

In discussing obedience, Aquinas raised the question of whether Christians were bound to obey secular rulers, and, in particular, 86 tyrants. Finally, at the very end of his Commentary on the second book of the Sentences, Aquinas discussed the relationship between the 87 temporal and spiritual powers. The political aspects of Aquinas'

Commentary on the Sentences are of great importance. John of Paris,

on the other hand, did not discuss political matters in his Commentary

in the same direct manner as Aquinas, although the ideas which he ex•

pressed in this segment of the work allow the student to come to a -64-

fuller appreciation of his political thought.

It may well be asked why John of Paris did not follow Aquinas

and include a political discussion in his Commentary? It is evident

that Quidort relied upon the Thomist text when he wrote this portion

of his Commentary. Certainly, it cannot be argued that Quidort was

not interested in political thought. One solution to this problem which can be deduced is the difference in the intellectual climate in which these scholars were working.

It seems that Aquinas wrote his Commentary on the Sentences be- 88

tween 1252 and 1256. Aquinas was writing in the highly charged

atmosphere which followed the deposition of the Emperor Frederick II.

It should be remembered that the family of Aquinas was closely linked 89 to both the imperial family and the papacy. Aquinas himself had

spent some time in Germany during the dispute between Innocent IV and

Frederick II. Furthermore, the dispute was serious enough for the

General Chapter of the Dominican Order, held at Paris in 1246, to

ordain that the friars should not criticize the pope nor should they 90 give the impression that they supported the imperial cause. Thus,

it seems likely that when Aquinas set out to write the section of his

Commentary concerning the obedience owed to prelates and to lay

rulers, the question of the relationship of the two powers would im•

mediately suggest itself to him. On the other hand, Quidort1s 91 Commentary on the Sentences was written between 1292 and 1296. It

will be remembered that Clericis laicos was not issued until February,

1296, and thus the political climate in which Quidort wrote was

certainly different from that of Aquinas. He did not write the -65-

De potestate regia et papali until the second dispute between Boniface

VIII and Philip IV had reached a critical juncture. For this reason, it seems likely that Quidort was willing to dismiss the political aspects of the Commentary of Aquinas when he employed it in the prepa• ration of his own work.

Nevertheless, a more likely solution to this problem of why

Quidort failed to discuss political thought in his Commentary on the

Sentences was that he was already developing his own political theory — a theory which was not wholly in accord with the Thomist 92 position. When Quidort finally wrote the JJe potestate regia et papali he was a mature scholar. His earliest writings display a great deal of independence of thought although he may have hesitated to disagree with Thomist positions outright at this stage of his scholarly career.

In his Commentary, Quidort stated that, in its essential meaning, 93 domination is good and is derived from God alone. If the means employed to acquire power were evil or unscrupulous, or if the use made of the power was evil, then Quidort argued, that in both cases, 94 the domination is bad. On the other hand, if the means of acquiring power and its exercise were good, then the domination is good.

In the next portion of his Commentary, Quidort argued that domi- 95 nation was in accordance with . He pointed out that in the state of innocence there was domination of man over animals and 96 of a man over his wife and children. Quidort pointed out that something could be in accordance with natural law either positively or negatively: -66-

PositiveTy, if it is something to which nature is inclined as to do good to one's neighbor; negatively, if nature is not directly inclined as man is naturally naked, not because he is inclined to this by nature, but because man does not come into the world clothed.y7

John of Paris was able to conclude that ". . . domination is according to natural law, not positively, because nature did not establish it, 98 but negatively, because nature does not teach the opposite. In the final section of this part of his Commentary, John of

Paris discussed the extent to which the religious are bound to obey 99 prelates. Quidort began his exposition by pointing to the fact that there are two kinds of obedience:

Obedience is twofold: one is sufficient and necessary, the other is abundant and perfect. By abundant obedience, the subject obeys the prelate in all licet things, not only in all those things which he has promised, but by sufficient obedience the subject obeys the prelate only in those things which he has promised. •*•

Quidort then discussed the various ways in which one can profess to hold a rule. He concluded that the religious cannot be held to attempt the impossible from necessary obedience but only from abundant obedience.^

This, in summary, is Quidort's discussion in his Commentary on the Sentences. At this point, Aquinas had dealt with political thought as well as with questions relating to obedience and sin.

Quidort did not follow his predecessor and delve into a political discussion. As has been pointed out, the most likely reason for this seems to have been the differences to be found in the intellectual climate in which the authors lived when they wrote their Commentaries. -67-

(c) The Political Doctrines of the Be potestate regia et papali

of John of Paris.

It seems that John of Paris wrote the De potestate regia et papali at the end of 1302 or in the early months of 1303.3 The modern editor of the treatise, Dom Jean Leclercq, states that Quidort's treatise was directed primarily against the positions of Giles of Rome and James of V iter bo.** Some historians, notably Richard Scholz, have accused Quidort of being the leader of the French opposition to

Boniface VIII."' Quite naturally, those who hold such opinions point to Quidort's signature on the list of the Parisian Dominicans who sup• ported Philip IV's appeal for a council against Boniface VIII.^ Never• theless, it should be remembered that a majority of the French clergy signed this appeal for a council — largely due to the fact that the government of Philip IV exerted pressure upon the clergy to make them sign such documents. More important than the signing of the appeal is the fact that John of Paris presented some important arguments in his treatise for the deposition of a pope who is a scandal to the Church.

On this question, Quidort stated:

Thus, on the other hand, if the pope were criminous and scandalized the church and proved to be incorrigible, the prince would be able to excommunicate him indirectly and to depose him per accidens: namely by warning him directly or through the cardinals.^

It must be admitted that many of the hypothetical situations which were put forward by Quidort in the Be potestate regia et papali parallel the charges made by the French king and his ministers 8 against Boniface VIII. Although the treatise was influenced, in -68-

part, by this bitter conflict, Leclercq asserts that John of Paris intended the treatise to be a philosophical and theological ex- 9 position rather than an exercise in polemic.

In the proemium of the JDe potestate regia et papali, John of

Paris stated that "Occasionally it happens that wishing to avoid a certain error, one falls into the opposite error .... and faith holds the middle ground between two contrary errors."^ Quidort pro• fessed to steer a course between the error of the who argued that the church should not hold any property and that of Herod who assumed that Christ would be an earthly king who ruled a secular 11 kingdom. Quidort argued that, while it was not improper for the church to have control over temporalities, this control was bestowed upon clerics and popes not as the successors of the Apostles and the Vicars of Christ but rather from the grant and concession of 12 prxnces.

In order to establish this view, John of Paris first examined the nature and the origin of royal power and then that of the spiritual power. Finally, he investigated the relationship between the two powers. In the eleventh chapter of the treatise, Quidort presented forty-two arguments which had been used to justify the exercise of 13 papal power in the temporal sphere. The next nine chapters of the treatise involved the refutation of these views. It was in this part of the treatise that John of Paris clarified his position on this question.

Quidort began his treatise by defining a kingdom (regnum) as

" . . . the rule of a perfect multitude ordained to the common good -6'9-

14 by one man . . . ." John of Paris described the royal power in the language of the Politics of Aristotle and of the De regimine principum of Aquinas. The origin of kingship was to be found in natural law and the law of nations.1"' He argues that man is, by nature, a social and political animal since man requires certain necessities which cannot be provided if he lived alone while, at the same time, man possesses the power of speech which would be 16 completely redundant if he were intended to live alone. John of

Paris immediately recognized that if each man in society pursued his private profit without regard for society as a whole, then society would disintegrate. Consequently, it was necessary that there be one man, a king, who could protect the common interest of society as a whole and promote the common good of all}''

While Quidort recognized that political authority in civil society has a purely natural origin, he also demonstrated that this authority possessed a moral purpose. The end of civil society and 18 its moral purpose was "to live according to virtue." The aim of any ruler must be to make men good and to lead them to virtue.

Elsewhere in the treatise, to further buttress this concept, Quidort quoted the Aristotelian argument which stated that, since the soul is better than the body, then, the legislator must be better than the physician since the legislator has the care of souls while the 19 physician has the care of bodies. John of Paris, stated that the temporal ruler is "justice 20 animate and the guardian of that which is just." Elsewhere in 21 the treatise, the temporal ruler was called "the minister of God." The reason for this is not too difficult to find. Since the incli• nation of man to live in a community is to be found in natural law, which, in its highest sense, is derived from God, then it is only consistent to regard the temporal ruler in this way, since he has the difficult task of directing men in society to a virtuous life. It becomes increasingly evident as the treatise progresses that Quidort had a very high regard for the temporal power and the limits of its competence. This impression is heightened when his conception of the spiritual power is analyzed.

John of Paris began his discussion of the spiritual power by pointing to the fact that there are two ends to human life — the first was a temporal end which was to lead a virtuous life while the second was a spiritual end which directed men to their supernatural 22 end, that is, eternal life. There must be some authority to direct men to this higher end. If this supernatural end could be reached by natural means, then the task of leading mankind to this end would be entrusted to temporal rulers. However, since this supernatural end can only be reached by , then the task of directing men to this end clearly does not belong to temporal rulers but rather to 23 Jesus Christ who was not only a King but also God.

The means employed to direct man to his supernatural end were the sacraments. For Quidort, the priesthood had its origin in the need to administer the sacraments to the faithful. He defined the priesthood in the following way: "The priesthood is the spiritual power to dispense the sacraments to the faithful conferred by Christ to the ministers of the church." Quidort seemed to be determined that this power was wholly spiritual in character. Elsewhere in his treatise, Quidort enumerated the powers which were accorded to the 25 spiritual authority. While the administration of the sacraments re• mained as the principal power of the spiritual authority, its scope was somewhat broadened with the addition of instructional, judicial and punitive powers. Nevertheless, the spiritual power, in the con• ception of John of Paris, was purely spiritual in character.

When Quidort compared the temporal power with the spiritual power, he concluded that the spiritual power was greater in dignity 26 than the temporal power. The reason for this, according to Quidort, was ". . . the one to whom the ultimate end pertains is more perfect than, and is better than, and directs the one to which the inferior 27 end pertains." Once he conceded the greater dignity of the spiritual power, Quidort observed that this did not necessarily make 28 it superior to the temporal power in all respects. Next, John of

Paris argued that both the temporal and the spiritual power derived their authority, independently of one another, from a third power (God) 29 which was superior to both. Thus, Quidort concluded that the temporal power was not subordinated to the spiritual power in all things. Since both powers had their origin from a superior power, they were only subject to each other in so far as the supreme power 30 had subjected them.

Quidort was able to defeat any attempt to make the temporal power subject to the spiritual power. He answered the objection that, in principle, an inferior art was subordinated to the ends of a superior art. Quidort argued that an art ordered to a superior end -72-

did not necessarily rule an inferior art in all things but rather the

superior ruled the inferior only in so far as it was necessary for the

superior art to achieve its end. Quidort then stated that there was

nothing in the political order which was necessary for men to reach

their ultimate end. This end could be reached in many ways, including 31 tyranny as well as just rule. Furthermore, Quidort observed that rule need not imply a coercive force but rather it could simply imply the 32 direction of a lesser authority by one greater.

It will be remembered that John of Paris defined the spiritual

power in such a way as to restrict it largely to the administration of

'.•.the sacraments to the faithful. If the spiritual authority was to be

properly ordered then there had to be a group of magni sacerdotes or bishops whose superiority rested on the fact that they could ordain 33

other priests. Quidort concluded that bishops, the magni sacerdotes,

and priests, the sacerdotes, have a strictly spiritual authority and

that they do not have a temporal jurisdiction.

If the Church was to retain its unity, it had to have one ruler.

However, for Quidorts the supreme pontiff or maximus sacerdos differed

from other prelates only in the geographic area over which he had power: However, it is clear that although peoples are divided into various and cities in which bishops rule in spiritual• ities, however, there is one church of all the faithful and one Christian people. And for that reason, as in any there is one bishop who is the head of the church in that people, so in the whole church and in the whole Christian people there is one supreme leader, namely the Roman pontiff . . . . ^ One need hardly remark that Quidortfs thoughts on this question were -73-

far removed from those of Giles of Rome or even those of his fellow 3 6 Dominican, Thomas Aquinas.

Elsewhere in his treatise, John of Paris further refined his re• striction of papal power. The pope was "the supreme head not only of clerics but generally of all the faithful, in as much as he is the 37 general teacher of faith and morals . . . ." The pope was stripped of any proprietory rights over ecclesiastical property or goods. In the thought of Quidort, the pope was the "general manager" of ecclesi- 38 astical goods. As such, the pontiff had to account for his manage- 39 ment of them. Although Quidort did state that the pope possessed the highest created power, the power of the College of Cardinals or of a General Council was, in his mind, as great, if not greater than 40 the power of the pope. This succinct statement adequately expresses the principle enunciated by Quidort: "... the world is greater than the City £i.e. Rome], and the pope with a council is greater 41 than the pope alone."

It must be remembered that Quidort's treatise was essentially a philosophical and theological work which was directed against those theorists, such as Giles of Rome, who perceived few obstacles, if any, to the exercise of papal power in temporal affairs. One of the major

problems which faced all medieval political theorists was how to deal with the power of the pope in temporal affairs. It is now necessary to investigate Quidort's conception of papal power and how it could

be exercised in the temporal sphere. John of Paris nullified the

claims of the pope to authority over the French monarchy with an

historical argument which stated that "... there was royal power -74-

and royal power existed and was exercised before there was papal power 42 and there were kings in France before there were Christians."

But Quidort possessed more subtle arguments in order to make this point. Perhaps his most significant argument was this one: So the pope does not institute the king, but each in his own way is instituted by God, nor does he direct the king per _se, as king; but rather he directs him per accidens, in• asmuch as the king ought to be a believer, in which he is instructed by the pope about matters of faith but not about governmental matters. Hence the king is subject to him the pope in those matters which the supreme power has made him subject, namely in spiritual matters.^3 When John of Paris applies this concept of the king as king and the king as a Christian, the full force of his logic becomes apparent.

Quidort argued that if the king fell into sin in his official acts as ruler then he was outside the jurisdiction of the spiritual authority, however, if the king sinned as a Christian, as in matters of faith or of marriage, then he is subject to spiritual censure and 44 punishment like any other Christian. In this way, Quidort sepa• rated the entire political order but not the personal life of the ruler from the spiritual jurisdiction.

John of Paris was able to suggest many reasons for the division of the spiritual authority from the temporal. The two major argu• ments which he proposed were that if the powers were separated the temporal ruler and the spiritual ruler would need one another and this mutual dependence would foster charity while if the spiritual ruler had to care for both spiritual matters and temporal matters then the spiritual authority would likely be diverted from its primary task.**""* -75-

While Quidort denied that the spiritual power had any direct authority in the temporal sphere, he realized that it would be absurd to argue that the two powers were completely separated from one another.

The pope could indirectly affect the temporal order. Quidort carefully outlined the procedure which the spiritual authority should follow if a temporal ruler sinned as a Christian:

With regard to the power of correction or ecclesiastical censure, let it be known that it is directly only spiritual, since in the external forum it is able to impose no penalty except a spiritual one, unless under a condition or per accidens. Indeed, al• though the ecclesiastical judge has to lead men toward God and to lead them from sin and correct them, however, he has to do this in the manner given him by God, which is separation from the sacraments and from the community of the faithful and by those means which pertain to ecclesiastical censure; and I say unless under a condition, namely if he wishes to repent and to accept a pecuniary penance. For the ecclesiastical judge is not able to impose, by reason of a fault, corporal or pecuniary penalties as a secular judge can, but only if he [the sinner] is willing to accept them; for if he does not wish to accept them, the ecclesiastical judge will compel him by excommunication or by another spiritual penalty which he is able to introduce, nor can he go farther. Besides I say per accidens for if the prince is a heretic and incorrigible and contemptu• ous of ecclesiastical censure, the pope, by excommunicating all who obey him Qthe prince] as their lord, and so the people themselves would depose him and the pope would depose him per accidens.^

This was the procedure which the pope was to follow in the event of a prince committing a spiritual crime. The ruler was to be warned, then excommunicated, and finally, due to the actions taken by the spiritual power, the people themselves would likely depose their ruler. Thus, the spiritual power only achieved this change in the temporal sphere indirectly. It will be remembered that in a purely temporal matter, the spiritual power did not take action unless the peers of the realm requested the aid of the spiritual power.

Quidort was able to conclude ". . . that it is apparent that ecclesiastical censure is wholly spiritual, namely excommunication, , , nor does the church have the power to do any- 47 thing more except indirectly and per accidens . . . ." Even in the area in which the spiritual power could act, that is, when the tempo• ral ruler sinned as a Christian, it could only bring about changes in the temporal order indirectly and per accidens. Quidort has formu• lated a system of indirect power which could be exercised by the papacy in temporal affairs.

Nevertheless, indirect power in the conception of John of Paris was not the sole prerogative of the spiritual authority. Quidort thought that temporal rulers could exercise a similar power over the pope himself. If the pope, in the exercise of his office, should commit a spiritual offence, such as simony or heresy, the cardinals should warn him and if the pope does not correct his ways then the cardinals should request the temporal ruler to take action in order 48 to depose the pontiff. Furthermore, Quidort added that if the pope abused his spiritual power, and, as a consequence, stirred up the people and the church did not take action, then the secular ruler should be able to proceed against the pope, not as pope, but as an 49 enemy of the republic. This, in summary, is the political thought of John of Paris as -77-

revealed in his treatise, the De potestate regia et papali. With re• lentless logic, Quidort argued that the temporal order was self- sufficient and perfect, possessing an end of its own. All that he would concede to the traditional superiority of the spiritual power was that it was greater in dignity. This was due to the fact that the end of the spiritual order was higher and more ultimate. Whereas, earlier theorists and many of his contemporaries had concluded that if the end of the spiritual order was higher then it must be judicial• ly superior to the temporal order which is directed to a more immediate end, Quidort argued that this superiority of the ends of the two societies did not necessarily involve the judicial subordi• nation of one power to the other. He recognized that temporal and spiritual acts could have an accidental effect. Therefore, he formulated what could be called a theory of indirect power. For this indirect power which the pope possessed and could employ against tem• poral rulers, he had to face the fact that he was also subject to a similar power which could be exercised by temporal princes if he did not properly perform his duties as pontiff. -78-

(3) The Dominican Order and its Role in the Conflict between Boniface VIII

and Philip IV.

The violent conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV certainly placed the members of the various religious orders in France in a most difficult position. It was virtually impossible to please both pope and king at the same time. If the religious acceded to the king's de•

mands for a subsidy before the issuance of Etsi de statua the penalties prescribed in the bull Clericis laicos were incurred. On the other hand, if they refused to accede to the demands of the king, the king and the people of the district might conclude that they were being dis• loyal to the state. Clearly, events forced members of the religious orders in France to make difficult moral decisions.

The bull Unam sanetarn was regarded by Philip IV as a direct attack on France. The French king took immediate action and arranged to hold a council to judge the pope. Royal officials were directed to obtain the signatures of the clergy in France on appeals for this council.

Once again, the clergy in France were forced to take a stand in the con• flict. We have already seen that the Dominican, John of Paris, felt that he was free to write a treatise at the height of this conflict which dealt with the relationship of pope and king. He suffered no re• prisals. However, several significant questions remain to be answered.

These questions are related to the official attitude of the Dominican

Order during this conflict and the attitudes of the Dominican hier• archy in France itself. A discussion of the attitudes of the Dominicans in this crisis will contribute to a fuller understanding of the posi• tions taken by the clergy in France at this time. Therefore, we will turn our attention to these questions.

(a) The Official Attitude of the Dominican Order.

The official attitude of the governing bodies of the Dominican

Order can be gleaned from the Acta of the general chapters and from the letters of the masters-general. The encyclical letters of the masters-general were issued at the general chapters.The Acta of the general chapters embody the final decisions reached by the cen• tral governmental body of the Order.5"- The encyclical letters are im• portant since they reveal the preoccupations of the master-general who ruled the entire Order. Both the acta and the encyclical letters were copied by the friars who attended the general chapters and these were

carried back with them to their respective provinces.52 Tn this way, the attitudes and the decisions of the central governmental machinery of the Dominican Order were directed to each province of the Order.

In 1296a the general chapter of the Dominican Order, which was held at Strasbourg, pointed out the dangers which could afflict the Order if the friars took part in diplomatic negotiations. Revealing much worldly wisdom, the friars were cautioned against undertaking such activities with the following words:

With the undertaking of secular negotiations for great counts and princes, dangers threaten our Order and persons from it, since, when the favor of one party is gained, it provokes the enmity of the other. We will and strictly enjoin the priors and all. friars that by no means are they to assume to undertake such odious and dangerous negotiations; nor are the provincial or conventual priors to give licences, in any way, for undertaking such negotia• tions. 53

Clearly, the general chapter was determined to do as much as possible to prevent the friars from undertaking secular negotiations. This ad• monition was probably a pointed reference to the friars who were involved in the diplomacy of the kings of England and France. At this time,

Edward I and Philip IV were engaged in a war against one another -- a war which hindered the fulfillment of Boniface VIIl's dreams for a

Crusade.

The next general chapter was held at in 1297. By this time, the conflict over Clericis laicos between Boniface VIII and Philip IV and Edward I had broken out. It will be remembered that Philip IV first attempted to demonstrate that Boniface VIII was not the legitimate pope and that the abdication of Celestine V had been invalid. This general chapter urged all friars ". . . in public and other sermons, when there is an opportunity, they are to preach, teach and constantly assert that the lord pope Boniface is the true pope, the successor of Peter and the

Vicar of Jesus Christ."54 Thus the general chapter was determined to enlist the support of all the Dominican friars to support Boniface VIII against the attacks of the French monarch — attacks which threatened the peace of Christendom. At the same general chapter, the friars were also instructed to pray for the pope.55

The encyclical letters of the masters-general also reveal a certain concern for the pope and for the conflict between Boniface VIII and

Philip IV. The master-general, Nicholas of , who was later to become pope Benedict XI, underlined the admonition of the general chapter of 1296 with these words:

The most holy father, our lord Boniface, by divine providence, highest pontiff, and as such, he is the true successor of the highest of the Apostles, , who was before the others in honor, and by so much in dignity and state; and, whoever -81-

should attempt to influence or to persuade to the contrary is speaking boastfully and is uttering detestable profanities.-^6

This statement of the master-general, in considerably stronger language, underlined and followed the admonition made by the general chapter.

There is no mention of the conflict between Boniface VIII and

Philip IV in the records of the general chapter held at Cologne in 1301.

Nevertheless, the master-general, Bernard de Jusix, in his encyclical letter issued at this general chapter, did send some advice to the friars. He instructed the friars to speak of the pontiff in the follow• ing manner:

When you speak of the most holy father and lord pope, in public or in private, it is necessary that you conduct yourself in this way, when appropriate, close your lips so that absolutely nothing in them is discovered such as he (the pope) deviates from the truth; that he turns away from fairness; that he speaks irreverently; or that he himself does not suggest holiness."'7

It seems that the master-general was concerned that some of the friars might make casual remarks about the pontiff which could be construed in a way which would only undermine the position of Boniface.

The acta of the general chapters and the wishes expressed by the masters-general in their encyclical letters reveal the fact that those who governed the Dominican Order were concerned with the conflict be• tween the pope and the kings of France and England. Their statements were moderate. The general chapters and the masters-general urged all the friars to preach and to teach that Boniface was the true pope.

Later, as the conflict progressed, the master-general recommended that the friars should seal their lips and not mention the pontiff at all.

This was not a gallant stand in the conflict but it was probably the -82-

best position which the ruling hierarchy of the Dominican order could take when all aspects of the problem which confronted them are con•

sidered. Certainly, it cannot be said that the central hierarchy of the Order was disloyal to Boniface VIII,

(b) The Attitude of the Dominican Authorities in France,

It is a difficult.task, indeed, to trace, with any assurance, the attitudes of the Dominican hierarchy in the Province of France during the conflict. The reason for this is that the acta of the provincial chapters of this province have been lost. These documents would have given some indication, at least, of the official attitude taken by the

Dominican Order in the Province of France during the dispute. Therefore, the historian is forced to turn to the incidental references which can be gleaned from other sources. The only provincial of the Province of

France mentioned in connection with the conflict was Raymund Romain who became provincial in 1302.58

Perhaps, the friar who was in the most difficult position during the conflict was Nicholas de Freauville, the confessor of Philip IV.

He became confessor to the king in 1295 and held the office during the next troubled decade. The office of the royal confessor was not an easy one to fill in this period.

Apparently, the confessor had a sufficient hold on the conscience of royal master to be considered a threat. He was accused of treason —

the charge laid against him was that he had delivered the decisions of

the Royal Council to the Flemings.60 Philip IV did not believe the

charge and the confessor was subsequently able to prove his innocence. At any rate, Freauville remained in office as royal confessor. The motive for this charge of treason seems to lay in the fact that the con• fessor did not wholly subscribe to the policies of Flote and Nogaret and thus he became an obstacle to their plans,**1

Together with Robert, Duke of Burgundy, the confessor urged

Philip IV to allow some of the French clergy to attend the council in

Rome which Boniface VIII had summoned in order to discuss the state of the Church in France.62 Nevertheless, Nicholas de Freauville was not highly regarded at the papal court. Apparently, Boniface VIII did not think that the confessor was exercising his office properly. On April

13, 1303, the Cardinal John Lemoine, then in France, was in• structed to order the confessor to travel to Rome within three months to answer for his conduct before the pope himself.63 Nicholas de Freauville did not appear before the pope. On June 26, 1303, he signed the appeal 64 for a council at the Dominican convent of Saint-Jacques in Paris.

It might be argued that Boniface VIII was correct in his attitude with regard to Philip IV's confessor, particularly in view of the fact that he later was willing to sign the appeal for the council. Neverthe• less, in all justice, it would have been impossible for the confessor not to affix his signature to the appeal and still retain his office as confessor. Perhaps, Nicholas de Freauville felt that he was of more ser• vice to the papacy as confessor where he might be able to temper some of the judgements of the royal advisers. After all, the confessor had per• formed some small services for the papacy in the pastj possibly, he hoped that he would be able to perform even greater services in the future. In the final analysis, the position he took during the conflict did not hinder his ecclesiastical career. In 1305, after the death of Boniface VIII, he became a cardinal.^

The provincial of the Province of France, Raymund Romain, hardly

took a noble position during the conflict. He affixed his signature to

the appeal for the council at Saint-Jacques.66 But rather than merely

signing the appeal and saying nothing more, he proceeded to send a

letter throughout the province justifying his action. . On July 16, 1303,

less than a month after signing the appeal, he directed this letter to

the friars of his province. In the letter, he pointed to the fact that many illustrious persons had thought that it was advisable to sign such

appeals. His letter ended with these words which were a virtual invita•

tion for the friars of his province to submit to the wishes of the king:

"That, at any rate, I have urged you to show discretion and that you

should act after mature consideration lest you should incur the dis•

pleasure of our lord king nor should you rightly be able to hold back

for some reason or another.67

Why did the provincial issue this letter? There is no direct evi•

dence but it seems likely that the provincial had been requested to send

it by the royal government. This hypothesis is based upon the fact that

up until the time the provincial issued this letter, no Dominican convent

other than Saint-Jacques in Paris had signed an appeal for the council.6^

If the royal government had thought that it was advisable for the provin•

cial to send this letter, it certainly had the desired result since many

Dominican houses signed appeals shortly after the letter was issued.6y

Thus, it seems reasonable to believe that the action of the provincial was suggested to him by the government. Certainly, the Dominicans were

not alone in signing the appeals for the council.7^ -8-5-

(c) The Dominicans and the Appeal for a Council.

During the conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV, the royal government endeavored to rally public opinion to the side of the king.

In such attempts, the attitudes of the clergy in the kingdom would be of the utmost importance. In the council held on July 13, 1303, in

Paris, the pope was denounced by Guillaume de Plasian before the king and a clerical assembly.71 Plasian suggested that a council should be held to judge the pope. In this view, he was supported by the king and by

Guillaume Nogaret.72 After listening to the satiric and crude of Plasian and finding that the king himself wanted such a council, the clergy attending this gathering agreed to the proposal. Nevertheless, this attempt to hold a council was, in reality, merely another effort on the part of Philip IV and his advisers to force Boniface VIII to accede to their demands. It seems likely that they felt that the spectre of a council assembled to judge the pope would quickly force Boniface to come to terms.

After this meeting of the clergy, the royal government prepared two drafts of the documents which were to be signed by the clergy and laity which called for a general council to judge the pope,?3 The government of Philip IV was willing to exert a great deal of pressure in order to obtain signatures on these appeals. While it is true that most of the clergy in France signed these documents, some clerics had the courage to refuse. Amongst those who resisted the king are to be found some members of the Dominican Order,

It has been stated by many historians that all the friars at Saint- -86-

Jacques signed the appeal for a council.However, recent research has indicated that it is likely that some friars refused to sign the docu• ment. It has been shown that in obtaining the appeal for the council, there were, in some cases, three documents; first, a provisional list of those who adhered to the appeal; second, a provisional list of those who were opposed; third, the final list of those who supported the ap• peal for a council.75 These lists have survived for the Franciscan con• vent in Paris. It seems likely that similar lists would be made for the

Dominican convent of Saint-Jacques and if they were, the frist two lists

7 6 have been lost.'" There are several reasons for believing that this was the case. Only six or seven names of foreigners are to be found on the appeal of Saint-Jacques. If the requirements of the constitutions of the Dominican Order were fulfilled, there should have been at least one hundred and twenty students from Dominican provinces other than those of

France and Provence in Paris at this time.77 Furthermore, the names of the two lectors in theology do not appear amongst those who signed the

7 8 appeal. Dondaine has estimated that there would be at least two hun• dred and fifty friars at Saint-Jacques at this time while the.true figure was likely to approach three hundred.7y However, only one hundred and thirty-three friars signed the appeal at Paris.80 The only reasonable conclusion which one can draw from the above evidence is that a consider• able number of the Dominicans at Saint Jacques refused to sign the ap• peal. The document itself stated that many illustrious persons of the realm had signed appeals for the council. At the end of the document, the friars of Saint-Jacques stated: -87-

In like manner they appeal fully and like these others and under the same qualifications and the same words, saving the obedience and reverence of their Order and the honor of the Church of Rome and the truth of the Catholic faith; placing them• selves and what is their state under the protec• tion of the aforesaid sacred Council which will be assembled and of the aforesaid true and legitimate supreme pontiff not withdrawing from the above- mentioned appeals but rather adhereing to them,8''-

Thus, the friars of Saint-Jacques, while signing the appeal, attempted

to maintain that they were still loyal to the Church, The very fact

that they felt that it was necessary to make such a condition would seem

to indicate that they feared that some might regard the act as disloyal.

On July 26, 1303, the royal agents were at the Dominican convent of 82

Langes which signed the appeal on the same day.0*" The fr iars of this con• vent added the following condition to the appeal before affixing their

signatures to the document: We, however, induced by the aforementioned con• siderations and causes, thinking the convocation and assembly of this council to be useful, neces• sary, salutary and profitable to the faith and the Holy Church of God, assent to the convocation and assembly of the same council but protest ex• pressly that we, in no way, intend to join one party about this but saving the honor and rever• ence in all things of the Apostolic See and the obedience owed to the holy Roman Church which we confess is the head and is to be obeyed, saving also the state of our Order and the obedience to our superiors, insofar as according to God, we are able to do, we adhere to the aforesaid pro• vocation and appeals.

These words did not alter the fact that the friars had submitted to the will of the king.

Acts of open defiance were very few. On July 28, 1303, Amaury II, viscount of Narbonne and Denys de Sens bore the documents for the appeal

to the Dominican convent of Montpellier, The report of the king's -88-

agents stated "that they (the friars) would not assent or adhere to the aforesaid convocation and assembly and appeal without the express will and assent of the prior general of the whole order whom they said they thought to be in Paris because of the royal summons given to him."84

The royal agents then interrogated each friar individually and all but three of the friars remained steadfast and refused to affix their signa• tures to the appeal for a council. The thirty-two friars who refused to adhere to the appeal were given three days to leave the country; after this time, they were outlawed.85 On October 22, 1303, the friars of the convent of Limoges followed the example of Montpellier and as a body re• fused to sign the appeal, stating that the provincial prior should answer for the whole province.86 Other Dominican convents did not follow the example set by Montpellier and Limoges. All the other houses signed the appeals for a council.^

There were several reasons why the Dominicans generally supported

Philip IV*s bid for a council. First, the Master-General of the Order did not issue any instructions with regard to the appeal. Secondly, the provincial of the Province of France virtually told the friars to sign the appeal in order to avoid the wrath of the king. Finally, the friars may have been irritated by the bull Super cathedram of Boniface VIII.88

The intention of this bull had been to regularize the relations.between the and the . It seems that the Mendi• cants, in general, felt that the bull was unfair. Perhaps, this grievance spurred many of the friars to sign the appeal for a council which was to judge the pope -- the same pope who had issued Super cathedram and who was reputed to hate Frenchmen. The conflict between

Boniface VIII and Philip IV revealed that the king had the primary allegiance of all his subjects, both clerical and lay. With few excep• tions, the clergy of France signed the appeal for the council and thus acceded to the demands of the king. CHAPTER IV

POLITICAL DISPUTES AND THE DOMINICANS IN ENGLAND

In general, relations between England and the papacy were cordial in the period from 1250 until 1350. Henry III established exceedingly close ties with the papacy - likely closer than those of any other English king.

In fact, many of the problems of this king were partially attributable to his close alliance with the papacy.1 After the death of Henry III, Anglo- papal relations continued to be relatively close. During the reign of

Edward I, the only really serious crisis which disrupted the relations between England and the papacy occurred. This crisis was provoked by the bull Clericis laicos. Before the issuance of Clericis laicos,

Edward I had enjoyed fairly cordial relations with the papacy although he tended to stand more aloof from the papacy than his father had done.

After the dispute over Clericis laicos, Anglo-papal relations returned to their former degree of harmony. During the reign of Edward II and the early years of that of Edward III, the English kings and pontiffs enjoyed 2 harmonious relations with one another. The only significant note of discord in the period from 1250 until 1350 arose over the question of clerical taxation and the bull Clericis laicos. Our attention will thus be directed to this dispute. In this chapter, there will be three major divisions:

(1) The Conflict over Clericis laicos in England.

(2) The Political Activities of the English Dominicans. (3) The Political Thought of the English Dominicans.

Since the provisions of the bull Clericis laicos have already been dealt with fully in the preceding chapter, our discussion will be limited to a 3 description of the crisis in England. -92-

(1) The Conflict over Clericis laicos in England

Although Clericis laicos was issued by Boniface VIII in 1296 for the whole Church, events in England seemed to have contributed to the pro• mulgation of the bull, In 1294, Edward I had demanded a half of clerical incomes in his desperate search for revenue in order to finance his war against France. Edward threatened to outlaw those clerics who refused to grant him this subsidy. This threat worked since the clergy finally agreed to the grant. In the same year, the king seized the crusading tenths which had been deposited in the churches and monasteries of 4

England. At this time, the bishops had agreed to the royal demands while the lower clergy resisted as they had done on similar occasions in

1269 and 1283.~* On those occasions, the lower clergy had argued from

Canon law that the papacy should be consulted before they could agree to the royal demands. It seems likely that they employed the same argu• ments in 1294. However, as in the past, the bishops supported the king and with the additional threat of outlawry hanging over them, the lower clergy agreed to the tax. In 1295, Edward I again made a similar demand on the resources of 6 the clergy. At this time, Edward was faced with the war in France and with a revolt in Wales. The king pleaded with the clergy, on the basis of the common danger, to grant a half of their revenues to him. The clergy refused to grant more than a tenth which the king finally agreed to accept. At the same time, the clergy promised that, if the war had not ended by the next year, they would grant the king an additional tenth.^ But in the meantime, Clericis laicos was issued which establi• shed an entirely new basis for the relations between the king and his -93-

clergy with regard to taxation.

It will be remembered that the main provisions of Clericis laicos

prohibited clerical taxation without the consent of the pontiff. Fur•

thermore, the penalties of the bull were directed not only against those who demanded subsidies from the clergy but also against those who agreed

to pay them. Clearly, the bull placed the clergy in a difficult position.

It seems that events in England acted as a spur to the pontiff to issue

the bull aside from the fact that it was timed to hinder the war between

France and England - a war which hindered the pontiff's cherished dreams

for a Crusade. In the bull itself there were statements which seemed to

refer to recent events in England. Clericis laicos stated that the laity

demand from the clergy " . . . a half, tenth, twentieth or other portion

from their revenues or goods ..." and that "... they arrest the wealth and the things deposited in holy buildings and the goods of 8

ecclesiastics ..." These seem to be clear references to the activities

of Edward I in 1294 when he demanded a half of clerical incomes and when he seized the crusading tenths which had been collected and were deposited

in the churches and monasteries of England. Walter of Hemingburgh indi•

cates in his chronicle that Boniface VIII was moved to issue Clericis 9

laicos by these events.

In the face of the opposition of the French monarch, Boniface VIII wrote several letters to the French clergy and Philip IV which clarified

the provisions of the bull."^ Boniface argued that Clericis laicos was not meant to endanger France and that if a state of necessity existed,

the local clergy could give a grant to the king freely if they thought

that the need existed. Boniface steadfastly maintained that he wished -.94=

to enforce the recognition of a much abused clerical immunity. Neverthe•

less, he finally surrendered and in the bull Etsi de statu he acknowledged

that the French king himself could judge whether, in a given situation,

there was the necessity to warrant a clerical grant.

There can be little doubt that these letters which were sent to

France had influence in England since they expressed the official papal

interpretation of the bull."*'"'" Similar letters were not directed to

England. Edward I acted differently from Philip IV in his struggle with

the papacy over Clericis laicos. Edward did not respond to the bull with vigorous actions directed against the papacy nor would he allow his clergy

to write to Rome for permission to grant taxes to the king. Edward simply ignored the fact of Clericis laicos. As far as Edward was con•

cerned, the clergy were members of the community of the realm, and as such, they had to contribute to the common needs of the kingdom in the same manner as the laity. In Edward's mind, the papacy could not release 12 the English clergy from these obligations. Thus the clergy were placed

in a terrible moral dilemma. If they agreed to the exactions of the king, they would incur a sentence of excommunication while if they failed to agree to the royal demands, they would be liable to the punishments which the king could inflict.

Clericis laicos was issued in February, 1296, and in November of that year the Parliament of Bury St. Edmunds was held. At this parlia• ment, Edward I reminded the clergy of their promise of the year before 13 and requested a fifth of their revenues. The clergy postponed their final decision and Archbishop Winchelsey explained the delay to Edward I.

The chronicler Langtoft describes this meeting of the king and archbishop

in colorful terms: "Sir clerk," says the king, "thou hast spoken folly. Promise is debt due, if faith be not forgotten. But let me see thee possessed of the bull, As well as all the others, by the Son of Mary! You will not be able to escape this aid." "Sire," says the bishop, "very willingly To thee, as to our lord, we are willing all to give aid By leave of the pope, if thou wilt send By one of thy clerks with our messenger, Who shall be able to state they condition and ours. And according to the message which the pope shall send us back, We will aid voluntarily according to our capabilities." "Sir clerk," replies the king "I have no need Of thy sending to consult the pope. But if thou desire to have respite in this case, Cause when thou wilt thy clerks to assemble, Talk with them of the promise, talk of it heartily; After St. Hillary's day come to Westminster, To perform the promise without more talking of it."14

At this parliament, Edward had been disappointed by the actions of the clergy whose aid he desperately required. The clergy had promised him a grant and now they refused to fulfill their promise because of Clericis laicos. He granted them time to consider their action but he refused to allow them to write to the pontiff for permission to grant the subsidy.

In the past, the clergy had yielded to pressure. Therefore, to place some pressure on the clergy, the king ordered the barns of the clergy sealed.*^ Nevertheless, the king granted concessions and was willing to allow the clergy to have time to consider their position.

On November 27, 1296, Winchelsey summoned a convocation of the 16 clergy to be held on January 13, 1297, at St. Paul's, London. Winchelsey realized that Edward required subsidies from the clergy and he also realized that the clergy had promised to give aid to the king. Neverthe• less, the clerics were bound by the laws of the Church more than by their loyalty to the king. At this convocation, Winchelsey urged the prelates

to consider the problem of finding " ... some suitable middle path bet• ween the twin dangers, namely the constitution of the supreme pontiff

and the overthrow of the whole realm.The clergy could find no way out of their difficulty since the king would not allow them to write to

the opoe. Therefore, they refused to pay the king a grant. Edward I 18 responded by outlawing the clergy and by seizing their lay fees. While undertaking these actions, Edward let it be known that the clergy could escape these penalties and obtain the protection of the king upon a pay- 19 ment of a fifth of their goods. These actions on the part of the king produced almost immediate results. A few weeks after the convocation, many members of the clergy took advantage of the opportunity to obtain

royal protection and to redeem their lands. Nevertheless, many of those who submitted to the king felt that by their actions they had incurred 20 a sentence of excommunication. Winchelsey remained steadfast in his position and refused to submit to the will of the king.

On February 10, 1297, at the consecration of John of Monmouth to

the see of Llandaff, Winchelsey reviewed the decisions which had been made at the convocation and publicly excommunicated all those who had 21 violated Clericis laicos. This was a vain effort since violations on

the part of both laymen and clerics continued. Therefore, Winchelsey

directed that Clericis laicos should be republished by the bishops 22 throughout England. As the crisis over clerical taxation was reaching a climax, Edward I summoned a strictly lay parliament which met at 23

Salisbury on February 24, 1297. Although the lay magnates were not

able to agree with the king on the question of their service overseas, they fully endorsed the actions which he was undertaking against the 24 clergy. After this parliament, the king took even more stringent 25 measures against the clergy. The clergy were told that if they did not redeem their lands and seek royal protection by Easter, then their moveables would be seized and then sold with the revenues obtained being turned over to the treasury.

Shortly after the parliament at Salisbury, Winchelsey met with the 27 king and strongly rebuked him. While Winchelsey was willing to face the wrath of the king and to republish Clericis laicos, this did not solve the problem facing the clergy. Although many members of the clergy did not ask for the king's protection, Edward's practical measures had 28 broken the ranks of the clergy. Although the convocation of January

1297, had failed to find a solution to the problem faced by the clergy,

Winchelsey summoned another convocation on February 26, 1297, to convene 29 at St. Paul's, London, on March 26, 1297. At this convocation,

Winchelsey did not force his opinions on the other clerics but allowed them to follow the dictates of their consciences. Winchelsey himself, however, remained adamant and refused to pay a grant to the king since, in his mind, the problem was essentially moral and legal. At the end of the convocation, in his address to the clergy, the archbishop stated: I leave you as a group and individually to your own consciences. But my conscience does not permit me to give money either for the protection of the king or for another pretext.30 31

Only three or four bishops followed the example of the archbishop.

Nevertheless, Winchelsey indicated at the convocation that he would not personally punish those clerics who yielded and it seems that in the next few months most of the clerics took advantage of this opportunity 32 and sought the protection of the king.

It will be remembered that at the parliament held at Salisbury, some

of the barons left the meeting in opposition to the king. In March and 33 April, Edward forced loans on wool and corn. Some of the magnates resisted these measures and they finally decided to hold a baronial 34

parliament in the forest of Wye in the March of Wales. The details of

this meeting are not known but it is likely that it prompted the king to

attempt a reconciliation with the disaffected members of the realm. At

this time, Edward was planning his expedition to Flanders and he must have felt that it was necessary to end the possibility of any coalition between the magnates and the clergy. On May 15, he summoned the military 35 might of the realm to come to London by July 7, 1297. When the forces had gathered, the marshal, Roger Bigot, and the constable, Humphrey of 36

Bohun, refused to serve overseas and refused to draw up the army lists.

Edward was forced to appoint new men to these positions. This action

probably indicated to the king the extent of the opposition which was

growing against him.

On July 11, 1297, Edward ordered that all the lands and goods of 37

Winchelsey should be restored to him. This was not a difficult thing

for the king to do. Edward had wanted a subsidy and he had obtained it.

To be reconciled with Winchelsey would be a small price to pay for unity. 38

On July 14, 1297, the formal reconciliation took place at Westminster.

In theory, Winchelsey had emerged from the dispute as victor, however,

in practice, Edward had been able to achieve his ends. In this way, the

first stage of the dispute over Clericis laicos ended. Edward had been

able to prevent any union between the clergy and those elements of the

laity who opposed him. A second stage of the conflict can be said to have begun in August,

1297. At the time of the reconciliation between the archbishop and the king, the magnates had asked Edward to observe the charters faithfully.

Edward replied that he would confirm Magna Carta and the Charter of the

Forests if the laity would grant him an eighth and if the clergy would 39 also make a grant to him. On July 16, 1297, Winchelsey summoned a 40 convocation of the clergy to meet on August 10, at New Temple, London.

By this time, Boniface VIII's interpretation of Clericis laicos was known in England.^*

When the convocation assembled, the clerics immediately discussed the matter of giving a grant to the king. The result of these delibera• tions was that the clergy felt that they could not contribute a subsidy to the king without first seeking papal permission. Once again, Edward refused to allow them to ask for papal permission nor would he allow them to issue sentences of excommunication against those who had violated 42 clerical immunities or Clericis laicos. In their stand, the clergy were likely strengthened not only by the example of Winchelsey but also 43 by the fact that they now enjoyed a degree of support by the laity.

Edward began at once to exert pressure upon the clergy by stating that he would seize their corn and goods. From experience, he had learned that these measures would likely be enough to break down most of the clerical resistance to his demand for a grant. 44

At the end of August, Edward left England for Flanders. It seems that the king was confident that no problems would arise in England during his absence. The regency continued to follow the policies of the king and summoned a parliament to meet on September 30, 1297. On September 21, the magnates held their own "parliament" at Northampton.^5

It is not known whether the clergy were represented at this gathering nor is it known what transpired at this meeting. Professor Wilkinson has suggested that the terms of the De Tallagio non Concedendo were drafted 46 at this meeting. This document made special reference to the liberties 47 of the clergy. Certainly, there was a remarkable change in the atti• tudes of the magnates since the parliament which had been held at

Salisbury in the preceding February.

This change in the attitude of the magnates was also reflected in their activities at the parliament held on September 30, 1297. When the news of the battle of Stirling reached the parliament, the regency was 48 forced to yield and agreed to the confirmation of the Charters.

Winchelsey acted as mediator between the regency and the magnates who were opposed to the policies of Edward. It was not until October 10,

1297, that the final details of the confirmation of the charters were 49 worked out and these were accepted by Edward on November 5, 1297.

On October 15, 1297, Winchelsey summoned the clergy to meet in con• vocation at the New Temple, London, on November 5, to discuss the posi• tion which the clergy should take in the face of the Scottish invasion.5^

At this convocation, the clergy granted a tenth to the king. It seems likely that the clergy were willing to make this grant because the king was about to confirm the charters.5"'" Nevertheless, when Winchelsey wrote to Boniface VIII to justify his action, he based his argument on 52 the serious threat which the Scottish invasion posed to England.

In 1298, Edward did not ask for a grant from the clergy but asked the convocation of the clergy to promise to agree to a grant if the war made such a levy necessary. The clergy replied that they could not promise to aid the king in the future without the permission of the Pope.

By the middle of 1298, the first two stages of the conflict over Clericis laicos had ended. In the first stage of the conflict, the king had been able to force most of the clergy to give him a grant notwithstanding

Clericis laicos. Furthermore, he was able to enjoy considerable lay support for his actions. Nevertheless, in the second stage of the con• flict, the laity and the clergy were slowly becoming united in the face of the exactions by the king. In this way, Clericis laicos became ulti• mately entwined with the confirmation of the charters and the great constitutional crisis which marred the last years of the reign of Edward I.

In the years 1298 and 1299 the conflict over Clericis laicos in

England abated. In March, 1300, Edward met a parliament at London and was faced with the Articuli super Cartas which provided for the closer 54 observance of the charters and for their publication. In return for this guarantee of their liberties, the magnates promised a twentieth while the clergy made no promise of a grant.Nevertheless, there seems to have been no problem at this time. From midsummer until October,

Edward was engaged in his campaign against Scotland. It was during this campaign that Winchelsey had to present the king with the papal letters in which Boniface VIII claimed Scotland as a papal fief."^

This claim by the papacy was a diplomatic blunder which failed to recognize the nationalistic feelings which the Scottish war had fostered in England. Edward summoned a parliament to meet with him at Lincoln in

January, 1301."^ This meeting was a particularly stormy one with com• plaints about the violation of the charters and complaints about the conduct of some of the king's ministers. Twelve petitions were presented to the king in the name of the community of the realm. These petitions included characteristic grievances which asked that the charters should be fully obeyed and that those who had violated them should be punished.

The laity informed the king that they were willing to grant a fifteenth

to him in place of the twentieth which they had promised him the pre• vious year if he would accept the petitions. The final petition was also presented in the name of the whole realm but it was, in reality, only concerned with the clergy. It stated that the prelates of the

Church could not contribute to the king against the papal prohibition, 58

that is, Clericis laicos. Edward gave his assent to all the petitions but the last. A note appended to the last petition states that the mag• nates approved of it but the king would not accept it.

It seems likely that the twelfth petition presented at Lincoln embodies the clergy's answer to a royal request for a grant from their 59 goods. One chronicler mentions that the king had demanded a fifteenth of the spiritualities of clergy at this parliament - a grant which the clergy could not agree to without violating the provisions of Clericis 60

laicos. The parliament of Lincoln brought the quarrel between the laity and the king to a conclusion but it left the clerical problem unsolved.

Winchelsey had succeeded in obtaining considerable lay support for the position of the clergy after 1297. Nevertheless, when Edward accepted the demands of the laity at Lincpln and refused to accept the petition of the clergy, Winchelsey and the clergy were once again isolated. The clergy had failed to obtain the consent of the king to the principle expressed in Clericis laicos.

In the fall of the year 1301, the collection of the fifteenth voted by the laity at Lincoln was begun. Edward argued that he had the right to collect it from the temporalities of the clergy as well. The problem faced by the clergy was that Edward insisted that he could levy the fifteenth on all their temporalities including those annexed to 61 spiritualities. The clergy did not object to paying the fifteenth on their temporalities, that is, on their lay fees, but they had never paid a lay subsidy oh their temporalities annexed to spiritualities.

Therefore, the clergy objected to this practice.

In a convocation held in December, 1302, it was decided that papal permission should be sought before they agreed to pay th:Ls tax. Edward, for the first time, did not prevent the clergy from seeking papal per- 62 mission for this grant. In the end, the king threatened the clergy when no answer was immediately forthcoming from the papacy and the clergy paid the tax. Edward was able to succeed in obtaining the grant from the clergy but he was compelled to use threats. In principle, Clericis laicos was still a hindrance to the king although he was able to override it in practice.

Clericis laicos was not to prove a hindrance much longer. The bull was revoked by Clement V on February 1, 1306, in the decree Pastoralis cura. According to this decree, clerical taxation was to be governed by 63 the canonical principles laid down by the Lateran Councils. With this legislation, the conflict over Clericis laicos can be said to have come to an end. The kings of France and England had been able to overcome

Clericis - laicos and their actions contributed to its .

The. conflict over Clericis laicos was the most important dispute to erupt between the papacy and the French and English kings in the period

1250 until 1350. In this dispute, the French and English Dominicans played a relatively important role. The French Dominican, John of Paris wrote an important treatise which dealt with the relationship between -10.4r

the spiritual and temporal powers. In England, there is no evidence of tracts of this nature being written during the dispute. Nevertheless, in their scholastic pursuits, the English Dominicans would be given the opportunity to express themselves on such questions if they were so inclined.

The remainder of this thesis involves an investigation of two funda• mental problems relating to the Dominican Order in England. The extant sources provide the historian with ample opportunity to investigate the political activities of the English Dominicans. This constitutes the first problem. The second problem which will receive consideration is involved with.the political thought of the English Dominicans. Several writers have been chosen and their scholastic works have been investigated in order to ascertain whether they developed a political thought. The discussion will be limited to the period from 1250 until 1350. -I05-'

(2) The Political Activities of the English Dominicans

Soon after the establishment of the Order of Preachers in

England, members of the Order began to play a relatively important

role in secular affairs. In 1256, Henry III chose the Dominican,

John of Darlington, as his personal confessor. This appointment began a one hundred and forty-four year period during which Domincan friars undertook the onerous burden of guiding the royal conscience.^

The office of confessor gave the Dominican friar the opportunity to influence political affairs. However, Dominican activity in secular affairs was not limited to the office of confessor. Individual friars were employed from time to time by the king as ministers, advisers and diplomatic envoys.

In 1233, the Dominican friar Robert Bacon boldly asserted in a

sermon preached before the king that Henry III should rid himself of his Poitevin relations and advisers, in particular, Bishop Peter of 65

Winchester. The friar argued that it was these men who caused much of the discord between the king and his barons. Three years later, an unnamed friar of Winchester preached before the king and nobles and was able to prompt the king's , Richard, as well as

Gilbert, the earl marshal, and some of the other magnates to take the cross.^ In 1234, the first record of a Dominican undertaking a royal commission appears. On May 7, 1234, the Dominican friar, Walter, prior of Bristol, was empowered to receive, in the presence of the and the of Tintern and Neath, the oath of

Humbert de Burgh, These activities were probably related to

Hubert's reconciliation with the King. The prior was instructed to bring a report of the proceedings directly to the king who wished to discuss other matters related, to this commission with him.6? These events are the earliest record of Dominican secular activities which have come to light.

(a) The Role of the English Dominicans in the Dispute over

Clericis laicos;

Before entering a further discussion of some of the more character-- istic secular activities undertaken by members of the Order of Preachers in England, it might be useful, at this point, to investigate the role the English Dominicans played.in the conflict over Clericis laicos. It is difficult to ascertain the attitude of the Dominican authorities in England during the crisis over Clericis laicos since the records of the provincial chapters of the Province of England, like those of the Province of France, have been totally destroyed. Nevertheless, the activities of individual friars can be gleaned from other sources not directly related to the

Dominican Order in England. The only mention of the activities of the

Dominicans which can be found in these sources relate to the early stages of the conflict. It should be remembered that the English Dominicans, like their French confreres, were governed by the decisions of the general chapters and the masters-general. The attitudes of these ruling authori• ties of the Dominican Order have already been outlined in the discussion of the conflict over Clericis laicos in France.68

The first reference to the English Dominicans in the.conflict over Clericis laicos occurs in the accounts of the convocation held at St. Paul's, London, on March 26, 1297. It will be remembered that -107-

no solution to the problems of the clergy could be found and that

Winchelsey allowed each cleric to make up his own mind as to the action

which he would take. Thus, the clergy could either suffer forfeiture

of their goods or they could seek the protection of the king.

Although Edward himself did not appear at this meeting of the

clergy, he was, nonetheless, well represented. On March 21, 1297,

Edward issued letters patent to the clergy forbidding them on pain of 69 forfeiture from deciding anything which was prejudicial to royal rights.

At the same time, Edward instructed Hugh le Despenser to attend the convo•

cation and announce this prohibition to the clerics.^ When the

convocation met, the clergy were warned by the representative of the

king of this prohibition.^*" Two Dominicans and two lawyers were also 72

present at this convocation. One account states that ". . . they

urged the clerics with arguments to demonstrate that it was licet for

them to give aid to their king in a time of war notwithstanding the 7 3 . . ..' Another account of this convocation records that a Dominican friar addressed the convocation and stated that he was.prepared to defend the justice of the royal demands before the 74

pope himself. It seems likely that the Dominicans based their

justification on the doctrine of periculosa necessitas. At any rate,

it appears that some members of the Dominican Order were zealous

defenders of the royal position although, on this occasion, their

preaching did not sway their audience.

On August 10, 1297, the convocation of the clergy which met at

New Temple in London discussed many difficult matters. At this

convocation, the clergy of the Province of Canterbury decided to send -108V

a petition to Boniface VIII which asked the pontiff to release the church in England from the heavy financial burdens which were being placed upon it.^ During this period, the English clergy suffered not only from the exactions of the king but also from the increasing financial demands of the papacy. One of the requests made in this petition was

related to Clericis laicos. The third article of this petition reques•

ted the pope to appoint someone in England to absolve those members of the clergy who had incurred a sentence of excommunication by disregard• ing the bull. Clericis laicos had stated that those who violated the provisions contained in the bull would have to seek absolution from

Rome. This procedure was costly and time consuming. Many of the clergy who had sought the protection of the king had refrained from celebrating

divine services which had a detrimental effect on the church. In order

to remedy this situation,the clergy made this request to the pope.

Closely allied to this petition to the pope was the complaint

raised against some members of the Mendicant Orders by the clergy. The

Dominicans did not confine their activities in favour of the king to arguing on his behalf before the convocation. It seems that the friars

generally took a much more lenient view of Clericis laicos than the rest

of the clergy. Some Dominican friars actually went so far as to

absolve the transgressors of the bull when absolution was reserved to

the papacy. The friars based their practice on their doubts concerning

the law. On August 22, 1297, Winchelsey wrote to the Provincial Prior

of the Dominicans stating that the friars were exceeding their privi•

leges granted to them by the papacy and that they were subverting 76 ecclesiastical discipline with their unauthorized activities. -109-

Therefore, the .available evidence suggests that the Dominicans supported the king on the question of clerical taxation. The.English

Dominicans seemed to disregard the legislation of the general chapters which had attempted to keep the friars from becoming embroiled in the conflict over.Clericis laicos. Indeed, the opposition of the friars to the position taken by the episcopate must have been considerable if.it was able to cause the clergy of the Province of Canterbury to request that

Winchelsey should write to the Provincial Prior in order to.restrain the friars.

(b) The Activities of the King's Confessors.

The.most significant aspect of the connection of the Dominican Order with the secular.activities. was their monopoly of the office of royal confessor. In.the exercise of this spiritual office, the.individual friar might be.able to influence political affairs through his advice.to the king.

Furthermore, the confessors soon found that their services were valued.in other ways. The confessors were often engaged in a number of activities not connected with their spiritual office. The Dominican confessors often acted as the ambassadors and messengers of the king; they took part in the administration and sat as members of the king's council. These functions were gradually added to the exercise of their spiritual office.

The first Dominican to hold the office of confessor to the king was

John of Darlington. His.activities during the reign of Henry III and the early years of that of Edward I may serve as an example of the types of activities which a royal.confessor might undertake. From 1256,

Darlington was constantly at the side of Henry III, a king whom Mathew of

Paris remarked was certainly in need of wise counsel.^ -lid-

When Darlington became confessor and a member of the royal council he was probably one of the best known members of the Dominican Province

of England. He had helpted prepare the Concordantiae magnae or 78

Concordantiae Anglicae at Paris between 1250 and 1252. It seems

likely that Darlington came to the notice of the king as a result of

his activities as a protector of the Jews. In 1255, the body of a 79

young boy was found in the well of a Jew living in Lincoln. A wave

of indignation swept over England as the result of this murder of a

young Christian boy by the Jews. The boy became known as Little Saint

Hugh of Lincoln in the popular mind. Throughout England, the Jews were persecuted as a result of the tragedy at Lincoln. In London, the

Mendicants attempted to protect the Jews from the rage of the people.

Angered by the intervention of the Mendicants, the population refused

to give alms or food to the friars. At this time, John of Darlington

was the prior of Holborn priory in London and he used his influence to

procure the pardon of one of the Jews who had been condemned for the 80 murder of Hugh of Lincoln.

Before Darlington was made confessor, other Dominicans had served

Henry III in various ways. InT239, the Dominican, John of St. Giles, 81 had become a member of the royal council. In 1250, Henry III had obtained permission from Innocent IV to allow the Dominicans who resided 82

at his court the right to accompany him on horseback. Whatever the

reason, whether for his learning or for his attempts to help the Jews,

Darlington became the royal confessor and a councillor in 1256. -i-i-i-

During the crisis of 1258, Darlington played an important role as a supporter of the king. He served on the Council of the Twentyrfour as one of the royal nominees and thus had a hand in framing the 83 Provisions of Oxford. On July 4, 1263, he was a member of the committee appointed by the king to meet with the barons concerning the 84 observance of the Provisions of Oxford.

In 1261, Darlington had once again been elected as prior to Holborn

— an action which possibly can be seen as an attempt on the part of the 85

Dominican authorities in England to reclaim his services for the Order.

Nevertheless, his retirement from the court was not to be permanent.

After a brief departure back into the secular world in 1263, Darlington once again retired to Holborn. On September 11, 1265, about a month after the battle of Evesham, Henry III once again desired the services of

Darlington. The king wrote to Robert Kilwardby, the provincial of the

Dominicans, requesting that Darlington should be allowed to return to court.The king told Kilwardby that Darlington had endeared himself to the royal family and to the nobility alike and that he had demonstrated his wisdom and foresight in the conduct of the affairs of state. Henry

III stated that Darlington had been a faithful friend to him throughout many troubled times in the past, and that such a man would be needed in the future.

Once again Darlington returned to the affairs of state and to his office of confessor. It seems likely that Darlington was extremely useful in the events after Evesham since he was fully versed in the events which led up to the battle and, if the king's testimony can be believed, he was on good terms with the barons. In the last years of -ilZ-

Henry Ill's reign, Darlington seems to have continued to act as royal confessor. During this period, Darlington often acted as a mediator who obtained pardons and exemptions from the king for those who sought 87 his assistance. Palmer has stated that Darlington continued to hold 88 this office during the early years of Edward I's reign.

In 1274, the Council of Lyons had declared that tenths should be levied on all ecclesiastical and foundations for a period of six years in order to finance a new Crusade for the recovery of the Holy , 89 Land. This measure was to exert an influence on the subsequent career of Darlinton. On September 20, 1274, Darlington was appointed collector 90 of the crusading tenths in England. On March 1, 1275, Edward I 91 granted a safe conduct to the friar for a period of six years. The king soon found that the collection of the crusading tenth gave him an additional source from which to borrow. On June 9, 1276, Edward I was able to borrow 2,000 marks from the collections of the crusading tenth 92

'. . . for the expediting of his own affairs ..." Darlington was involved in the supervision of the collection of the crusading tenths for a period of nine years.

In 1278, Edward I appointed Darlington to an embassy which was 93 sent to Rome to discuss the king's proposals for a Crusade. As soon as Darlington returned to England, he was once again occupied with the collection of the crusading tenths. On February 8, 1279, Darlington 94 was appointed Archbishop of Dublin. On April 23, Darlington, now styled the "Archbishop-elect of Dublin", was granted a safe-conduct 96 on the next day9 5 the temporalities of the see of Dublin were restored. for two years. On April 27, Darlinton swore fealty to the 97kin g and The new Archbishop was not consecrated until August 27, 1279. Even after his consecration, his duties.as collector of the cru• sading tenth kept Darlington in Englandi In 1283, after serving nine years as collector, Darlington requested the pope to.relieve him of his onerous duties as collector. On October 11, 1283, papal permission was granted and Darlington was able to relinquish his office as collector.y8

It seems that it took Darlington some time before he was able to terminate his affairs in.England and he died on March 29, 1284, before he was able 99 to embark for Ireland.

Darlington was an exceptional royal confessor. Nevertheless, the range of the^ activities undertaken by him clearly illustrates the various types of activities which many of his successors as confessor undertook. The most usual form of activity which the royal confessor would be requested to undertake was to act as the personal envoy of the king, in any difficult negotiationsDarlington was exceptional in the fact that he retained the office of royal confessor for a much longer period than was usually the custom and also that he received a bishopric at the end of his long and varied.career.

(c) The English Dominicans as Royal Envoys

It has already become apparent that on many occasions the English king employed members of the Dominican Order.as envoys and personal ambassadors. The confessor of the king was a trusted servant who knew the mind of his royal master and could be trusted with difficult assign• ments. Nevertheless, the English rulers often engaged other friars to conduct.royal affairs. The outstanding example of such a friar was

William Hothum who was engaged.in.promoting the diplomacy of Edward I for a period of sixteen years between 1282 and 1298. This friar played a leading role in two of the most difficult diplomatic problems of the reign: the Scottish succession and the peace with France.

Hothum had studied at Saint-Jacques in Paris and would have been

remembered for his scholastic career even if he had not entered the 2 „ secular world. Trivet stated that Hothum was pleasing in conversation placid in manner, honestly religious and pleasing to the eyes of all men.

His training and his manner admirably suited the tasks which he would have to undertake for Edward I.

It seems that Hothum*s scholastic career at Paris was interrupted 4 by the demands placed upon him by his Order and by his king. In 1282, the general chapter of the Dominican Order removed the provincial of

England from office.5 William cf Hothum was elected by the provincial chapter of England to the office of provincial. Shortly after his

return to England, Hothum accompanied the king to North Wales and under-

took an unimportant mission for him during the month of October, 1282.

Nothing more is known of Hothum's secular activities until January 23, 1286, when he witnessed a grant made to Eleanor, the mother of the 7 king. The fact that Hothum's signature appears on this document along with royal and episcopal signatures would seem to indicate that he was already a familiar figure in court circles.

In 1286, the general chapter of the Dominican Order released Hothum from his office as provincial and assigned him to teach at Saint-Jacques g

in Paris. The Paris house of studies had experienced very serious

disturbances amongst the students. Apparently the foreign students were being treated unfairly by the French authorities of the Order who

controlled the house of studies. Perhaps, the general chapter felt

that a man of Hothum's stature would be able to calm the passions which -1-15-

had developed during the dispute. Hothum did not take up his position at Paris and his chair remained vacant impeding the progress of studies at Paris. In 1288, the general chapter strongly censured Hothum, 10 entrusting his punishment to the master-general of the Order.

The most likely explanation for Hothum's absence was that he was

constantly employed with the king's business. In November or December

of 1288, Edward I paid the expenses of Hothum and his socius who were

travelling to Barcelona to visit the Dominicans there.11 In January,

1286, Hothum was engaged with court business and in March, 1289, he was also involved with the king's affairs. Therefore, it seems likely

that he was absent from Paris because of some activities which he may have been asked to undertake during the period. Although he was

censured by the general chapter, it did not affect his subsequent career within the Order since he was once again elected as provincial of England 12

in 1290. However, Hothum's involvement in the secular world caused him to neglect his duties as a friar. Therefore, the authorities of

the Order of Preachers were probably justified in their unfavourable view with which they regarded all secular appointments.

In 1289, while accompanying Edward in Gascony, Hothum was appointed

to his first major diplomatic mission. With Otho de Grandison, he was empowered to meet with Pope Nicholas IV to secure a dispensation for the king's son so that he could marry Margaret of Scotland, to discuss

Edward's plans for a Crusade and to negotiate concerning the arrears 13

in the annual tribute to Rome. Upon arrival at the Curia, Grandison

left the papal court to undertake some business in Apulia leaving Hothum

as the sole representative of the king. After obtaining favourable replies to the king's requests, Hothum left the Curia and returned to 15 England. While in Rome, Nicholas IV had discussed the state of the Church in England with Hothum, and, in particular, the question of the 16 infringement of ecclesiastical liberties by the king. Shortly after his return to England, Hothum was appointed bishop 17

of Llandaff by Nicholas IV. Hothum refused the honour arguing that he was ignorant of the Welsh language and that he had been recently

appointed the prior provincial of the Dominican Order in England. On

April 27, 1291, the pope waived these objections and ordered Hothum to 1 8

accept the bishopric. Nevertheless, Hothum refused.

While Hothum was attempting to govern the Order in England and was

adamantly refusing the bishopric of Llandaff, he became involved with the

complicated question of the Scottish succession. With the extinction

of the Scottish royal family in 1290, the regents of the country

appealed to Edward I to settle the question of the succession to the vacant throne. On May 10, 1291, Edward met a parliament at Norham

composed of the magnates of both realms as well as those clerics and other 19

individuals who were versed in canon law and civil law. The chief

justice, Roger Barbazon, delivered an address to the gathering in French

which claimed that Edward was the overlord of Scotland and should be

recognized as such by the rival claimants to the throne of Scotland.

Apparently this address had been written by Hothum who attended this meeting. Hothum realised that Edward would have to have this claim

recognized at the outset. The Scottish nobles and prelates had little

choice in the matter since Edward had taken the additional precaution of 21 tives refused to acknowledge his claims as overlord. mobilizing his army which could be employed if the Scottish representa- -117-

During the negotiations which extended into the next year, Hothum and his socius, William Manchester, took part in all the important 22 meetings which heard the claims of the rival claimants. Hothum was also present at the meeting which declared that the law of succession should follow the law of primogeniture which meant that Balliol could 23 take the Scottish throne.

Although Hotham had played a fairly important role during the negotiations over the Scottish succession, he was to play a much greater role in concluding the peace between France and England during 1297 and

1298. The causes and the course of the war between France and England 24 are well known and do not need to be repeated here. The one fact which should be mentioned was that Edward I chose two friars to repu• diate his treaty with Philip and to declare war against France. The friars were Hugh of Manchester, a\ former Dominican provincial, and 25

William Gainsborough, a former Franciscan provincial. Edward probably employed Mendicant friars to undertake this difficult task since their status would give them a certain degree of immunity which other envoys would not possess. Nonetheless, when the two friars arrived at Calais, they were arrested by the count of Artois and were imprisoned for a 26 week before they were allowed to proceed to Paris.

The chronicler Langtoft has left a remarkable account of the con• frontation of the friars with Philip IV. Manchester reproached Philip for breaking his word and declared that when Edward recovered Gascony 27 he would hold it "of God Almighty." At the end of his discourse, Manchester requested a safe-conduct for himself and his companion which 28 was granted. In this way, a Dominican friar was one of the envoys who repudiated Edward's allegiance to Philip IV and thus had a hand in the beginning of the war between France and England. It was the

Dominican, William Hothum who was to play a large part in bringing about a peace between the two countries.

Boniface VIII was deeply concerned about this conflict which dashed all hopes for a Crusade. As a consequence, the pontiff made Beraldo,

Cardinal Bishop of Albano, and Simon, Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina, legates who were sent to France and England to attempt to arrange a 29 truce. They arrived in England on May 22, 1259.

On August 4, 1295, Hothum delivered a sermon before the cardinal legates and the king on the text: "I will hear what the Lord God will 30 speak to me, for he will speak peace unto his people." In this sermon,

Hothum maintained that Edward was desirous of peace and that he would eagerly receive the papal commands. This sermon before the cardinal legates required not only all Hothum's skill as a preacher but also the diplomatic ability which he possessed.

In 1296, Hothum was appointed archbishop of Dublin by Boniface VIII 31 — an honour which he did not refuse to accept. Hothum accompanied 32 Edward to Flanders in 1297. Neither Edward nor Philip was prepared to risk an open conflict and the way was prepared for negotiations.

Along with Bishop Bek of Durham, Amaury, count of Savoy, Aymer de

Valence and Otho Graridison, Hothum was able to arrange a truce which 33 was extended several times. It seems that Hothum acted as a media- 34 tor between the two kings. Finally a peace was made at Tournai on

January 31, 1298, and it was decided at that time to refer the dispute to Boniface VIII.35 -119-

Hothum was the leader of the.English delegation which was sent to

Rome in June, 1298, to accept the final award of the pope.36 . This event marked the conclusion of the peace and the end of Hothum's diplo• matic career. While returning to England, Hothum fell sick.and died at Dijon on August 27, 1298.37

Trivet states that Hothum was the.leading figure In arranging the truce between Edward and Philip.3^ Additional details are provided by

Hemingburgh who asserts-!, that when an impasse was reached regarding the truce, Hothum was able to prevail upon Philip IV who had known the friar on when he resided in Paris. Whether these details are correct or not is not important. They stand as a testimony to Hothum's diplomatic skill.

Hothum was a fine example of a.Dominican acting as a diplomatic envoy. The range of his.activities is typical of the types of under• takings which.some of the Dominican friars carried out^for their royal masters. In his activities, Hothum revealed himself as a suave diplomat. At the same time, he revealed that he had a strong will and refused to undertake the bishopric of Llandaff even after the pope, pleaded for him to accept the honour. Perhaps, he felt that he could accomplish more as a diplomat than as a bishop although he finally accepted the archbishopric,of Dublin.

(d) Rebel Dominicans

One might begin to think that the.Dominicans were constantly in the service of the government of the king. On some occasions, certain mem• bers of the Dominican Order stood up against the established authorities.

Perhaps the.most celebrated example of such.activities undertaken by a Dominican friar took place during the captivity of Edward II when a Dominican friar, Thomas Dunhead, undertook to free the king. It should be remembered that Edward II had been one of the greatest

English royal patrons of the Dominican Order and likely some friars 40 were sincerely distressed by his abdication.

In 1325, Dunhead was sent by.the king to the curia on secret business. According to one account, Dunhead was sent to the pope by 41 Edward II to obtain a divorce for the king from Queen Isabella. Although Dunhead failed to obtain the divorce, the pope was impressed by Edward's messenger and appointed Dunhead to the office of papal chap- 42 lain. Shortly thereafter, Dunhead returned to England but soon made his position untenable. Edward II wrote to the pope on March 8, 1326, informing the pontiff of Dunhead's activities when he had returned to 43

England. The friar was now accustomed to ride on horseback, to eat flesh-meat and to keep company with seculars — all these things were prohibited by the Dominican rule. When questioned about these actions by the king, Dunhead had replied that his appointment as papal chaplain freed him from his rule and from obedience to his superiors. Edward ordered the friar to submit to the Dominican authorities but the king's letter indicated that Dunhead had fled abroad and was now masquerading as a. royal envoy.

On July 23, 1326, the pope wrote to Dominican provincial commanding him "to keep under obedience and correct Thomas Dunhevid of his order, whom the pope has made papal chaplain, and who considers himself thereby 44

freed from the observance of the rule," It would appear that the

runaway friar had been apprehended by the authorities. Nevertheless

Dunhead was soon free of all restraints and after the abdication and --mi-

imprisonment of Edward II in 1327, he apparently moved about the country freely stirring up the people against the new government.

A chronicler reported that Dunhead was an exceptionally good preacher and it seems that this asset must explain how he was able to collect a band of dissatisfied persons about him so that he could free the king.^5 Nevertheless, the conspiracy was discovered and the government ordered the arrest of Dunhead and his brother Stephen amongst others who were indicted "for coming with an armed force to Berkele

Castle to plunder it".^ Although the letters patent only accuse

Dunhead and his followers of plundering the castle,, another source indicates that they actually succeeded in freeing the king from his 47 imprisonment. However, Dunhead was not free for long and was cap• tured and imprisoned at Pontefract while his brother Stephen was 48 ultimately captured and imprisoned in London.

Dunhead's followers were composed of scattered remnants of the

Despenserian clique, southerners who would not obey the summons for the Scottish war as well as a number of peace-breakers and various reli- 49 gious. The plot failed but it provides an interesting side-light on the effect which an adventurous friar and able preacher could have on the people.

A considerable number of Dominican friars appear from time to time who repudiated their habit and wandered from place to place preaching to the people. The apostate Dominican friar became an abuse which the authorities of the Order battled with determination but never with continued success since examples constantly recurr.-*0 The Dominican authorities in England often requested the assistance of the secular authorities to apprehend these vagabond friars either through the -122-

Provincial or the.Dominican:confessor of the king. Usually the royal orders were directed to all sheriffs and bailiffs to.arrest the apostate friars in.general. However, in.some cases, the friars were named. In the patent rolls the.following entry is - recorded.for March 14, 1303:

Order to all sheriffs and bailiffs to arrest Robert de Kenynton and Benedict de Offord, friars of the Order of Preachers, who, as the king under• stands from Thomas deJorz, provincial prior of that order in England, have.cast off their habit and are vagabonds in the realm, to the danger of their souls and the scandal of their order.52

The vagabond friars remained a problem.for the authorities of the.Order throughout their history in England.

(e) Miscellaneous.Activities.

As confessors of the king and in.various public capacities the members of the Order of Preachers in England were able to exert a direct influence upon English affairs in the period from 1250 until,1350.

The.influence of the Dominican Order should not be over-emphasized but the secular activities .of the Dominican friars should not be ignored either. Of course, only a few members of the Order were-engaged in secular activities of one kind or another at any given time. Neverthe• less, the individual friar would be able to exercise some influence on the popular mind by means of preaching. The friar, like many other preachers before him, would often employ the device of satire in his sermons. Nor were the friars afraid.to make social comments which 53 might directly influence their.audience. After all, the Dominican friar, who possessed nothing, would likely stand as an example to which • his audience.could compare the wealth of other clerics. The theme of -123-

the wealth and luxury held by the members of the upper clergy and the nobility was a constant theme employed in medieval preaching. It would be difficult to think that this pulpit oratory would be devoid of all influence.

Another factor concerning the Dominican Order and its influence on England should be discussed. It has been proposed that the

Dominican Order in England played a definite role in the development 54 of the representative system in convocation and parliament. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence which would seem to support this view.

By 1220, the Dominican Order had established a completely represen• tative system in which the superiors of the Order were elected and in which all legislation was framed by representatives of the friars.

After the establishment of the Order in England in 1221, Dominican friars were soon in positions of influence from which they could con• tribute to the evolution of the English constitution. The Dominican friars had established close ties with both Henry III and Edward I as well as with such prominent men of the realm as Hubert de Burgh,

Simon de Montfort, Grosseteste, Langton, and others. During the period when the Dominican, Kilwardby, and the Franciscan, Pecham, in whose

Order there were definite Dominican influences, were successively of Canterbury, convocation received its final form.

Barker has discussed the relationships of the Dominicans with these figures. He also pointed to the resemblances between the idea of representation as it existed in the Dominican Order and the form which it ultimately took in both convocation and parliament. -124-

Nonetheless, Barker finally was forced to admit that "Direct influence 55

can hardly be proved . More convincing suggestions have appeared

since Barker completed his research over a half-century ago such as the

influence of Roman law and canonical procedures upon the development of representative institutions during the thirteenth century through- 56

out Europe. It seems that the most which can be claimed for the

concept of the Dominican influence upon the development of English

representative institutions is that the Dominican Order only augmented those forces which were already contributing to the development of these 57 institutions. -125-

(3) The Political Thought of the English Dominicans

In order to ascertain the political thought of the English

Dominicans, it is necessary to study their literary productions.

Most of these works can only be studied in manuscript or in 58

imperfect early editions. One would think that the involvement

of many members of the Dominican Order would lead some of the

friars, at least, to compose political treatises of one kind

or another. The dispute over Clericis laicos in England did not result in a growing body of political literature in England.

In fact, no political treatises comparable to that of the French

Dominican, John of Paris, could be found composed by any member

of the Dominican Order in England.

This fact of itself does not necessarily mean that the

English Dominicans did not have a political thought. It will be

remembered that one of the most significant discussions of

political thought to be found in the works of Thomas Aquinas was

embodied at the end of the second book of his Commentary on the

Sentences of Peter Lombard. Many members of the English Dominicans

were authors of Commentaries on the Sentences. In this chapter,

the Commentaries of Eobert Kilwardby, Thomas Sutton, Robert Holcot

and Nicholas Trivet will be investigated in order to ascertain

whether these distinguished members of the Dominican Order in

England emulated the example of their confrere Aquinas and

turned to a discussion of political matters at the end of the

second book of their Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. -126-

Another English Dominican author, who composed a treatise which appeared to be of interest in any investigation of the political thought of the English Dominicans, was John Bromyard.

Bromyard composed a work entitled Tractatus juris civilis et canonici ad moralem materiam applicati secundum brdiriem alphabeti 60 which was designed as a handbook for preachers.

(a) Robert Kilwardby.

The first Dominican whose Commentary on the Sentences will 61 be investiaged is Robert Kilwardby. Kilwardby, probably the most distinguished English Dominican of the thirteenth century, was already well educated before he entered the Order of

Preachers. He began his scholarly career at Paris where he taught as a regent master for several years after he had received his Master of Arts degree. Dates relating to his early career are largely conjectural, the earliest certain date is 1261 when he became the provincial prior of the Dominican Order in

England. It seems like that he had begun his scholarly career in

Paris about 1231 and was teaching as a regent master in Arts from about 1237 until 1245.62

Kilwardby entered the Dominican Order about 1245 and embarked on a new stage in his scholarly career. Before entering the Dominican Order, Kilwardby had composed chiefly works dealing with grammar and logic, however, once he was a friar he devoted himself fully to the study of theology. The only work composed after he entered the Order of Preachers which was not directly related to theology was the De ortu -127-

scientiarum which dealt with the divisions and the inter- 63 relationships of the various sciences. He received his 64 Master's degree in theology about 1254. Kilwardby sub• sequently became the provincial prior of England, , and, at the very end of his life, Cardinal

Bishop of Porto.^5

The most important theological work produced by Kilwardby was his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, written 66 about 1250 while he was still a bachelor at Oxford. Kilwardby's

Commentary on the Sentences should be called Quaestiones on the

Sentences since he did not discuss many of the points which had been raised by Peter Lombard. Kilwardby failed to dfecuss distinction 44 of the second book of the Sentences where Aquinas had turned Lombard's discussion on the origin of sin into a discussion which included the relationship of the temporal and spiritual powers.^ A comparison of Kilwardby's Commentary 68 on the second book ends at distinction 32. (b) Thomas of Sutton

Thomas of Sutton has been regarded as one of the earliest defenders of the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in England.

Sharp-has stated that "The significance of Thomas of Sutton for the history of Mediaeval Philosophy rests on three things:

a) his deviation from the traditional Augustinianism -128-

which prevailed not only in the Dominican Order but also in the

University of Oxford, b) his pronounced opposition to the original

and ecletic theories of Henry of Ghent, and c) his championship 69

of the cause of St. Thomas . . . ." Other historians have

agreed with this judgement of the place of Thomas of Sutton in

the history of mediaeval philosophy.^

Sutton was ordained as a by Bishop Walter Gifford of 71

York on September 20, 1274. Sutton seems to have been a fellow

of Merton College, Oxford, before he entered the Dominican

Order. This supposition is based upon the fact that in Merton

College MS 138 on fol. 154V is found a Quodlibet entitled De

Deo creatore written by "magistri Thome de Sutton, socii domus 72

de Merton, postmodum ordinis praedicatorum." When he received

the diaconate, Sutton was already a member of the Order of

Preachers and was certainly resident at the Oxford convent of 73 the Order by 1282. In 1290, he is reported to have acted as the respondent to Richard of Hetherington in the university 74 disputations of that year. Sutton was a master in theology by 1299 or 1300 when he attended the vesperies of William

Macclesfield.^5 On October 11, 1300, he was licensed to hear

confessions in the diocese of Lincoln.After this date,

little is knownof Sutton's activities although indications

in his work show that he was still writing in 1311 and may

have been active as late as 1315.^

The number of the works ascribed to Sutton indicates 78

that he led a productive scholarly career. His works

include four quodlibeta and thirty-five quaestiones ordinarie . -129-

Two works defending aspects of the work of Aquinas have been

tentatively dated between 1278 and 1286. These were entitled

the Contra pluralitatem formarum and the De productione formae 79 substantialis. Sutton completed two works which had been left incomplete by Aquinas: The Commentary on the Perihermeneias 80 and the Commentary on the De generatione et corruptione. The

other works which have been ascribed to Sutton deal with the

usual philosophical and theological problems which were dis•

cussed in the universities.

Sutton's Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard was

directed against the positions taken by Robert Cowton. This 81 work was apparently written between 1313 and.1315. As a

zealous defender of the positions of Thomas Aquinas, one might

think that Sutton would comment on Book II, distinction 44, of

the Commentary of the Sentences in a manner similar to that of

Aquinas. Unfortunately Sutton's Commentary on the Sentences did

not cover every aspect raised by Peter Lombard. Sutton's

Commentary on the second book of the Sentences was never completed.

Sutton's Commentary ends at distinction 38 in a text which closely

resembles the discussion to be found at that point in the work dc 82

Peter Lombard and that of Aquinas.

(c) Nicholas Trivet.

Nicholas Trivet was the son of Thomas Trivet, a knight of 83

Somerset who served as an itinerant justice. Nicholas Trivet is said to have joined the Order of Preachers in London. By -130-

1297, he was already a person of some importance at the Oxford convent since he received the royal alms in November of that •84 year. He incepted as a Master of Theology about 1303 and was 85 regent master at Oxford from 1303 until about 1307. It appears that Trivet studied at Paris between 1307 and 86

1314. During this time, Oxford was the scene of a serious dispute between the friars and the university authorities.

Trivet's name does not appear in any of the documents relating to this dispute. Apparently he returned to Oxford shortly before the dispute ended and acted as a regent master for a 86 second time. Perhaps, the authorities of the Dominican Order thought that a man of Trivet's stature would promote the interests of the Order at the university. Trivet was once again in England at the end of the year 1314 when his name occurs in a document relating to the Oxford convent while in the early months of the next year his signature appears with those of the other regent masters in theology in a document condemning a number of er- 88 roneous and heretical articles. It seems that Trivet left Oxford shortly after 1315 and it is known that he was the lec- 89 tor in the London convent in 1324. Trivet was still alive ten years later.

The range of Trivet's literary activity is enormous. He wrote six quollbeta of which the first five can be dated be- 91 tween 1303 and 1307. His Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard was written sometime before.1303. Trivet also 92 wrote a Commentary on the Rule of St. Augustine. He seems to -131-

have had a knowledge of Hebrew, as can be seen in his Commentary 93 on the . He was also the author of commentaries on 94 various books of the Bible including Genesis and Exodus. Never• theless, Trivet's fame rests with his chronicles and his com• mentaries on the works of several classical and pseudo-classical authors including , the pseudo-Boethius, Livy, Seneca and Juvenal.^5

Trivet's Commentary on the Sentences closely follows the text of Peter Lombard. In fact, Trivet's Commentary includes short passages taken entirely from Lombard verbatim which serve 96 as guides. This segment of the work of Lombard is discussed and then Trivet cites another portion of Lombard's text and follows the same procedure. When one turns to the second book of the Commentary, it appears that Trivet's Commentary is in- 97 complete, stopping at distinction 30, cap. 9. There is, how• ever, every reason to believe that the particular manuscript which was utilized for the purposes of this study is incomplete.

The first reason for this is that over a folio is left blank between the end of book two and the beginning of book three — a practice not followed by the scribe elsewhere in the manu- 98 script. Secondly, the explicit of this manuscript does not 99 agree with that provided by Stegmuller. Although the manu• script is incomplete, the fact that Trivet carefully followed

Lombard throughout his Commentary would seem to allow one to conjecture that if a complete manuscript were studied, Book II, distinction 44, would be treated in a manner quite similar to -132-

that of Lombard. Since there is no indication of any interest in political thought in his other works, this supposition is further strengthened.

(d) Robert Holcot.

Robert Holcot entered the Dominican Order before March 22,

1322, when he was licensed to hear confessions in the diocese of Lincoln.1 He was sent to study at the Dominican convent of

Oxford and was resident at Oxford from about 1326 until about 2 1334. He received his master's degree in theology about 1332 3 and was a regent master at Oxford until 1334. It is possible that' Holcot may have been sent from Oxford to Cambridge to undertake a second regency at that university since he is des• cribed in two manuscripts of his commentary on Wisdom as a doctor of Cambridge. He was certainly at the Dominican.convent of Northampton by 1343 and he probably died in 1349 during the

Black Death.5

Holcot was a prolific writer. He completed his Questiones on the Sentences of Peter Lombard about.1332 and was also the author of six quodlibeta.^ Nevertheless, Holcot's scholastic reputation rests on his commentaries on three books of the Old

Testament, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Twelve Minor Prophets.

In these works on the Scriptures, Holcot makes several comments related to political thought.

Smalley has investigated the commentary on Wisdom and has found that Holcot utilized the De regimine principum of Giles of -133-

Rome as well as the English Coronation Oath of 1308 and St, 8

Albert's Commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Therefore, it would appear that Hothum was interested in political thought and had some knowledge of the political treatises which were important at this time. In his commentary on Wisdom, Holcot i stated that prelates who have charge of the social order have a duty to preach about specific matters particularly when bad 9 reports or rebellion made such an action necessary. Smalley suggests that Holcot may have had the events of 1327 in mind when he wrote this portion of his commentary."^

A similar use of political ideas occurs in Holcot's

Questiones on the Sentences.** In the first question of the second book of the Sentences, Holcot asks "Whether the Creator 12 of the human race governs that race properly." Holcot dis• cusses such questions as whether God is a just judge, pointing out in his discussion that God often accepts one person and 13 rejects another without any merit or demerit on their part.

In the third book, in the course of his discussion, Holcot compares and contrasts the vows of a religious and the oath of fealty of a layman, analysing the force of each."^

In his scholastic works, Holcot is revealed as an author who is familiar with many of the basic ideas and concepts of mediaeval political thought. He often employs examples in his discussion of theological works which are political in nature.

However, he never launches into a discussion of such fundamental issues as the relationship of the two powers. Holcot possesed -134-

the basic knowledge to form a treatise such as the De potestate regia et papali of John.of Paris but seemed to lack the inclination or the motive to produce such a work.

(e) John Bromyard.

The last English Dominican whose treatises will be investigated is John Bromyard. Few details of his life are known. It seems that Bromyard may have studied at Oxford."''5

He was granted a license to.hear confessions in Hereford diocese on February 1, 1327. Emden states that he probably died by 1352."'"^ No other details of his life are known.

Bromyard was the author of three works. The first work, which will be investigated in some detail, was the Tractatus juris civilis et canonici ad moralem materiam.applicati secundum ordinem 18 alphabetic Bromyard was also the author of a work entitled the Summa Praedicantium which was an expanded version of the

Tractatus, as well as the author of a collection of Distinctiones, 19 that is, notes for sermons.

Bromyard's Tractatus is a rather curious work. The main sources which were utilized by the author in this work were the

Scriptures and.the Canon Law. The author also displayed some knowledge of the Civil law. The Tractatus was designed to offer ideas for the composition of sermons. The work has a detailed 20 table of contents to facilitate its use.

In the course of his discussion, Bromyard employed many examples to illustrate his essentially theological points drawn from his thorough understanding of political thought. For example, -135-

in his discussion of "benignity" led Bromyard from the basic theological concept of God's generosity in becoming man and dying for men to a basically political discussion of the ad• vantages, of a native-born and heriditary form of kingship as 21 opposed to elective kingship. That this discussion has a political as well as theological interest is indicated by the reference made to it in the index of the work: "A native- 22 born king is more useful". In his discussion of the Empire as an example of elective kingship, Bromyard states: "And so during a vacancy of the Empire, spoliators dominate the faith- 23 ful and we loose cities and other things . . . ." The fact that Bromyard employs the first person plural is interesting.

Either Bromyard wrote the Tractatus while living in the Empire or he was borrowing from another source for this discussion.

The latter alternative seems most likely since no evidence has come to light which would indicate that he lived in the Empire at any time during his career.

Elsewhere in the treatise, Bromyard discusses the holiness, power and poverty of the pope. In this section of the treatise,

Bromyard remarked that the Church would be holier if it possess• ed fewer cardinals and if these were drawn from the whole 25 world and approved by their holiness and knowledge. Bromyard, like Holcot, employed political examples to illustrate his

theological discussion. Bromyard's discussion reveals that he was much more interested in pure political theory than was Holcot.

Nevertheless, his Tractatus is far from being a comprehensive political treatise. -136-

This survey of a few of the better known English Dominican theologians demonstrates that, the English Dominicans were actively engaged in all the major theological discussions of their time. Their literary productions are. similar in nature to those produced by the Dominicans of the Province of France in almost all respects. The Dominicans of both provinces pro• duced Commentaries on the Sentences, defences of Thomas Aquinas, sermons, scriptural commentaries and preaching aids. But the

English Dominicans did not emulate their continental brethren in one significant type of literature. They did not write political treatises in any way comparable to that of John of

Paris'"or'other Dominicans who worked and wrote at Paris. CONCLUSION

It will be remembered that Leclercq, although recognizing the political background within which.John of Paris wrote, maintained that the.De potestate regia et papali was fundamentally a theological and philosophical work.1 It has become apparent in this investigation of the thought and activities of the French and English Dominicans that

Leclercq's view should be modified. If Quidort's treatise was, indeed, purely theological and philosophical in nature, then one would expect to find comparable works written in England. In every other.aspect of the theological and philosophical literature of the period, the English and

French Dominicans follow parallel lines. Why not in political thought?

The answer to this problem would seem to be found in the differ• ences in the situation in which the friars of the two Provinces lived and worked. The different character of the conflict over Clericis laicos in France and England points.to significant differences in the political structure and attitudes in the two kingdoms. In both countries the friars of the Order of Preachers were involved in relatively significant political activities. Nevertheless, the spur to translate this into political thought was not felt in England in the same way as it was in

France.

The .occupied a very different position in relation to political life in France than its counterparts in England.

To say that John of Paris was producing merely a polemical work is manifestly incorrect, but the view that he was merely writing a -138-

theological and philosophical treatise requires qualification also.

The thought of the French.and English Dominicans •— and what is true of them, undoubtedly is true of others — must be studied in the context of the total situation in which they found themselves if it is.to be fully understood.

The Order itself, to which they belonged, the universities in which . they worked, the political structure of the kingdoms in which they functioned, conditioned the direction in which the talents of the . individual Dominican friar would be exercised. ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations have been employed in the foot-notes:

AFP Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum

AHR American Historical Review

AKLG Archiv fur Literatur-und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters

EHR English Historical Review

HLF Histoire litteraire de la France

MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica

MOPH Monumenta ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum historica

MS Medieval Studies (Toronto)

Migne, PL J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, 221 vols., Paris, 1844-1864.

Quetif-Echard, SOP Quetif-Echard, Scriptores ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum

RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques (Paris)

RS Rolls Series, i.e., Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores

SA Studia Anselmiana

TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. - J.H-U-

NOTES FOR THE INTRODUCTION

Dom Jean Leclercq, O.S.B., Jean de Paris et V_ ecclesiologie du xiije siecle (Paris: J. .Vrin, 1942), pp. 23-24. NOTES FOR CHAPTER I

1 John A. Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Cen• tury (New York: Fordham University Press, 1965), p. 4. Wattr.points to the fact "... that the medieval discussion of the problem of Church and State, whatever the period or type of writer or his personal loyalties, had always to reckon with three facets of the matter: that the powers were divided, that they must cooperate with each other and that in some sense or other the spiritual power was the higher one." One hardly needs to mention the inherent tension between the first and third facets of this conception of Church-State relations.

2 For a general discussion of the dispute between Pope John XXII and Lewis of Bavaria see G. Mollat, The Popes at , 1305-1378, trans. Janet Love (London: Thomas Nelson, 1963), pp. 205-208. For a discussion of the political literature which was produced during this crisis see: George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory (3rd ed. rev; London: George C. Harrap, 1966), pp. 287-312, and C. H. Mcllwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the West (New York: MacMillan, 1932), pp. 276-313. It should be noted that this conflict tended to shift the topic of political discussion from the independence of the temporal and spiritual powers to the relationship of a sovereign with the corporate body he ruled.

3 Gaines Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State, 1100-1322 (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1964), pp. 496-497.

4 Letter of Pope Gelasius to the Emperor Anastasius (494 A.D.), Migne, PL, vol. LIX, col. 42: " . . . Duo quippe sunt, imperator Auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hie regitur: auctoritas sacra pontificum, et regalis potestas. In quibus tanto gravius est pondus sacerdotum, quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus Domino in divino reddituri sunt examine rationem. Nosti etenim, fili clementissime, quod licet praesideas humano generi dignitate, rerum tamen praesulibus divinarum devotus colia sub- mittis, atque ab eis causas tuae salutis expetis, inque sumendis coelestibus sacramentis, eisque (ut competit) disponendis, subdi te debere cognoscis religionis ordine potius quam praeesse. Nosti itaque inter haec, ex illorum te pendere judicio, non illos ad tuam velle redigi voluntatem." This letter was later incorporated into the Decretum of Gratian, see n. 20 below. Jaffe-Loewenfeld, Regesta, no. 632.

5 Jonas of Orleans, De Institutione Regia, cap. I, Migne, PL, vol. CVI, col. 285: "Sciendum omnibus fidelibus est quia universalis Ecclesia corpus est Christi et ejus caput idem est Christus, et in ea duae princi• paliter exstant eximiae personae, sacerdotalis videlicet et regalis ..." = 142-

Hincmar of Rheims also cited the Gelasian letter to Anastasius and it was invoked by the Frankish bishops in their report to Louis the Pious in the year 829. For these references see R. W. and A. J. Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, (5th impression; London and Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1962), vol. I, pp. 253-257 and Georges de Lagarde, La naissance de 1*Esprit Lai'"que (3rd ed.; Louvain and Paris: Nauwelaerts, 1956), vol. I, p. 36 and p. 41, nn. 35-36.

7 This idea has been recognized by many historians, for instance, see Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory, vol. I, p. 255.

8 For this conception of Church-State relations see Gerhart B. Ladner, "Aspects of Mediaeval Thought on Church and State," Review of Politics, vol. 9 (1947), p. 408 and Ladner's article "The Concepts of Ecclesia and Christianitas and their Relation to the Idea of Papal from Gregqry VII to Boniface VIII," Miscellenea Historicae Pontificae, vol. XVIII (1954), p. 50.

y F.. Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages, trans. S. B. Chrimes (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1939), p. 54.

"•0 Ladner, "Aspects of Mediaeval Thought on Church and State," Review of Politics, vol. 9,pp. 409-410

H On these points, see Kern, Kingship and Law, pp. 54-57. Kern notes that by the beginning of the eleventh century, the first steps towards a differentiation between the consecration of a bishop and that of the emperor were being made. The ruler was anointed with ordinary oil rather than chrism on the right arm and between the shoulders rather than on the head as had been the custom up to this time. Pope John XXII emphasized the worthlessness of royal consecration while Grosseteste, in a letter to Henry III, stated that consecration bestowed no spiritual character whatsoever.

12 Gregory VII to Bishop Hermann of Metz (1081), Gregorii VII Registrum, lib. viii, no. 21, ed. Erich Caspar, Epistolae Selectae in Usum Scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae Historicis (2nd ed.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1955), p. 548: " 'Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus earn; et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum; et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis, et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis.' Matth. 16: 18-19. Nunquid sunt hie reges excepti, aut non sunt de ovibus, quas filius Dei beato Petro commisit?" Further on in this letter, Gregory cites the letter of Gelasius to Anastasius, editio cit., p. 553. For a translation of the full text of this letter see E. Emerton, trans., The Correspondence of Gregory VII (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 166-175.

13 The Dictatus papae is found in Gregorii VII Registrum,. lib. ii, no. 55a, ed. Caspar, pp. 201-208. The relevant sections are:

XII. Quod illi liceat imperatores depondre. (That he the pope is allowed to depose emperors.) XXVII. Quod a fidelitate iniquorum subiectos potest absolvere. (That he the Pope is allowed to absolve the subjects of unjust men from their fealty.) !4 Mcllwain, Medieval Political Theory in the West, pp. 208-209.

For a discussion of the concept see Ladner, "The Concepts of Ecclesia and Christianitas and their Relation to the Idea of the Papal Plenitudo Potestatis from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII," Miscellenea Historicae Pontificae, vol. XVIII (1954), pp. 51-52.

16 Ladner, "Aspects of Mediaeval Thought on Church and State," Review of Politics, vol. 9 (1947), p. 412.

1? Jean Leclercq, Jean de Paris et 1* ecclesiologie du XIIIe Siecle (Paris: J. Vrin, 1942), p. 110, and Ladner, "The Concepts of Ecclesia and Christianitas and their Relation to the Idea of the Papal Plenitudo Potestatis from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII," Miscellenea Historicae Pontificae, vol. XVIII (1954), pp. 53-54.

18 Ernst H. Kantorowicz, "Kingship under the Impact of Scientific Jurisprudence", M. Clagett, G. Post and R. Reynolds, eds., Twelfth- Century Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961), p. 90.

19 Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, 1050-1300 (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 98.

20 Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy, pp. 9-11, points out that Gratian had incorporated about a>.hundred canons from the official letters and theological writings of Gelasius in the Decretum. However, these canons were often drawn from other authors who were, in reality, quoting the words of Gelasius. As Watt mentions, the thirteenth century canonists would have had great difficulty if asked to discuss the personal views of Gelasius on the question of the two powers. The Duo sunt statement of Gelasius was incorporated into the Decretum under his name as D. 96 c, 10. A comparison of the texts, however, reveals that Gratian obtained his knowledge of the Gelasian letter not from the original text but from Gregory VII1s first letter to Hermann of Metz. In fact, Gratian's cita• tion of Gelasius ends at precisely the point where Gregory VII broke off and the canon then continues a word for word citation of Gregory's letter. Thus, the canon is clearly derived as a whole from this letter of Gregory VII. In the same section of the Decretum are other canons deal• ing with various aspects of the relationship between the two powers. Gratian's work relied on the earlier canonical collections of the Gregorian period. The most important canonical collections employed by Gratian were those of Polycarpus, Deusdedit and Anselm of Lucca. The only canonist of the pre-Gregorian period used in this section of the Decretum was Regino of Prum whose work was overshadowed by the Gregorian collections. For further details see the notes to this section of the Decretum in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879; reprinted Graz: Akademische Druck- U. Verlagsanstalt, 1959), vol I, cols. 335-348.

21 D. 96, c. 6 (Nec imperator iura Pontificis, nec Pontifex iura regia usurpet), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. I, col. 339. This canon was derived from a letter of Nicholas I who was quoting from the De anathematis vinculo of Gelasius. This canon places the relation• ship of the two powers in clear perspective. -144-

22 Huguccio, Commentary on D. 96, c. 6 (ca. 1189-1191), ed. G. Catlano, Impero, Regni e Sacerdozio nel Pensiero di Uguccio da Pisa (, 1959), pp. 64-67, trans. Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, pp. 122-123.

23 Alanus, Commentary on D. 96, c. 6 (ca. 1202), ed. A.M..Stickler, "Alanus Anglicus als Verteidiger des monarchischen Papsttums," Salesianum, vol. XXI (1959), pp. 361-363, trans. Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, pp. 123-124. Both Alanus and Huguccio cite the Scriptural text, "Behold, here are two swords . . . ." (Luke 22; 38) Alanus interpreted the text in the sense that Peter had been given both swords while Huguccio interpreted the text in the sense that this symbolized that both powers were distinct and separate.

24 Alanus was an extremist whose view of papal power was such that it could operate directly in the temporal sphere in a fashion which destroyed any real distinction between the two powers. For this reason, most canon• ists did not follow his views completely but, nonetheless, he certainly exerted a profound influence on subsequent canonist thought. For a fuller discussion, see Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy, pp. 49-50.

25 X, 2, 1, 13 (Novit), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, col. 243: "Non enim intendimus iudicare de feudo, . . . sed discernere de peccato . . . .."

26 On the circumstances surrounding the issuance and the significance of the decretal Per venerabilem see Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy, pp. 37-39 and Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, pp. 129-130. The text of Per venerabilem is found in X, 4, 17, 13, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, cols. 714-716.

27 x, 4, 17, 1.3 (Per venerabilem), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, col. 715: "Insuper quum rex ipse superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscat, sine iuris alterius laesione in eo se iurisdictioni nostrae subiicere potuit et subiecit." In translation, the text states: "Moreover since the king of France recognizes no superior in temporalities he could, without injuring the rights of others in this matter, submit him• self to our jurisdiction and he did."

28 X, 4, 17, 13 (Per venerabilem), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed.. Friedberg, vol. II, col.. 716: "Tria quippe distinguit iudicia: primum inter sanguinem et sanguinem, per quod criminale intelligitur et civile; ultimum inter lepram et lepram, per quod ecclesiasticum et criminale notatur; medium inter causam et causam, quod ad utrumque refertur, tarn ecclesiasticum quam civile, in quibus quum aliquid fuerit difficile, vel ambiguum, ad iudicium est sedis apostolicae recurrendum, cuius sententiam qui superbiens con- tempserit observare mori praecipitur et auferri malum de Israel (Judges 20: 13), id est, per excommunicationis sententiam, velut mortuus, a communione fidelium separari. Paulus.etiam, ut plenitudinem potestatis exponeret, ad Corinthios scribens ait: 'nescitis, quoniam angelos iudicabitis, quanto magis saecularia?1 (I. Cor. 6:3)" This text when translated states: "Three kinds of judgment are distinguished: the first between blood and blood by which civil crimes are known; the last between leper and leper by which ecclesiastical crimes are known; and a middle kind between cause -145-

and cause which refers to both ecclesiastical and civil causes; in these matters whenever anything difficult or ambiguous has arisen, reference is to be made io the apostolic see, and should anyone fail to obey its sent• ence due to arrogance he shall be condemned to death 'to remove the evil from Israel (Judges 20:13),' that is, he will be separated from the com• munity of the faithful, as if he were dead, by a sentence of excommunication. For Paul, writing to tfhe Corinthians, in order to demonstrate the plenitude of power said: 'Know you not that we. shall judge angels? How much more the things of the world?' (I. Cor. 6:3)." Thus, Innocent III was stating the principle that the pope could settle any difficult or ambiguous case whether temporal or spiritual in nature. The judgment must be accepted or the pope could excommunicate any who disregarded his final decision. The use of the plenitudo potestatis in this context seemed to imply that the pope had a general overlordship over temporal affairs which could be invoked when the spiritual welfare of Christians demanded that it should be exercised.

2y Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 130.

30 Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, vol. V, p. 324, stated that Innocent IV modified the canonical theory regarding the temporal authority and that he constructed a system out of the "incidental phrases and suggestions of Innocent III. Jean Riviere, Le Probleme de l'Eglise et de l'Etat au Temps de Philippe le Bel (Louvain and Paris: Honore Champion, 1926), p. 39, stated that Innocent IV, as a canonist, interpreted the passages of the Corpus Iuris Canonici in their most extreme sense.

31 Modern research has indicated that Innocent IV was not a theocrat and that he did not abandon the reservations made by Innocent III. For an analysis of Innocent IV's canonical ideas from this point of view see Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, pp. 150-152 and Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy, pp. 58-73.

32 On these points see Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy, pp. 142-144.

33 M. H. Keen, "The Political Thought of the Fourteenth-Century Civilians,r, ed. Beryl Smalley, Trends in Medieval Political Thought (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), pp. 106-107 and p. 124, n. 4. It seems that Irnerius was the first to lecture on all parts of the Digest. T. D. Dougherty, "Irnerius", New (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1967),vol. VII, p. 658 states that Irnerius founded his school of jurisprudence at Bologna in 1084.

34 Mcllwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the West, p. 224, and Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 98.

35 Mcllwain, The Growth of Political Thought in the West, p. 225.

36 x, 4, 17, 13 (Per venerabilem), Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, col. 715: "... rex ipse superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscat . . . ." -146-

37 On the development of this idea see Riviere, Le Probierne, pp. 424-430 and C. N.-S. Woolf, Bartolus of Sassoferrato (Cambridge University Press, 1913, pp.368-381. Post, Studies, pp. 464-465, investigates the canonist Alanus and his ideas on this subject supporting his discussion with relev• ant texts.

38 Thomas Gilby, The Political Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 82.

39 Post, Studies, pp. 494-561 points to the fact that many historians have exaggerated the importance of the recovery of Aristotle's Politics. Post's discussion reveals the fact that the basic ideas of the naturalness of society and the state can be found in the twelfth century revival of learning -- particularly in the ideas of the canonists and the legists. This prepared the intellectual climate for the rapid incorporation of the ideas of Aristotle.

40 Post, Studies, pp. 496-497.

41 Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. Denifle and E. Chatelain (Paris, 1899; reprinted Brussels, 1964), vol. I, pp. 143-144: ". . . quedam utilia et inutilia continere dicantur, . . . mandamus, quatinus libros ipsos examinantes sicut convenit subtiliter et prudenter, que ibi erronea seu scandali vel offendiculi legentibus inveneritis illativa, penitus resecetis ut que sunt suspecta remotis incunctanter ac inoffense in reliquis studeatur."

42 F. Van Steenberghen, Aristotle in the West, trans. L. Johnston (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1955), pp. 183-184.

43 F. M. Powicke, "Reflections on the Medieval State," TRHS, 4th series, vol.. XIX (1936), p. 9. On this point also see Post, Studies, p. 495.

44 S. Z. Ehler, "On Applying the Modern Term 'State' to the Middle Ages," Medieval Studies Presented to Aubrey Gwynn, ed. J.A. Watt, J. B. Morrell, F. X. Martin (Dublin: Colm O Lochlainn, 1961), p. 496.

^5 J. R. Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, vol. XV (1940), p. 81.

46 The Quo Warranto proceedings of Edward I were certainly designed to ascertain the rights of the king and to investigate all local privil• eges. In general, the local power had to recognize that they held their power from the king, who could, if he desired, correct their decisions. A similar process was undertaken by Philip IV in southern France. See Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society," Speculum, vol. XV (1940), pp. 78-79.

4"7 J. R. Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, vol. XV (1940), pp. 80-81.

48 J. R. Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, vol. XV (1940), p. 82. -147-

^ Statutes of the Realm, vol. I, p. 12: 11. . . atque ab universis et singulis majoribus et minoribus ipsius regni hominibus, ipsi domino Regi et mandatis ac preceptis suis licitis plene obediatur . . . ."

50 The treatise on the laws and customs of the realm of England com• monly called Glanvill, edited and translated by G. D. G. Hall (London: Thomas Nelson, 1965), p. 2: ". . . quod principi placet, legis habet uigorem . . . .." This treatise was written between 1187 and 1189 by a man who knew the practices and the usages of the Exchequer court.

51 Beaumanoir cited by J. R. Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, vol. XV (1940), p. 83, n. 1: ". . . il [li rois] peut fere teus establissements comme il li plest pour le commun pourfit, et ce qu'il establist doit estre tenu."

52 On the concept of necessitas see F.M. Powicke, "Reflections on the Medieval State," TRHS, 4th series,, vol. XIX, (1936), pp. 6-8; Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 235-236; and, Post, Studies, pp. 241-309. Both Powicke and Kantorowicz have recognized the probable derivation of the concept of necessitas as applied to the state from the ecclesiastical usage, par• ticularly in the pleas for crusading taxes "for the defence tor needs] of the Holy Land (pro defensione [necessitate] Terrae Sanctae)-."

53 Post, Studies, pp. 284-285 and pp. 163-241, which discusses the origins of the concept and its use in Bracton.

54 Halvdan Koht, "The Dawn of Nationalism in Europe," AHR, vol. LII (1947), pp. 265-280. Koht provides evidence, drawn from literary sources, which indicates that national feeling existed in the twelfth century. For France, he points to Suger, who was called the pater patriae, and to the Chanson de Roiland with its emphasis upon French valor and dulce France. For Britain, he uses the chronicle of Geoffrey of Monmouth which emphasized the glorious past of the Britons. Koht also assembles evidence to show the existence of similar feelings in Poland, Norway, Denmark and Germany. However, Koht's evidence merely shows a latent nationalism which was not very strong in comparison with provincial or local loyalties.

55 On these points see J. R. Strayer, "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, vol. XV (1940), p. 84.

56 Parliamentary Writs, vol. I, p. 30: The King of France "... linguam Anglicam . . . omnino de terra delere proponit."

57 The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. Thomas Wright (London: RS., 1868), vol. II, pp. 212-125. The translation of the French text is given on alternate pages. S -148-

Molt est ore Engleterre plus povre ke n'estayt, Non pur co chescun a Dieu prier dait Ke nostre rays Eduuard face bon esplayt, E pusse par nos aydes recoverir sun drayt. Si il fust utrae, cum ne voyl Deus k'il sayt, Le eglise de Engleterre si mai mene serrayt,

Li Frauncays orgullous a fsi] bas nus menerait, Et nent plus ke mastyns honurer nus frayt. Argent put hom quere, argent vent et vayt; Donk vaut melz doner le tant cum home l'ayt, Ke vivre cum chaitif en payne si estrayt.

58 Documents relatifs aux Etats Generaux-et Assemblies reunis sous Philippe le Bel, ed. Georges Picot (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1901), p. 37: "... se magis velle esse canem vel asinum, seu quodcunque animal brutum, quam Gallicum; quod non dixisset, si crederet Gallicum habere animam. . . ." The text is also contained in P. Dupuy, Histoire du differend d*entre le pape Boniface VIII et Philippe le Bel, Roy de France (Paris, 1655; reprinted Tucson: Audax Press, 1963), Actes et Preuves, P. 102.

59 The text of this sermon has been edited by Jean Leclercq, "Un sermon prononce pendant la guerre de Flandre sous Philippe le Bel," Revue du moyen age latin, vol. I (1945), pp. 165-172. The text I Machabees 3: 19-22 is: "For the success of war is not in the multitude of the army: but strength cometh from Heaven. They come against us with an insolent multitude, and with pride, to destroy us and our wives and our children and to take our spoils. But we will fight for our laws: and the Lord himself will overthrow them before our face. But as for you, fear them not." This was an admirably chosen text for a patriotic sermon.

^0 Leclercq, "Un sermon prononce pendant la guerre de Flandre sous Philippe le Bel," Revue du moyen age latin, vol. I (1945), p. 170: "Pax regis est pax regni; pax regni est pax ecclesiae, scientiae, virtutis et iustitiae, et est acquisitio Terrae Sanctae."

61 Leclercq, "Un sermon prononce pendant la guerre de Flandre sous Phillipe le Bel," Revue du moyen age latin, vol. I (1945), p. 170: "igitur qui contra regem invehitur, laborat contra totam ecclesiam, contra doctrinam catholicam, contra sanctitatem et iustitiam et Terram Sanctam."

62 Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 243: "Item quod cum ad con- servationem et defensionem corporis universi Catholicae Ecclesiae necessaria sit conservatio ac defensio partium corporis ipsius, et maxime tam magnae partis tarn egregiae corporis ipsius Ecclesiae, ut est regnum Franciae, cum ipsa Ecclesia in partibus suis consistat." The passage in translation states: "Item, with regard to the preservation and the defence of the universal body of the , the preservation and defence of the parts of the same body would be necessary, and particularly so great and excellent part of this body as is the kingdom of France, when the same Church depends upon the parts themselves." This document was written by Nogaret in September, 1304. -149-

NOTES FOR CHAPTER II

"Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. H. Denifle, ALKG, vol. I, p. 194: ". . . ordo noster specialiter ob predicationem et animarum salutem ab initio noscatur institutus fuisse . . . .11 This statement remained in subsequent editions of the constitutions of the Order. See "Die Constitutionencdes Predigerordens in der Redaction Raimunds von Penafort," ed. H. Denifle, ALKG, vol. V, p. 534; and, "The Constitutiones of the Order'of Preachers, 1359-1363," ed. G.R. Galbraith, in The Constitution of the Dominican Order, pp. 203-204.

o B. Humberti de Romanis, Opera de vita regulari, ed. J.J. Berthier (Rome, 1888; reprinted Rome: Marietti, 1956), vol. II, p. 41: ". . . studium non est finis Ordinis, sed summe necessarium est ad fines praedictos, scilicet ad praedicationes, et animarum salutem operandum, quia sine studio neutram possemus . . . ."

The best presentation of the details of the institutional structure of the Dominican Order is to be found in G.R. Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order. Of use also is E. Barker, The Dominican Order and Convocation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). Some of the conclusions reached by Barker should be received with great caution. A short introduction is provided in David Knowles, The Religious Orders in England (Cambridge: University Press, 1962), vol. I, pp. 146-162. The best account of the educational organization is to be found in C. Douais, Essai sur 1'organisation des etudes dans 1_' Ordre des Freres Precheurs (Paris and Toulouse: Alphonse Picard, 1884). For details relating to England see A.G. Little, "Educational Organisation of the Mendicant Friars in England," TRHS, n.s. vol. VIII (1894), pp. 49-70.

4 Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, vol. I, p. 148.

5 For a discussion of the origins of the constitutions of the Dominican Order see Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, pp. 8-21; and, E. Barker, The Dominican Order and Convocation, pp. 11-25.

Potthast, Regesta, no. 5403. The text of the bull can be found in Monumenta Diplomat ica S_. Dom in ici, ed. V.J. Koudelka and R.J. Loenertz (MOPH, vol. XXV; , Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1966), pp. 71-76. -150-

1 Potthast, Regesta, no. 5402. The text of the bull can be found in Monumenta Histor ica S_. P. N. Dominici, ed. M. -H. Laurent (MOTH, vol. XV; Santa Sabina, Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1933), p. 88: "... futuros pugiles fidei et vera mundi lumina, confirmamus ordinem tuum . . . ."

Q Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 1: " . . . ordinatum est. ne possessiones vel redditus de cetero tenerent fratres nostri . . . .11 It seems likely that this was done because of the example set by the Franciscans.

9 No copy of the constitutions of 1221 which were prepared under the direction of St. Dominic himself have survived. There is a copy of those of the year 1228 which has been edited by H. Denifle. See "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. I, pp. 165-227. The version of 1256 has also been edited. See "Die Constitutionen des Predigerordens in der Redaction Raimunds von Penafort," ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. V, pp. 530-564. Another version from the period 1358-1363 has been edited by G.R. Galbraith and it forms an appendix to her book, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, see pp. 203-253.

1° "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. I, p. 194; and, "Die Constitutionen des Predigerordens in der Redaction Raimunds von Penafort," ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. V, p. 534; and "The Constitutiones of the Order of Preachers, 1358-1363," ed. G.R. Galbraith in The Constitution of the Dominican Order, p. 204.

11 The acta of the general chapters appear to be complete for the period from 1220 until 1378 except for the earliest chapters. See Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. B.M. Reichert (MOPH, vols. 3-4; Rome: Typographia Polyglotta, 1898-1899, 2 vols.) The acta of the provincial chapters have not fared as well. None have survived for the English province. There is a fine series for the Provence of Provence as well as a somewhat more fragmentary series for the provinces of Rome and Spain. See Acta Capitulorum Provincialium Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum: Premiere Province de Provence, Province Romaine, Province d'Espagne, 1238-1302, ed. C. Douais (Toulouse: Librairie Edouard Privat, 1894); and Acta Capitulorum Provineialium Provinciae Romanae (1243-1344), ed. T. Kaeppeli and A. Dondaine (MOPH, vol. XX; Santa Sabina, Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Prae• dicatorum, 1941).

12 The democratic features of the organization of the Dominican Order has been noted by many historians. See Barker, The Dominican Order and Convocation, p. 17: When discussing the nature of the organization of the Dominican Order, Barker asks: "What are the general characteristics of this organization? In the first place it is democratic. If Cluny is 'monarchical', if Citeaux (and we may add Premontre, in many respects modelled on Citeaux) is 'aristocratical', we may call the friars democratic. There is no speech in their organization of abbots or of paternal authority from above; authority -151-

springs from the general body, and the officials are rather servants of the body than its lords." Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, p. 30, states: "It remained for St. Dominic to create a demo• cratic, centralized, and highly organized body, which was an Order, and not a collection of houses." David Knowles states that applying the term democratic to the organization of the Order might be misleading. See D. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, vol. I, p. 155: "In effect, however, the Dominican government was in every part elected and representative, not only because all the superiors of the order were elected, directly or indirectly, by the body of the friars, and held office at the discretion of elected boards, but also because the supreme legislative and executive power in each province and in the whole order was, for a short, regularly recurring period, vested in small bodies of men of whom the majority had been recently elected ad hoc by their fellows and were in a few days to be merged once more with the great body of friars in private place." Clearly, if an elective system and responsibility of the executive to the elected members can be equated with democracy then the Dominican Order is democratic in structure,.

13 "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," Ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. I, p. 202.

Fratris Johannis Pecham, "Tractatus contra Fratrem Robertum Kilwardby, O.P.," ed. F. Tocco in Tractatus tres de pauperate, ed. CL. Kinsford, A.G. Little, F. Tocco (Aberdeen: Typis Academic is, 1910), p. 128: "Nihil enim aliud intendunt capitula consultationes et tractatus ac studia ordinis hujus, quam personas preparare et in salutem animarum habilitare et preparatas atque vita et scientia habilitatas ad peccatorum conversionem destinare." Portions of Kilwardby's letter are incorporated into the answer given to it by Pecham.

15 TriYgt, Annales, p. 209. On the foundation at Oxford, see C.G.R. Palmer, "The Friar-Preachers, or Blackfriars, of Oxford," 'The Reliquary, vol. XXIII (1882-1883), pp. 145-146.

1^ P. Mandonnet, "La crise scolaire au debut du xiiie siecle et la fondation de l'Ordre des Freres-Precheurs," RHE, vol. XV (1914), p. 48. At the end of the century, Mandonnet estimates that the Dominican Order would have at least 1500 scholars. The fact that each Dominican priory had to have a lector at the time when it was founded and that the courses given in the convent would be open to those of the district who were interested meant that the Dominican Order had a profound influence upon the lower clergy.

i7 For a discussion of the legislation of the Lateran Councils of .1179 and 1215, see P. Mandonnet, "La crise scolaire au debut du xiiie siecle et la fondation de l'Ordre des Freres-Precheurs," RHE, vol. XV (1914), p. 48, and L.E. Boyle, "The Constitution Cum ex eo of Boniface VIII," MS, vol. XXIV (1962), pp. 264-265. The texts of these councils relating to education can be found most conveniently in Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Denifle-Chatelain, vol. I, p. 10 and pp. 81-82. The Third Lateran Council ..had decreed that a grammar master should be appointed in every cathedral in order to provide for the -152-

elementary education of clerics. The Fourth Lateran Council decreed that in addition to the grammar master ordered by the earlier Council, metropolitan churches should also possess a theologian who could instruct priests and other clerics in the scriptures and prepare them for pastoral work. The constitution Cum ex eo_ of Boniface VIII decreed that dispensations for studies for the perochial clergy should be made in order to allow them to attend the universities.

•I Q "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. I, p. 221: "Conventus citra numerum duodenarium et sine licentia generalis capituli et sine priore et doctore non mittatur."

19 Little, "Educational Organisation of the Mendicant Friars in England," TRHS, n.s., vol. VIII (1894), p.50; and William A. Hinnebusch, "The Early English Friars Preachers (Santa Sabina, Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1951), p. 337.

20 Douais, Essai sur 1'organisation des etudes dans l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, pp. 12, 27, 68.

21 Bede Jarrett, The English Dominicans (London: Burns Oates, 1921), p. 63; and Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p.337. One of the complaints of the Oxford Dominicans in their dispute with the University in 1311 was that the secular masters prevented students from attending the lectures delivered in the Dominican schools. On this point see "The Friars Preachers v. the University," ed. H. Rashdall, Collectanae II, OHS, vol. XVI (1890), p. 220.

22 "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. I, p. 197: "Hore omens in ecclesia breviter et succincte taliter dicantur, ne fratres devotionem amittant et eorum studium minime impediatur." 9 o Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p.99: "Quod si non possunt inveniri lectores sufficientes ad publice legendum. saltern provideatur de aliquibus qui legant privatas lectiones. vel hystorias. vel summam de casibus. vel aliquid huiusmodi. ne fratres sint ociosi." The Histories refer to Peter Comestor's Historia scolastica while the Summa of Cases was a work of Raymond of Pennafort variously entitled Summa de casibus, Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio, Summa casuum poenitentiae. For the identification of these works, see Hinnebusch. The Early English Friars Preachers, p.335, n. 16.

^ "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. I, p. 194.

"Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. Denifle, ALKG, vol. I, p. 218.

In- 1259, the first attempt was made to organize studies within the Order. Five Dominican masters, including Thomas Aquinas, Albert -153-

the Great and Peter of Tarentaise, drew up a body of statutes to regulate studies which were accepted by the general chapter of 1259. See Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, pp. 99-100. This program was fully implemented by the general chapter of 1274. See Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, pp. 174-176. Further regulations were made in 1305 and 1325 which regulated studies. See Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. II, pp. 11-14, pp. 157-158.

27 It seems likely that schools were created for each type of study in each visitation of the Province of England. On this point see Little, "Educational Organization of the Mendicant Friars in England," TRHS, n.s., vol. VIII (1894), p. 55; and, Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, pp. 129-130. On the organization of visitations see A.G. Little, "The Administrative Divisions of the Mendicant Orders in England," EHR, vol. XXXIV (1919), pp. 206-208.

^ Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, Vol. II, p. 229: "... singuli priores provinciales in suis provinciis et vicarii eorum generales et diffinitores capitulorum provincialium provideant de studiis theologie, philosphie naturalis et arcium taliter. ..." See also Douais, Essai sur l'organisation des etudies dans 1'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, pp. 53-54; and Jarrett, The English Dominicans, p. 50. Jarrett states that this legislation merely regularized the existing practice.

2y Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. II, pp. 10-11.

30 Douais, Essai sur 1'organisation des etudies dans 1'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, p. 69. This system seems to have developed in most provinces. There is evidence to indicate that it also developed in England. See Little, "Educational Organisation of the Mendicant Friars in England," TRHS, n.s. vol. VIII (1894), p. 51.

31 "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. Denifle, AKLG, vol. I, p. 222: "In libris gentilium et philosophorum non studeant, etsi ad horam inspiciant. Seculares sciencias non addiscant, nec etiam artes quas liberales vocant, nisi aliquando circa aliquos magister ordinis vel capitulum generale voluerit aliter dispensare; sed tantum libros theologicos tam juvenes quam alii legant. it

32 B. Humberti de Romanis, "Expos itio Regulae B. August ini," in Opera de Vita Regulari, ed. Berthier, vol. I, p. 435: "Primis nullatenus est permittendum quod studeant in talibus; secundis est concedendum aliquid, sed cum discretione et raro; tertiis vero laxandae sunt habenae circa studium hujusmodi." 33 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 99: "Quod ordinetur in provinciis que indiguerint. aliquod studium arcium. vel aliqua. ubi invenes instruantur." That is, "That -154-

there be established in the provinces which require it some school or arts or some place where the young can be instructed."

34 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 109: "... quod fratres iuniores et docibiles in logicalibus instruantur."

35 Douais, Essai sur 1'organisation des etudies dans 1'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, p. 59.

36 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. II, pp. 12-13.

37 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. II, p. 12. 38 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 244; and, Douais, Essai sur 1'organisation des etudies dans 1'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, p. 128. 39 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. II, p. 13: "Nullus autem mittatur ad studium generale sive in sua provincia sive extra, nisi ordine premisso in logicalibus et naturalibus sufficienter profecerit et saltern duobus annis in aliquo particulari studio sentencias audierit, et testimonio lectoris et cursoris et magistri studencium de eo spes multum probabilis habeatur, quod ad lectoris officium ydoneus sit futurus. In ipsis vero studiis generalibus, magister studencium semel ad partem, nisi legitimum impedimentum occurrat, disputet omni septimana per totum annum. Ipsi autem principales lectores saltern usque ad festum sancti Iohannis suum continuare studium teneantur. Communes.,,autem fratres singulis diebus ad scolas veniant et ibi lectiones audiant, alias ilia die a vino vel a pitancia sine dispensacione abstineant, si eos sine causa racionabili et licencia speciali prioris vel eius vicarii deesse contingat. Priores autem, qui has penas non fecerint observari, ad easdem faciendas obligentur, aliter visitatorum testimonio in capitulo provinciali contra eos acriter procedatur. Studentes insuper, qui in actibus scolasticis inventi fuerint notabiliter negligentes seu insufficientes per priorem provincialem a studiis absolvantur et in aliis officiis occupentur. ^ Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed..Reichert, vol. I, p. 110.

Acta Capitulorum General ium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, pp. 34-35, 38, 41.

42 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, pp. 110-111. Simon of Hinton was allowed to return to England in 1262. See Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 117.

^3 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. II, p. 340. It is interesting to note that the master-general, Berengarius, in a letter dated 1314, spoke of Cambridge on equal terms -155-

with Oxford and Paris as studia generalia within the Order. See Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 340.

**** F.J. Roensch, Early Thomist ic School (Dubuque, Iowa: The Priory Press, 1964), p. 12. The results of the inquiry have been lost.

Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Denifle-Chatelain, vol. I, pp. 543-558.

^ Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Denifle-Chatelain, vol. I, pp. 543-558.

4? Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. Denifle-Chatelain, vol. I, pp. 558-560.

48 Although the name of Aquinas does not appear in the condemnations, he is mentioned in the private correspondence of Archbishop Pecham, the successor of Kilwardby, who re-issued the condemnation in 1284. See Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckham, Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. CT. Martin (London: RS, 1885), vol. Ill, p. 864 , (December 7, 1284), and p. 870 (January 1, 1285).

AO For a fairly full account of the philsophical reasons underlying the condemnations of Paris and Oxford, see D.A. Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford (2nd. ed. ; London: Blackfriars Publications, 1955); and, Roensch, Early Thomistic School, pp. 170-189.

5° Dialogus inter magistrum et disciplum de Imperatorum et Pontificus potestate, P.I., lib. ii, c. 22, foi. 13v; c. 24, foi. 14F (Lugduni, 1495), cited by Callus, The Condemnation of St. Thomas at Oxford, pp. 12-13: "... acriter reprehendit scribens ei epistolam in qua manifests asseruit quod veritates damnaverat."

51 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 199.

52 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed; Reichert, vol. I, p. 199: " . . .qui in scandalum ordinis detraxerunt de scriptis venerabilis patris fratris Thome de Aquino." 53 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, pp. 345-346. 54 E.M. F. Sommer-Seckendorff, Studies in the Life of Robert Kilwardby (Santa Sabina, Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1937), p. 143.

55 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 204..

Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 235. -156-

^ Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. II, p. 38: "Volumus et districte iniungimus lectoribus et sublectoribus universis, quod legant et determinent secundum doctrinam et opera venerabilis doctoris fratris Thome de Aquino, et in eadem scolares suos informent, et studentes in ea cum diligencia studere teneantur."

58 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. II, pp. 39-40.

59 For a detailed discussion of the Dominican legislation and the attitudes of the Order to Thomas Aquinas, see Maur Burbach, "Early Dominican and Franciscan Legislation regarding St. Thomas," MS, vol. IV (1942), pp. 139-158.

6° Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 347; and, Roensch, Early Thomistic School, pp. 182-183.

61 For a general discussion of this literature see R. Creytens, "Autour de la litterature des Correctoires," AFP, vol. XII (1942), pp. 313-330. It seems that Robert Orford was the author of the Correctorium corruptorii "Sciendum." On this identification see Roensch, Early Thomistic School, pp. 42-43; Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, pp. 391-396; Gilson, , p.. 335; and, D.L. Douie, Archbishop Pecham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), p. 281. Richard Knapwell was likely the author of the Correctorium corruptorii "Quare." See Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 40. The Correctorium corruptorii "Quaestione" seems to have been the work of an English Dominican. See Le Correctorium Corruptorii "Quaestione," ed. J.P. Muller (Rome: SA, vol. XXXV, 1954), "Introduction," p. xxvi. The Correctorium corruptorii "Circa" was written by the French Dominican John of Paris. See Hinnebusch, Early English Friars Preachers, p.348. The final answer to the treatise of William de la Mare was composed by the Bolognese Dominican, Robert Primadizzi, entitled Correctorium "Apologeticum Veritatis." See Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 348.

62 See Burbach, "Early Dominican and Franciscan Legislation regarding St. Thomas," MS, vol. IV (1942), pp. 147-149.

63 On the development of the biblical concordances by the Dominicans, see Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, pp. 298-300.

64 See G.R. Owst, Literature and the Pulpit in Medieval England (Cambridge: University Press, 1933), chap. 5, "The Preaching of Satire and Complaint," pp. 210-470. This work gives an adequate account of the types of comments which might be made by the medieval preacher in his sermons.

65 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 422, n.5.

66 "Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228," ed. Denifle, AKLG, vol. I, p. 194: "... in conventu suo prelatus dispensandi cum fratribus habeat potestatem, cum sibi aliquando -157-

videbitur expedire, in hiis precipue, que studium, vel predicationem, vel animarum fructum videbuntur impedire . . . ." That is, "... whenever it seems expedient, the prelate has the power of dispensing the brethren in his convent, especially in whatever seems to hinder study, or preaching or the welfare of souls . . . ."

67 Humberti de Romanis, Expositio super constitutiones Fratrum Praedicatorum in Opera de Vita Regulari, ed. Berthier, vol. II, p. 36: "Secundum est officio odiosa, ut sunt inquisitiones, vistationes et correctiones violentiae, exactiones testamentorum, arbitrorum sententiae, ex quibus conturbatur frequenter hominum devotio ad fratres."

68 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 12: "Item. Ne fratres curias regum vel principum absque magna necessitate seu fructu animarum frequentent. nec arbitrium in se suscipiant. nec testamentis inters int. nec eorum executores fiant."

6y Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 143.

^ Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 229: "... in rebus temporalibus dispensandis."

71 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 239: "Item. Prohibemus districte, ne aliquis frater de cetero intromittat se de matrimoniis consiliandis. aut pertractandis, seu eciam magnis et arduis negociis secularium. sine prioris pro- vincialis. vel eius vicarii. licencia speciali. et qui contra fecerint. per priores et vistatores severius puniantur.

72 See Chapter IV below, pp. iOS~ 12-4. -158-

NOTES FOR CHAPTER III

1 See Chapter IV below pp. °i0 - 104.

2 Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 172.

o The best general discussion of the conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV is that of Ch.-V. Langlois, contained in Ernest Lavisse, ed., Histoire de France (Paris: Hachette, 1911), vol. Ill, pt. II, pp. 127-173. 4 X, 3, 49, c. 4, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, col. 655: "Quocirca sub anathematis districtione fieri de cetero talia severius prohibemus, nisi episcopus et clerus tantam necessitatem vel utilitatem adspexerint, ut absque ulla exactione ad relevandas communes utilitates vel necessitates,. ubi laicorum non suppetunt facultates, subsidia per ecclesias existiment conferenda."

5 X, 3, 49, c. 7, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, col. 656: ". . .. Romanus Pontifex prius consultatur, cuius interest communibus utilitatatibus providere . . . . "

6 Joseph R. Strayer and Charles H. Taylor, Studies in Early French Taxation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939), pp. 95-97 for a table showing the taxes granted by the Church to Philip IV.

7 Strayer and Taylor, Studies in Early French Taxation, p. 25. Q Strayer and Taylor, Studies in Early French Taxation, pp. 25-27. A Similar process was taking place in England where the lower clergy appealed to the Pope. 9 The clergy of France were taxed more often than any other members of the nation. In Twenty-four of the thirty years between 1285 and 1314, they paid tenths or or both. Only the subsidies for war which were levied on the whole nation yielded more revenue that the clerical taxes. On these points see Strayer and Taylor, Studies in Early French Taxation, pp. 7-8 -159-

Th e text of Clericis laicos can be found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 14-15; the Liber Sextus, 3, 23, c. 3, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, cols. 1062-1063; as well as in Les Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. G. Digard, M. Faucon, A. Thomas, and R. Fawtier (4 vols.; Paris: E. de Boccard, 1904-1939), no. 1567. Potthast, Regesta, no. 24294. I have used the text found in Reg. Boniface VIII.

H There is a thorough discussion of Clericis laicos in Edmund J. Smyth, "The Place of Clericis laicos in the reign of Edward I" (Toronto: Ph.D., 1953), pp. 141-148. Smyth relies heavily on C. J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles (Paris, Letouzey, 1914), vol. VI, pt. I, pp. 357-377.

12 Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1567: "Nos igitur talibus iniquis actibus obviare violentes, de fratrem nostrorum consilio, apostolica auctoriatate statuimus quod quicunque prelati ecclesiasticeque persone religiose vel seculares, quorumcunque ordinum, conditionis seu statuum, collectas vel talias, decimam, vicesimam, seu centesimam suorum et ecclesiarum proventuum vel bonorum laicis solverint vel promiserint vel se soluturos consenserint aut quamvis aliam quantitatem, portionem aut quotam ipsorum proventuum vel bonorum, extimationis vel valoris ipsorem, sub adjutorii, mutui, subventionis, subsidii vel doni nomine, seu quovis alio titulo, modo vel quesito colere, absque auctoritate sedis ejusdem . . . ." that is, "We therefore, wishing to prevent such wicked actions, state, on the advice of our brethren and with apostolic authority, that any prelates or ecclesiastical persons, religious or secular, of whatever orders, condition or standing, who shall pay or promise or undertake to pay to the laity collections or taxes for a tenth, twentieth or hundredth of their own churches, rents or goods, or any other quantity, portion or fraction of the same goods at value or at their own estimate under the name of aid, loan, relief, subsidy or gift, or by any other title, means or pretext, without the authority of the same see . . . ." Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, p. 361 - states that it extended to free gifts.

13 Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1567: "... necnon imperatores, reges seu principes, duces, comites vel barones, potestates, captanei, officiales vel rectores . . . qui talia imposuerint, exegerint vel receperint aut edes sacras deposita ecclesiarum vel ecclesiasticarum personarum ubilibet arestaverint, sasiverint seu occupare presumpserit, vel arestari, sasiri aut occupari mandaverint aut occupata, sasita seu arestata receperint, necnon omnes qui scienter predictis dederint auxilium, concilium vel favorem, publice vel oculte, eo ipso sententiam excommunicationis incurrant." This passage may be translated as ". . . and also emperors, kings or princes, dukes, counts or barons, powers, captains, officials or rectors . . . who shall impose, demand or receive such taxes or the wealth and the things deposited in holy buildings, take possession of or arrest, seize, or presume to take possession of ecclesiastical persons or command the possession, seizure or arrest of them or receive them when taken, seized or arrested, and also all who, in the abovementioned matters, knowingly gave aid, counsel or support, openly or secretly, by that act, they incur a sentence of excommunication." -160-

Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1567: ". . . et si prelati et personi ecclesiastici solverint vel predicti laici reciperint, in excommunicationis sententiam incidant ipso facto." Thus, "if they (the prelates and ecclesiastical persons) pay or the abovementioned (laymen) receive, they incur ipso facto a sentence of excommunication."

15 Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, vol. Ill, pt. II, p. 132. See also Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, p. 365 and Victor Martin, Les origines du Gallicanism (Paris: Bloud and Gay, 1939), vol. I, p. 151.

16 Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1567. The first words of the bull indicate its tone: "Clericis laicos infestos opido tradit antiquitas, quod et presentium experiments tempore manifeste declarant . . . .", that is, "That laymen have always been hostile to clerics is the clear lesson of antiquity and is proved by the experiences of the present time . . . ." It is of interest to note that the opening words of the bull echo the words used at the Synods of Ruffec and Nantes in 1258 and that of Chateau-Gontier in 1268 (Laici clericis oppido sunt intesti). However, while these synods had stated that the hostility of laymen towards clerics was a manifestation of that time, Boniface VIII quite bluntly stated that this feeling pervaded all periods of history. On these points see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, p. 359.

1? The most important letters were Ineffabilis amoris, September 20, 1296, sent to Philip IV, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1653, Potthast, Regesta, no. 24398; Coram illo fatemur, February 28, 1297, sent to the French clergy, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 2333, Potthast, Regesta, no. 24475; Status regni Frantie (sic!), March 7, 1297, sent to the French Cister• cians, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1933; and Etsi de statu, July 31, 1297, sent to Philip IV, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 2354; Potthast, Regesta, no. 24549.

18 Ineffabilis amoris, September 20, 1296, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1653: "Non enim precise statimus, pro defensione ac necessitatibus tuis vel regni tui ab eisdem prelatis, ecclesiasticisve personis pecuniarium subsidium non prestari; sed adjecimus id fieri sine nostra licentia speciali . . . ."

19 Romana mater ecclesia, February 7, 1297, Potthast, Regesta, no. 24468. This bull is not included in the Reg. Boniface VIII. For a discussion of the contents of the bull see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, p. 376 and Edgard Boutaric, La France sous Philippe le Bel (Paris: Henry Plon, 1861), p. 97.

20 Etsi de statu, July 31, 1297, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 2354: "Adjicimus insuper hujusmodi declaration! nostre quod, si prefatis regi et successoribus suis pro universal! vel particulari ejusdem regni defensione periculosa necessitas immineret, ad hujusmodi necessitatis casum se nequaquam extendat constitutio memorata. Quin potius idem rex ac successores ipsius possint a prelatis et personis ecclesiasticis dicti regni petere ac recipere pro hujusmodi defensione subsidium vel -161-

contributionem, illudque aut illam prelati et persone predicti sepefato regi suisque successoribus, inconsulto etiam Romano pontifice, teneantur et valeant, sub quote nomine aut alias etiam, impertiri, non obstantibus constitutione predicta, seu quovis exemptionis, vel alio quolibet privilegio, sub quacumque verborum forma confecto, a sede apostolica impetrato; quodque necessitatis declaratio supradicte ipsius regis et successorum suorum conscientiis, ... relinquatur . . . ." 21 For further details see Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, vol. Ill, pt. II, pp. 137-139 and Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, pp. 378-382. 22 On the question of the validity of papal abdication see W. Ullmann, "Medieval Views concerning Papal Abdication," The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, vol LXXE (1949), pp. 125-133 and J. Leclercq, "La renonciation de Celestin V et 1'opinion theologique en France du vivant de Boniface VIII," Revue de 1 'histoire de 1'Eglise de France, vol. XXV (1939), pp. 183-192. Leclercq's research on the question has shown that theorists, whose political views were as widely separated as those of Giles of Rome and John of Paris agreed that the abdication of Celestine V was valid. He notes that once these views were expressed at the universities, the French monarchy altered its tactics and refrained from pointing to the illegitimacy of the election of Boniface and pointed to his illegitimacy due to heresy and other crimes.

The war in Sicily certainly was a severe drain on the financial resources of the Papacy. After the first conflict with Philip IV, Boniface wrote to the Bishop of Vienne requesting that he obtain subsidies from the French clergy since "This (war) is the price for re-establishing the Church's authority in Sicily, a necessary condition for a crusade overseas." On this point see, Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, vol. VI, pt. II, p. 139. Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 16, has pointed to the desire of Boniface for a crusade. For leclercq, this desire is the key to a proper understanding of the pontificate of Boniface VIII. Leclercq asserts that this desire for a Crusade explains, in part, at least, many of the actions of the pope in the temporal sphere, such as his willingness to act as a private person -- Benedict Gaetani — rather than as pontiff in order to arrange a peace between Philip IV and Edward I. Peace between these sovereigns was vital if a Crusade was to have any hope of being launched.

24 See Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 175 and Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, vol. Ill, pt. II, pp. 138-139.

25 On these details see Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, p. 377.

26 c. W. Previte-Orton, A History of Europe, 1198-1378 (London: Methuen, 1937), p. 232.

27 Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, pp. 394-395. Philip placed pressure on the Papacy by expropriating the revenues of all vacant bishoprics and all abbeys which he called royal. -162-

He continually extended the limits of his regalian right during vacancies.

The best accounts of the second dispute are found in Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, vol. Ill, pt. II, pp. 142-158 and Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, pp. 394-434. 29 The charges made against Saisset are found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 627-631 30 Dupuy, HistoireActes et Preuves, p. 628: "Item, quod dictus Episcopus in blasphemiam Dei et hominum pluries dicit Sanctissimum Patrem dom. Bonifacium summum Pontificem esse diabolum incarnatum." Saisset was an old friend of Boniface. The see of Pamiers had been created by Boniface VIII out of the territories of the bishopric of Toulouse. Saisset was placed in this see by Boniface himself. Saisset disliked the king and did not.hide his feelings, while, at the same time, he alienated his neighbors by his episcopal activities. Boniface knew Saisset well enough to know that he might, indeed be blunt in his references to both pope and king.

3"- The most important bulls were: Salvador mundi, December 4, 1301, which revoked the privileges granted to Philip IV and demanded that the prelates of France obtain papal permission before consenting to any grant given to the French monarch, that is, the pope returned to the position outlined in Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 4422, Potthast, Regesta, no. 25096; Ausculta fili, December 5, 1301, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 4424, Potthast, Regesta, no. 25097; and the bull of December 6, 1301, to the French clergy notifying them of the contents of Ausculta fili, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 4425; and the bull of December 5, 1301, calling the prelates of France to a council at Rome to be held in November 1302 to discuss the state of the church in France, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 4426.

32 For a discussion of the bull Ausculta fili see Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, vol. Ill, pt. II, pp. 147-148 and Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, pp. 398-404

JJ Ausculta fili, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 4424: "Quare, fili carissime, nemo tibi suadeat, quod superiorem non habeas et non subsis summo jerarche ecclesiastice jerarchie, nam desipit qui sic sapit . . . •" 34 The forgeries are found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 44. The forged bull of Boniface VIII, Deum time, begins with the words "Scire te volumus, quod in spiritualibus et temporalibus nobis subes." In this bull, Boniface was thus made to claims "We want you to know that in spiritualities and temporalities you are subject to us." Philip IV's answer began with these words: "Bonifacio se gerenti pro summo Pontifice, salutem modicam, seu nullam. Sciat tua maxima fatuitas in temporalibus nos alicui non subesse." When translated this passage reads "To Boniface who acts as supreme Pontiff, little or no greeting. Let your great foolishness know that in temporalities we are not subject to anyone." -163-

35 Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 182. o/: There is a complete list of the French clergy who attended the council in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 86. 37 Unam sanctam, November 18, 1302, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 5382 Potthast, Regesta, no. 25189. This bull was later incorporated into the Corpus Iuris Canonici as Communes, 1,8 (De maioritate et obedientia), c. 1, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, cols. 1245-1246.

38 Unam sanetarn, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 5382: "Porro subesse Romano Pontifici, omni humane creature declaramus, dicimus et diffinimus oraino esse, de necessitate salutis."

39 A careful analysis of this bull is found in Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. I, pp. 425-430 and in Riviere, Le Probleme de l'Eglise et de l'Etat, pp. 79-87 and pp. 394-404. Riviere has pointed to the close resemblance of the bull to some passages of Giles of Rome's treatise, De ecclesiastica potestate.

40 Unam sanctam, Reg. Boniface VIIIj no. 5382: the whole passage is: "In hac Ecclesia ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, evangelicis dictis instuimur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis, 'Ecce gladii duo hie,' in ecclesia scilicet cum Apostoli loquerentur, non respondit Dominus numis esse, sed satis. Certe qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat, male verbu attendit Domini proferentis: 'Converte gladium tuum in vaginam.' Uterque ergo in potestate Ecclesie spiritualis scilicet gladius, et materialis, sed is quidem pro ecclesia, ille vero ab ecclesia exercendus, ille sacerdotis, is manu regum et militum, sed ad nutum, et patientiam sacerdotis. Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subici potestati." In translation this passage states: "We are taught in the words of the that there are two swords in this church and in her power, namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For the Apostles said, 'Behold, here are two swords (Luke 22:38),' undoubtedly within the church since it was the Apostles who spoke, and the Lord did not say it was too many, but that it was enough. Certainly, he, who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, has understood the following words of the Lord poorly: 'Put your sword in its sheath (Matth. 26:52).' Both, therefore, are in the power of the church,namely the material sword and the spiritual; but the one is exercised for the church, the other is exercised by the church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the nod and the sufferance of the priest. However, one sword ought to be under the other and the temporal authority ought to be subject to the spiritual power."

41 My own view is that Unam sanctam did not make any new temporal claims for the Papacy. However, it did state quite plainly the existing relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers. It was issued during a critical period — a time when the French were likely to view the bull as a political manoeuvre and not to accept it for what it was, -164-

merely a theological statement of the nature of the church and the pope's role within it.

42 For a discussion of the Anagni incident see Langlois, Histoire de France, ed. Lavisse, vol..Ill, pt. II, pp. 158-166.

43 The political literature which was produced during the conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV has been carefully analyzed by Riviere, Le Probleme de l'Eglise et de 1'Etat. See also, Carlyle, A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, vol. V, pp. 374- 440; Lagarde, La naissance de 1'esprit lai'que, vol I, pp. 189-210; Sabine, A History of Political Theory, pp. 264-286; and, Mcllwain, Growth of Political Thought in the West, pp. 238-272.

44 Sabine, A History of Political Theory, p. 266 and E. Lewis, Medieval Political Ideas (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1954), vol. II, p. 528.

45 This work has been edited by Richard Scholz. All citations of the text are to this edition: Aegidius Romanus, De ecclesiastica potestate, ed. R. Scholz (Weimar, 1929; reprinted Aalen: Scientia, 1961). For the reasons for dating this treatise 1301 see Carlyle, History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, vol. V, p. 402. Riviere has pointed to the similarities between parts of this work and the text of Unam Sanctam, see Le Probleme de l'Eglise et de l'Etat, pp. 394-404.

46 Sabine, A History o|_ Political Theory, p. 276.

47 Aegidius Romanus, De ecclesiastica Potestate, ed. R. Scholz, Lib. I, cap. iv, pp. 11-12: "Hugo de Sancto Victore in libro De Sacra- mentis Fidei Christiane, parte secunda, capitulo quarto ait, quod spiritualis potestas terrenam potestatem et instituere habet, et iudicare, si bona non fuerit. Igitur de ecclesia et de potestate ecclesiastica verificatur illud vaticinium Ieremie: 'Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et regna, ut evellas et destruas et disperdas et dissipes, edifices et plantes.'"

48 Aegidium Romanus, D§_ ecclesiastica potestate, ed. R. Scholz, Lib. I, cap. iv, p. 13: "Sic autem oportet hec ordinata esse, quia, ut tangebamus, que sunt a Deo oportet ordinata esse; non essent autem ordinata, nisi unus gladius reduceretur per alterum et nisi unus esset sub alio; quia, ut dictum est per Dionysium, hoc requirit lex divinitatis quam Deus dedit universis rebus creatis, . . . ut non omnia eque immediate reducantur in suprema, sed infima per media et inferiora per superiora. Gladius ergo temporalis tamquam inferior reducendus est per spiritualem tamquam per superiorem, et unus ordinandus est sub alio tamquam inferior sub superiori. Sed diceret aliquis, quod reges et principes debent esse subiecti spiritualiter, non temporaliter, ut secundum hoc sit intelligendum quod dictum est, quod reges et principes spiritualiter, non temporaliter subsint ecclesie. . . . Sed sic dicentes vim argumenti non capiunt. Nam si solum spiritualiter reges et principes subessent ecclesie, non esset gladius sub gladio, non essent temporalia sub spiritualibus, non esset ordo in potestatibus, non reducerentur infima -165-

in suprema per media. Si igitur hec ordinata sunt, oportet gladium temporalem sub spirituali, oportet sub vicario Christis regna existere; et de iure, licet aliqui de facto contrarie agant, oportet Christi vicarium super ipsis temporalibus habere dominium."

49 Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, p. 193

50 Aegidius Romanus, De_ ecclesiastica potestate, ed. R. Scholz, Lib. II, cap. iv, p. 50: "Erit ergo hie ordo: quod potestas summi pontificis dominatur animabus, anime debent vel de iure dominari super corpora, vel male ordinatum est corpus quantum ad illam partem, secundum quam non obedit anime et menti et racioni. Ipse autem res temporales nostris corporibus famulantur. Consequens est, quod sacerdotalis potestas, que dominatur animabus, corporibus et rebus temporalibus principetur."

51 Sabine, A History of Political Theory, p. 275.

52 Giles of Rome thought that there could be no lawful ownership of property or exercise of political power unless those who possessed such powers were subject to God. The only way to be subject to God was to be subject to the church. Aegidius Romanus, De_ ecclesiastica potestate, ed. R. Scholz, Lib. II, cap. viii, p. 75: "Consequens ergo est, quod hereditatem tuam et omne dominium tuum et omnem possessionem tuam magis debes recognoscere ab ecclesia et per ecclesiam et quia es fillius ecclesie, quam a patre tuo carnali et per ipsum et quia es filius eius." When translated, this passage states: "Therefore, it follows that you ought to acknowledge that your inheritance and all your lordship and all your possessions are from the church and through the church and because you are a son of the church rather than from your carnal father and through him and because you are his son."

53 Aegidius Romanus, De ecclesiastica potestate, ed. R. Scholz, Lib. Ill, cap. 1, pp. 145-146: "Non est ergo ex impotencia spiritualis gladii, quod non possit de temporalibus animadvertere, sed adiunctus est sibi materialis gladius propter eius excellenciam. Nam quia spiritualis gladius est tarn excellens et tam excellencia sunt sibi commissa, ut liberius possit eis vacare, adiunctus est sibi secundus gladius, ex cuius adiunccione in nullo diminuta est eius iurisdiccio et plenitudo potestatis ipsius sed ad quandam decenciam hoc est factum, ut qui ordinatur ad magna, nisi casus immineat, non se intromittat per se ipsum et immediate de parvis. Est itaque plenitudo potestatis in spirituali gladio, ut si expediat, de temporalibus iudicet. Si ergo a civili iudice appelletur ad papam, et si hoc non sit secondum ius distinccionis fori, erit secundum ius plenitudinis potestatis." This text states: "Therefore, it is not from weakness in the spiritual sword that it is not able to attend to temporal affairs, rather the material sword was added to it on account of its excellency. Since the spiritual sword is so excellent and such perfect things are committed to it, and so that it might attend to them more freely, a second sword was added to it; however, this union did not diminish its jurisdiction or its plenitude of power in any way, but it was done because it is fitting that what is set up for great matters should not concern itself immediately with -166-

unimportant things unless a particular case arises. And so, the plentitude of power is in the spiritual sword and if it is expedient it may judge concerning temporal matters. Therefore, if there is an appeal from a civil judge to the pope, although this is not in accordance with the law of the separation of courts, it will be in accordance with the law of the plenitude of power.

54 The text of Antequam essent clerici is found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 21-23

55 Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 20 states that the tract was written by Philip IV and was sent to Boniface VIII.

56 E. Lewis, Medieval Political Ideas, vol. II, p. 529 and M. J. Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 549

57 Antequam essent clerici, Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 21: "Antequam essent clerici, Rex Franciae habebat custodiam Regni sui . . . .:

58 Antequam essent clerici, Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 21: "Sancta mater Ecclesia, sponsa Christi, non solum est ex clericis, sed etiam ex laicis ... .", that is, "The holy mother Church, the bride of Christ, not only is composed of clerics but also of laity . . . ."

-'^ Antequam essent clerici, Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 21-22: "Et quia turpis est pars quae suo non congruit universo, et membrum inutile, et quasi paralyticum, quod corpore suo subsidium ferre recusat, quicunque sive clerici, sive laici, sive nobiles, sive ignobiles, qui capiti suo, vel corpori, hoc est domino Regi et regno ... auxilium ferre recusant, semetipsos partes inconguas, et membra inutilia, et quasi paralytica demonstrant." In translation this passage states: "And so it is a disgraceful part which does not correspond to its whole, and a useless and paralyzed member which refuses to provide a subsidy for its body; whether clergy or laity, noble or ignoble, those who refuse to provide aid to their head or body, that is, the Lord King and kingdom, show themselves to be inconsistent parts and useless and paralyzed members." The author uses the metaphor of the body to indicate that all members of the kingdom should provide aid to the king.

6° Tholemy of Lucca was a theologian and Aristotelian scholar. He was the pupil of Thomas Aquinas and after the death of his master, Tholemy completed the De. regimine principum of Aquinas (Books ii - iv). Hervaeus Natalis was a Parisian theologian whose De_ potestate papae, written in 1318, revealed that he was a supporter of the idea of papal sovereignty. Peter de la Palu was a theologian and canonist at Paris. His most important tracts were the De causa immediata ecclesiasticae potestatis and the De potestate papae.

61 F. Lajard, "Jean de Paris," HLF, vol. XXV (1869), pp. 244-247. Lajard did confuse John of Paris, the author of the De. potestate regia et papali, with another John of Paris, who was refused the licentiate in -167-

the Faculty of Arts in 1290. See also, Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 7, n. 1.

62 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 7, n. 3.

63 On this point see P.-M. Schaff, "Jean Quidort," DTC, vol. 8, col. 840; A. Forest, F. Van Steenberghen, and M. de Gandillac, Le mouvement doctrinal du xie au xive siecle, vol. 13 of the Histoire de 1'eglise depuis les origines jusqu'a nos j ours, ed. A. Fliche and V. Martin (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1956), p. 386, n. 2; and Frederick J. Roensch, Early Thomistic School (Dubuque, Iowa: The Priory Press, 1964), p. 99.

64 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 7; and Riviere, Le_ probleme de 1'eglise et de l'etat, p. 148.

65 E. Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (London: Sheed and Ward, 1955), pp. 413-414.

66 The Correctorium Corruptorii has been edited by J.-P. Muller as Le Correctorium Corruptorii "Circa" de Jean Quidort de Paris (Rome: SA, 12-13, 1941). While John of Paris was ostensibly defending the doctrines of Thomas Aquinas in this work, his conclusions were not always in full agreement with the Thomist position. On this point see Gilson, Christian Philosophy, pp. 413-414; and Marc F. Griesbach, "John of Paris as a Representative of Thomistic Political Philosophy," An Etienne Gilson Tribute, ed. Charles J. O'Neil (Milwaukee, The Marquette University Press, 1959), pp. 33-50; and finally, Marc F. Griesbach, "The Relation• ship between Temporal and Spiritual Powers in John of Paris and James of : A Study of the Early Development of Thomistic Political Philosophy (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of History, University of Toronto, 1956), pp. 26-52.

67 On this incident see P. Glorieux, "Un memoire justificatif de Bernard de Trilia," RSPT, vol. 17 (1928), pp. 405-426 and RSPT, vol. 18 (1929), pp. 23-59 and P. Glorieux, "Bernard de Trilia? ou Jean de Paris?" RSPT, vol. 19 (1930), pp. 469-474. . Glorieux has shown that this defence should be attributed to John of Paris and not to Bernard of Trillia as had been previously believed. At this time Quidort was a baccalarius sententiarius, see Glorieux, "Bernard de Trilia? ou Jean de Paris?" RSPT, vol. 19 (1930), p. 473. On the baccalarius sententiarius see H. Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), vol. I, p. 477 and A. G. Little and F. Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, 1282-1302 (Oxford Historical Society, vol. 96; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934), pp. 33-34.

68 Gilson, Christian Philosophy, p. 739, n. 69 and P. Glorieux, Repertoire des maitres en theologie de Paris au xiiie siecle (Paris: J. Vrin, 1933), vol. I, p. 189. 69 Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 100 and Glorieux, Repertoire, vol. I, p. 189. The bishops were those of Paris, Bourges, Orleans and Amiens. -168-

70 A short notice inserted in a list of Dominican masters at Paris refers to Quidort: "Fr. Iohannes Parisiensis, licentiatus anno domini MCCCIV. Hie obiit.in curia Romana Burdegalis, ubi diffinitivam Sententiam expectabat, anno domini MCCCVI, in festo sancti Mauricii." This notice is found in Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor in quibus Deus Praedicatorum Ordinem insignivit, ed. T. Kaeppeli, (MOPH, vol XXII; Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1949), pp. 131-132. The notice is also found in C. Douais, Essai sur 1'organisation des etudies dans 11ordre des Freres Precheurs au treizieme et quatorzieme siecle (1216-1342) (Paris and Toulouse: Alphonse Picard, 1884), appendix IV, p. 166. See also H. Denifle and E. Chatelain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (Paris, 1891); Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1964), vol. II, p. 120, no. 656.

71 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 7.

72 Gilson, Christian Philosophy, p. 413

73 The De_ potestate regia et papali has been edited by Jean Leclercq and forms an appendix, pp. 171-260, of his Jean de Paris. All references are to this edition. It is interesting to note that neither of the old Dominican catalogues of writers include the De_ potestate regia et papali amongst the works of Quidort. See Laurentii Pignon Catalogi et Chronica accedunt Catalogi Stamsensis et Upsalensis Scriptorium O.P., ed. G. Meers- seman (MOPH, vol. XVIII; Santa Sabina, Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1936). The Catalogue of Stams, p. 62, n. 32 and the Catalogue of Laurence Pignon, p. 73, no. 29. Although these early catalogues of Dominican writers do not include the De potestate regia et papali amongst the works of John of Paris, this fact does not mean that this work is not from his pen, particularly, when it is remembered that these catalogues also ignore many other works of this author which are undoubtedly authentic. On this point see Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 6. For a complete list of the works of John of Paris, see Glorieux, Repertoire, vol. I, pp. 189-193 and Roensch, Early Thomistic School, pp. 101-103.

74 This work has been edited as Le_ Correctorium Corruptorii "Circa" de Jean Quidort de Paris, ed. J.-P. Muller (Rome: SA, 12-13, 1941).

^ The Commentary on the Sentences is being edited by J.-P. Muller. Two volumes have been published to date. Jean de Paris (Quidort) O.P., Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. J.-P. Muller (Rome, SA, vols. 47 and 52, 1961 and 1964). Muller dates Quidort's lectures on the Sentences as taking place between 1292 and 1296.

^ This work has been edited as Johannes Quidort von Paris, O.P., De confessionibus audiendis (Quaestio disputata Parisius de potestate papae), ed. Ludwig Ho'dl (Munich: Max Hueber, 1962).

77 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, vol. I, p. xxx. Some scholars have placed the date of Quidort's Commentary -169-

on the Sentences earlier, see, for example, Glorieux, Repertoire, vol. I, p. 189, where the date proposed is 1284-1286.

78 Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Lib. II Sententiarum (Opera Omnia, vol. VIII; Paris: Ludovicum Vives, 1873), dist. 44. For an excellent discussion of the political thought of Thomas Aquinas, see I. T. Eschmann, "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers," MS, vol. XX (1958), pp. 177-205.

79 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 1: "Utrum potentia dominandi sit a solo Deo."

8° See Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Lib. II Sententiarum, dist. 44, quest. 1, arts. 1 and 2. In article 1, Aquinas discussed the problem of "Whether the power of sinning is from God," that is "Utrum potentia peccandi sit a Deo", while in article 2 he asked "Whether all prelacy- is from God," that.is "Utrum omnis praelatio sit a Deo." In article 2, Aquinas cited the Scriptural text, Hosea 8:4, as does Quidort in dist. 44, quest. 1.

81 Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Lib. II Sententiarum, dist. 44, quest. 1, art. 3: "Utrum in statu innocentiae fuisset dominium" (Whether in the state of innocence there was domination.). This text should be compared with John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 2: "Utrum dominatio sit de iure naturali" (Whether dominance is in accordance with natural law.). It is in this portion of his discussion that Quidort investigated whether domination could exist in the state of innocence.

82 Both Thomas Aquinas and John of Paris utilized Gregory the Great, Moralia, XXI, cap. xv and St. Autustine, De Civitate Dei, Lib XEX, cap xv,. in the course of their discussion.

83 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 3: "Utrum religiosi teneantur obedire praelatis in omnibus." (Whether the religious are bound to obey prelates in all things.). 84 Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Lib. II Sententiarum, dist. 44, quest. 2, art. 3: "Utrum religiosi professi teneantur obedire praelatis suis in omnibus." (Whether the professed religious are bound to obey their prelates in all things.) Both Quidort and Aquinas employed the same authorities in their discussion: first, the Scriptural text, Colossians 3:20; secondly, St. Benedict, Regula, cap. lxviii; and finally: St. Bernard, De praecepto et dispensatione, cap. v.

85 See Peter Lombard, Sententiarum, Migne, PL, vol. CXCII, Bk. II dist. 44, cols. 756-758.

Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Lib. II Sententiarum, dist. 44, quest. 2, art. 2: "Utrum Christiani teneantur obedire potestatibus saecularibus, et maxime tyrannis." (Whether Christians are held to obey -170-

secular powers, and in particular tyrants.)

87 Thomas Aquinas, Commentum in Lib* II Sententiarum, expositio textus.

88 Eschmann, "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers," MS, vol. XX (1958), p. 188, n. 3.

8y Eschmann, "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers," MS, vol. XX (1958), pp. 189-190.

y^ Acta Capitulorum generalium, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 37. See also Eschmann, "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers," MS, vol. XX (1958), p. 190.

yl While Muller has suggested that Quidort's Commentary was written between 1292 and 1296, he states that it was most likely written between 1292 and 1294. If this is correct, then it would have been completed before Clericis laicos was issued. See John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, vol. I, p. xxx.

92 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, pp. 85, 97, 149, 152, 162, 163, 165. Leclercq states that Quidort was a faithful follower of Aquinas in his political philosophy. Marc F. Griesbach, "John of Paris as a Repre• sentative of Thomistic Political Philosophy," An Etienne Gilson Tribute, ed. C. J. O'Neil (Milwaukee, Marquette University Press, 1959), pp. 39-43. Griesbach has carefully investigated Quidort's use of Thomist texts in the De, potestate regia et papali and has found that Quidort was quite willing to alter them in order to suggest a conclusion more to his liking. He has proved that, although Quidort employs Thomistic texts in his work, he cannot be said to be a faithful follower of Thomas Aquinas.

93 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 1: ". . . quod potentia dominandi sive dominatio potest dici secundum essentiam. Sic bona est et a solo Deo, quia ordinavit quod inferiora subsint superioribus." In translation, this passage states: ". . . that if the power to rule or domination is taken in its essential meaning then it is good and from God alone for he has ordained that inferior things should be below superior things."

94 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 1.

95 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 2.

96 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 2.

97 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed... Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 2: "Positive, ad quod natura-inclinat, sicut bene facere -171-

proximo; negative, ad curius contrarium non inclinat, sicut homo est nudus naturaliter, non quia natura ad hpc inclinet, sed quia non facit eum vestitum."

98 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 2: ". . . dominatio est de iure naturali, non positive, quia hoc natura non fecit, sed negative, quia contrarium non docuit."

99 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk. II, dist. 44, quest. 3. -172- /

i John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk, II, dist. 44, quest. 3: "Duplex est obedientia: una sufficiens et necessaria, alia abundans et perfecta. Obedientia abundanti obedit subditus praelato in omnibus licitis, non solum in his quae promisit, sed obedientia sufficienti solum in his quae promisit." 2 John of Paris, Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. Muller, Bk, II, dist. 44, quest. 3: "Tu arguis de Benedicto in Regula, quod impossibile est tentandum. Dico, quod hoc verum est de obedientia abundanti, non necessaria." That is, "You argue from Benedict in the Rule that one must try the impossible. I say that this is true according to abundant obedience, but not from necessary obedience." 3 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 14.

^ Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 12. 5 Richard Scholz cited by Marc F. Griesbach, "John of Paris as a Representative of Thomistic Political Philosophy," An Etienne Gilson Tribute, ed. Charles J. O'Neil (Milwaukee, The Marquette University Press, 1959), p. 35. This document has been recently edited by A. Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la province de France: L'appel au Concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII, (1952), pp. 403-412. Of the 133 signatures on this appeal, Quidort's is sixth. This document can also be found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves. pp. 120-122 and in Documents relatifs aux Etats Generaux et Assemblies reunis sous Phillippe le Bel, ed. Picot, pp. 381-383.

^ John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, p. 214, 11. 18-21: "Sic etiam e contra si papa esset criminosus et scandalizaret ecclesiam et incorrigibilis esset, posset princeps ipsum excommunicare indirecte et deponere ipsum per accidens, monendo scilicet ipsum per se vel per cardinales."

^ Leclercq, Jean de Paris, pp. 24-24. 9 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, pp. 23-24. See also John Courtney Murray, "Contemporary Orientations of Catholic Thought on Church and State in the Light of History," Cross Currents, Fall, 1951, p. 24. ^ John of Paris, Be potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, Proemium, p. 173, 11. 1-2, 11: "Interdum contingit quod vitare volens aliquem errorem dilabitur in errorem contrarium .... et fides medium tenet inter duos errores contrarios . . . ." 11 John of Paris, jDe potestate regia et papali, ed., Leclercq, Proemium, pp. 173-175. The error of Herod, for Quidort, symbolized the opinion held by those authors who asserted that the pope possessed complete jurisdiction over the temporal sphere, that is, those who be• lieved in papal theocracy. -173-

John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed., Leclercq, Proemium, p. 175, 11. 7-13: "Inter has ergo opiniones tarn contrarias, quarum primam erroneam omnes putant, puto quod Veritas medium ponit^ quod scilicet prelatis ecclesie non repugnat habere dominium in temp• oralibus et iurisdictionem, contra primam opinionem erroneanu Nec tamen eis debetur per se ratione status sui et ratione qua sunt vicarii Christi et Apostolorum successores. Sed eis convenire potest habere talia ex concessione vel permissione principum si ab eis ex devotione aliquid huiusmodi collatum fuerit vel si habuerint aliunde." When translated, this passage states: "Therefore between such con• trary opinions, the first of which everyone considers erroneous, I think that truth holds the middle ground, namely that it is not im• proper for prelates of the church to have lordship and jurisdiction over temporalities, and this is against the first erroneous opinion of the Waldensians . However, this is not owed to them on account of their status or their position as the vicars of Christ and the successors of-the Apostles. But it can be suitable for them to have such things by the concession or permission of princes or if they have received anything from the devotion of the prince or if they the prelates have them from another source." 13 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed., Leclercq, cap.xi, pp. 201-207. The arguments are given in point form. For a detailed outline of the organization of the tract see Leclercq, Jean de Paris, p. 40. 14 John of Paris, I)e potestate regia et papali, ed., Leclercq, cap. i, p. 176, 11. 1-3: ". . . regnum est regimen multitudinis perfecte ad commune bonum ordinatum ab uno . . . ." This passage in the work of John of Paris closely parallels a statement by Aquinas in the jDe regimine principum ad regem Cypri, ed. Joseph Mathis (2nd. ed. rev.; Rome: Marietti, 1948), lib. I, cap. i, p. 3: ". . . rex est qui unius multitudinem civitatis vel provinciae, et propter bonum commune, regit . . . ." that is, 11, , .a king is one who rules the people of a city or a province for their common good . . . ." John of Paris stated that kingship was the rule of a perfect multitude as distin• guished from an imperfect multitude such as a domestic multitude which cannot provide all the things necessary for life, that is, it was not self-sufficient. Furthermore, kingship was ordained to the common good rather than for the good of the ruler which characterized various forms of tyrannical rule. Finally, according to Quidort, it was government by one which must be distinguished from aristocracy, that is, government by the few and by the best, and from polycracy which is government by the people through plebiscites. For these re• finements see the De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. i, p. 176, 11. 28-36. 15 John of Paris," JJe potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. i, p. 176, 1. 38-p. 177, 1. 1: "Est autem tale regimen a iure naturali et a'iuri gentium derivatum." -174-

l ft John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. i, p. 177, 1. 1-8: "Nam cum homo sit naturaliter politicum seu civile ut dicttur I Politicorum, quod ostenditur secundum Philosophum ex victu, vestitu, defensione, in quibus solus sibi non sufficit, et etiam a sermone qui est ad alterum, que soli homini debentur, necesse est homini ut in multitudine vivat-et tali multitudini que sibi sufficiat ad vitam, cuiusmodi non est communitas domus vel vici sed civitatis vel regni, nam in sola domo vel vico non inveniuntur omnia ad victum vel vestitum et defensionem necessaria ad totam vitam sicut in civitate vel regno." When translated, this passage states: "Accordingly, since man is naturally a political or civil animal as is said in the first book of the Politics, a fact which is shown according to the Philosopher from food, clothing and defence, in which one man alone is not self sufficient and also from speech which is directed towards another and which is characteristic of man alone; it is necessary for man that he live in a multitude of a kind which is sufficient to maintain life; a community of a household or of a street is not of this nature, but a city or kingdom is, for in a single household or street not everything which is necessary in the way of food or clothing or defence is found but it is found in a city or a kingdom." This concept of - self-sufficiency is derived from the Politics of Aristotle. According to Aristotle,, a city or a kingdom is a more perfect political community since it is self-sufficient and can provide all that is necessary for the maintenance of life. Aquinas had expressed a similar view, see the De regimine principum, ed. Mathis, Lib. I, cap. i, pp. 1-3. 17 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. i, p. 177, 11. 8-11: "Omnis autem multitudo quolibet querente quod suum est dissipatur et in diversa dispergitur nisi ad bonum commune ordinetur per aliquem unum cui sit cura de bono communi . . . ." However, any multitude in which each one seeks his own good will be dissipated and scattered abroad unless it is directed to the common good by some one man to whom belongs the care of the common good . . . . 18 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. ii, p. 178, 1. 16: "... vivere secundum virtutem . . . ." See also n. 96 below. 19 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali. ed. Leclercq, cap. xvii, p. 225, 11. 31-34: ". . . ut dicit Philosophus in Ethicis quod intentio legislatoris est homines facere bonos et inducere ad virtutem, et in Politicis dicit quod sicut anima melior est corpore, sic legislator melior est medico quia legislator melior est medico quia legislator habet curam animarum, medicus corporum." 20 John of Paris, Be potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. xvii, p. 225, 1. 6: In this passage the prince is described as ". . . iustitia animata et custos iusti . . . ." -175-

21 John of Paris, Be potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. x, p. 196, 1. 8: ". . . minister Dei . . . ." 22 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. ii, p. 178, 11. 15-18: "Certerum est considerandum quod homo non solum ordinatur ad bonum tale quod per naturam acquiri potest, quod est vivere secundum virtutem, sed ulterius ordinatur ad finem supernaturalem qui est vita eterna ad quam tota hominum multitudo viventium secundum virtutem ordinata est." When translated this passage states: "now it must be considered that man is not only ordered to that good which can be acquired from nature, which is to live according to virtue, but is further ordered to a supernatural end which is eternal life, to which the whole multitude of men living according to virtue is ordered." 23 John of Paris, Be potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. ii, p. 178, 11. 23-27: "Sed quia vitam eternam non consequitur homo per virtutem humanam sed divinam, secundum illud Apostoli Ad Romanos: Gratia Dei vita eterna, ideo perducere ad ilium finem non est humani regis sed divini. Ad ilium igitur regem pertinet huiusmodi regimen qui non solum est homo sed etiam Deus, scilicet Iesus Christus. ..." That is, "But since man does not reach eternal life by human virtues but rather from divine, as the Apostle in Romans, ^by.the Grace of God, eternal life (Rom. 6:23),' for that reason, to lead men to that end is not for human kings but rather for divine. Therefore, that kind of rule pertains to a king who is not only man but also God, namely, Jesus Christ . . . ." John of Paris, Be potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. ii, p. 179, 11. 19-20: ". . . sacerdotium es spiritualis potestas ministris ecclesie a Christo collato ad dispensandum fidelibus sacramenta." 25 See John of Paris, Be potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. xii, pp. 207-209. 26 John of Paris, Be potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. v, p. 184, 1. 3: "Et ideo dignior est sacerdotalis potestas seculari potestate . . . ." 27 John of Paris," De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. v, p. 183, 11. 35-36: ". . . illud ad quod pertinet ultimus finis perfectius est et melius et dirigit illud ad quod pertinet inferior finis." In this chapter of his treatise, John of Paris was following the argument of Thomas Aquinas in the De regimine principum, ed. Mathis, cap;- xiv, pp. 17-18. Employing the same argument as to the ends of the two societies, Aquinas concludes that the spiritual power should rule the temporal power. This conclusion was ignored by Quidort who stated that the spiritual power was greater in dignity. -176-

28 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq,

cap. v9 p. 184, 11. 15-16: "Nec tamen si principe maior est sacerdos dignitate et simpliciter oportet .quod sit maior eo in omnibus." That is, "However, if the priest is simply greater in dignity than the prince, it does not follow that he is greater in all things." 29 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. v, p. 184, 11. 16-21: "Non enim sic se habet potestas secularis minor ad spiritualem maiorem quod ex ea oriatur vel derivetur sicut se habet potestas proconsulis ad. imperatorem qui eo maior est in omnibus quia potestas sua ab illo derivatur; sed se habet sicut protestas patrisfamilies ad potestatem magistri militum quarum una ab alia non derivatur, sed ambe a quadam potestate superiori." In translation, this passage states: "For the lesser secular power is not related to the greater spiritual power as originating from it or being derived from it as the power of a proconsul is related to the emperor who is greater than him in all things since the power of the former is derived from the latter; but it is like the power of the head of a household compared with the commander of soldiers where one is not derived from the other but rather both are from a certain superior power." 30 John of Paris, _De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. v, p. 184, 11. 21-25: "Et ideo potestas secularis in aliquibus maior est potestate spirituali, scilicet in temporalibus, nec quoad hoc est ei subiecta in aliquo quia ab ilia non oritur, sed ambe criuntur ab una suprema potestate, scilicet divina, immediate, propter quod inferior non est subiecta superiori in omnibus sed in hiis solum in quibus suprema supposuit earn maiori." When trans• lated, this passagesstates: "And, therefore, the secular power is greater than the spiritual power in some things, namely temporalities, and as far as to those affairs it is not subjected to the spiritual in any way since it does not have its origin from the spiritual power, but rather both owe their origin immediately to one superior power, namely the divine, on that account, the inferior is not subjected to the superior in all things but only in those in which the supreme power has subordinated it to the greater." 31 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. xvii, p. 227, 11. 22-37, particularly 11.' 30-33: "Et sic est de potestate regia quia secundum earn populus non solum dirigitur in Deum secundum quod rex ea utitur ut rex, sed etiam secundum quod ea utitur rex ut tyrannus in quantum scilicet tyrannis principum est in ultionem peccatorum . . . .", that is, "And so it is with royal power since the people are directed to God not only when the king uses his power as king but also when the king uses his power as a tyrant, in as much as a tyranny of princes exists for the punishment of sins. ..."

\ -177-

-> John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap, xvii, p. 227, 11. 4-13: "Amplius deficit quia ars ilia superior non semper necessario imperat inferiori movendo per modum auctoritatis et instituendo earn, sed solum ei imperat per modum dirigentis, et sicut medicus pigmentarium informat et iudicat de ipso an bene et debite conficiat pigmenta, sed ipsum non instituit nec destituit, sed est aliquis superior utroque scilicet medico et pigmentario apud quem est totus ordo civitatis ut rex vel dominus civitatis, et iste, si pigmen- tarius non conficiat pigmenta prout medico convenit, habet ipsum instituere vel destituere, sic in proposito totus mundus est quasi una civitas in qua Deus est suprema potestas que utrumque papam et princi- pem instituit etc..." When translated, this passage states: "In addition, it (this argument) is defective since a superior art does not always necessarily rule the lower by moving it by means of its authority or by instituting it, but it rules only by directing it, as a doctor directs a pharmacist and judges whether he has prepared the drugs well and properly but he does not institute nor does he deprive the pharma• cist himself, rather there is someone superior to both in whom is the whole civil order, for example, a king or lord of the state, and if the pharmacist does not prepare the drugs as the doctor directs, the superior has to institute or remove him, so in this proposition, all the world is as one city in which God is the supreme power who institutes the pope and prince etc. . , ."

33 John of Paris, De_ potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap, iii, p, 179, 11. 34-35.

34 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. xiii, p. 211, 11. 26-29.

35 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. iii, p. 180, 11. 3-7; "Manifestum est autem quod quamvis populi distinguantur per diversas dioceses et civitates in quibus presun episcopi in spiritualibus, tamen est una omnium fidelium ecclesia et unus populus christianus. Et ideo sicut in qualib'et diocesi est unus episcopus qui est caput ecclesie in populo illo, sic in tota ecclesia et toto populo christiano est unus summus scilicet papa romanus • . . ." Quidort expressed a similar, view in the disputed question, De_ confessioni- bus audiendis (Quaestio disputata Parisius de potestate papae), ed. Ludwig H&dl, p. 37, 11. 3-9:; "Nam cum sit multiplex communitas hominum, scilicet vici in qua communicant quasi homines unius ministerii vel officii, civitatis in qua communicant homines diversorum officiorum, provinciae in qua communicant homines unilinguae, regni in qua communi• cant homines diversae linguae sub uno politico principatu, mundi in qua tota gens continetur, presbyter sive sacerdos parochialis habet iurisdictionem in vico, episcopus in civitate et attinentiis, archie- piscopus in provincia, primas sive patriarcha in regno, papa in mundo." When translated, this passage states, "For since there are varied communities of mankind, namely hamlets in which men are united as men by common occupations and functions, cities in which men of diverse occupa• tions are united, provinces in which men of one tongue are united, kingdoms in which men of diverse tongues are united under one political regime, the world in which all mankind is included, the priest or -178 -

priest of the parish possesses jurisdiction in a hamlet, a bishop in a city and its environs, archbishops in a province, primates or patriarchs in a kingdom, the pope in the world."

36 Aquinas had stated that the pope held the apex of both.powers. See Thomas Squinas,. Commentum in Lib. II Sententiarum (Paris: Vives, 1873), dist. 44, expositio textus;". . . sicut in papam, qui utriusque potestatis apicem tenet .. . . ."

37

-" John of Paris, De potestate regia et papalia ed. Leclercq, cap. vi, p. 189, 11. 30-33: ". • . supremum caput non solum clericorum sed generaliter omnium fidelium ... tanquam generalis informator fidei et morum . . . ."

8 3 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali3 ed. Leclercq, cap, vi, p. 187, 11. 32-34: "Non igitur solus papa dominus est, sed dispensator generalis, et episcopus vel abbas dispensator specialis et immediatus, communitas autem verum dominium habet in bonis." When trans• lated, this passage states: "Therefore, the pope alone is not lord, but rather he is the general manager, and the bishops or abbots are particu• lar and immediate managers, however, the community has the true lordship in goods,

39

John of Paris, De potestate regia et papalia ed, Leclercq, cap, vi, p, 188, 11, 18-23; "Et sicut etiam monasterium posset agere ad depositionem abbatis vel ecclesia particularis ad despositionem episcopi si appareret quod dissiparet bona monasterii vel ecclesie et quod infideliter et non pro bono communi sed private ea detraheret, item si appareret quod papa bona ecclesiarum infideliter detraheret non ad bonum commune cui superintendere tenetur cum sit summus episcopus, deponi posset si admonitus non corrigeretur , , » ," When translated, this passage states: "Just as a monastery is able to move to depose an abbot or a particular church to depose a bishop if it appears that they have squandered the goods of the monastery or church and that faithlessly they have used them not for the common good but rather for the private good, if it should appear that the pope faithlessly used ecclesiastical goods and not for the common good which he is held to superintend since he is the highest bishop, he could be deposed if he were admonished and did not correct his ways . . . ," ^O John of Paris, De_ potestate regia et papali, ed, Leclercq, cap, xxv, p, 258, 11, 5-10: "Quod vero dicitur in principali argumento quod papatus est summa virtus creata et sic non potest auferri, res- pondeo; licet sit summa virtus creata in persona, tamen est ei equalis vel maior in collegio sive in tota ecclesia, Vel potest dici quod potest deponi a collegio vel magis a generali concilio auctoritate divina cuius consensus supponitur et presumitur ad eum deponendum ubi manifeste apparet scandalum et incorrigilitas ipsius presidentis." When translated, this passage states: "Indeed, what is said in the prin• cipal argument is that the papacy is the highest created power and so it cannot be taken away, I respond: granted that it is the highest created power held by one person, nevertheless, there is one equal to it or even greater in the College (of Cardinals) or in the whole church. Or it can -179-

be said that it can be taken away by the College (of Cardinals) or even more by a general council, whose agreement, by diyine authority, the pope is subject to and is governed by, and, when it is manifestly.ap• parent that he is a scandal and is incorrigible it can govern him and it can depose him.

k^- John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. xx, p. 243, L 7: ". . . orbis maius est Urbe et papa cum concilio maior est papa solo . . .

^ John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. x, p. 199, 11. 20-23: "Item, fuit potestas regia secundum se et quantum ad executionem quam papalis et prius fuerunt reges quam christiani in Francia."

43 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. xvii, p. 226, 11. 1-5: "Sic papa non instituit regem, sed uterque est a Deo institutus suo modo nec ipsum dirigit per se ut rex est, sed per accidens in quantum convenit regem fidelem esse,.in.quo a papa institui- j tur de fide et non de regimine. Unde subicitur

John of Paris,. De Potestate regia et papali,. ed. Leclercq, cap. xiii, p. 214, 11. 27-36: "Et tamen in hoc distinctio adhibenda est, quia ubi rex dilinqueret in spiritualibus, scilicet in fede, matrimomio et huiusmodi quorum cognitio ad iudicetn ecclesiasticum pertinet, papa habet ipsum primo monere, et si inveniatur pertinax et incorrigibilis potest ipsum excommunicare et ultra non potest plus nisi per accidens, . . ut dictum est. Ubi vero peccaret rex in temporalibus quorum cognitio ad ecclesiasticum non pertinet, tunc non habet ipsum corrigere primo, sed barones et pares de regno qui, si non possunt vel non audent, possunt invocare auxilium ecclesie que, requisita a paribus in subsidium iuris, potest monere principem et procedere contra ipsum modo predicto." When translated, this passage states: "And yet, on this point a distinction should be made, for when the king is at fault in spiritual matters, namely in faith, marriage, and matters of this kind, the jurisdiction of which is the right of the ecclesiastical judge, the pope has to warn him first, and if he is found to be stubborn and incorrigible, he is able to excommunicate him but he cannot go beyond this except per accidens ... as was said. When the king, in truth, sins in temporalities, the juris• diction of which does not belong to an ecclesiastic, then he (the pope) does not have to correct him first but rather the barons and peers of the kingdom who, if they cannot correct him or dare not, are able to in• voke the aid of the church which, requested by the peers in aiding the right, is able to warn the prince and to proceed against him in the way described."

45 John of Paris, De potestate regia papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. x, p. 196, 11. 16-27.

John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed. Leclercq, cap. xiii, p. 214, 11. 1-18: "De potestate vero correctionis seu censure eeelesiastice sciendum est quod-non est nisi spiritualis directe, quia -180-

riullam penam in foro exteriori potest imponere nisi spiritualem, nisi sub conditione et per accidens. Quamvis enim ecclesiasticus iudex habeat in Deum reducere et a peccato retrahere et corrigere, hoc tamen non habet nisi secundum viam a Deo ei datam que est separando a sacramentis et partici- patione fidelium et huiusmodi que ad censuram ecclesiasticam pertinent; et dico nisi sub conditione, scilicet si quis penitere yelit et peniten- tiam pecuniariam acceptare. Non enim potest ecclesiasticus iudex ratione delicti imponere penam corporalem vel pecuniariam sicut, facet iudex secu• laris, sed solum si ille velit earn acceptare; si enim non vult earn ac- ceptare compellet eum iudex ecclesiasticus per excommunicationem vel per aliam spiritualem penam que est ultima quam potest infeirre nec ultra po• test aliud facere. Dico etiam per accidens quia si esset princeps here- ticus et incorrigibilis et contemptor ecclesiastice censure posset papa aliquid facere in populo ut ille privaretur honore seculari et deponere- tur a populo, et hoc faceret papa in crimine ecclesiastico cuius cognitio ad papam pertinet, excommunicando omnes qui ei ut domino obedirent, et sic populus ipsum deponeret et papa per accidens. j

47 John of Paris, De_ potestate regia et papali, edi Leclercq, cap. xxii, p. 216, 11. 5-7: ". . . apparet quod tota cerisura ecclesias• tica est spiritualis, scilicet excommunicando, suspendendo, interdicendo, nec aliquid ultra potest ecclesia nisi indirecte et per accidens . . ."

^ John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, ed; Leclercq, cap. xiii, p. 215, 11. 17-24: "Si vero in spiritualibus Idelinquat papa, beneficia symoniace conferendo, ecclesias dissipando, privando personas ecclesiasticas et capitula iuribus suis, vel male sentiendo vel docendo circa ea que ad fidem vel bonos mores pertinent, tunc primo monendus esset a cardinalibus qui sunt loco totius cleri. Et si ^incorrigibilis esset nec possent per se amovere scandalum de ecclesia, tunc in subsidium iuris haberent supplicando invocare brachium seculare. Et tunc imperator requisitus a cardinalibus, cum sit membrum ecclesie, deberet procedere contra ipsum ad eius depositionem." When translated, this passage states: "If however, the pope is delinquent in spiritual matters, by conferring benefices simoniacally, by destroying churches, by depriving ecclesias• tical persons and chapters of their rights, or by teaching and declaring wrongly about matters which pertain to the faith and goo.d morals, then he should be first warned by the cardinals who act in the place of the whole clergy. And if he is incorrigible and they, by themselves, could not remove the scandal from the church, then they would have the right to invoke, by supplication, the secular arm to give aid to the right. And then the emperor, since he is a member of the church, requested by the cardinals, ought to proceed against him to secure his deposition. I 49 John of Paris, De potestate regia et papali, edJ Leclercq, cap. xxii, p. 250, 11. 30-33; "Princeps vero violentiam galdii pape posset repellere per gladium suum cum moderamine, nec in hoc ageret contra papam ut papa est, sed contra hostem suum et hostem rei publice . . . ."

The encyclical letters of the masters-general haye been edited as Litterae Encyclicae Magistrorum Generalium, ed. B. M. Reichert, 0.' P. (MOPH, vol. V; Rome: Typographia Polyglotta, 1900). ! -181-

51 G. R. Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, 1216 to 1360 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1925), p. 4. The Acta of the General Cahpters have been edited: Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum ab anno 1220 usque ad anno 1303, ed, B, M, Reichert, 0, P, (MOPH, vol. Ill; Rome: Typographia Polyglotta,. 1898) constitutes,the first volume of the Acta; and,. Acta Capilulorum Generalium Ordinis Prae• dicatorum ab anno 1304 usque ad anno 137 8, ed. B. M. Reichert, 0. P. (MOPH, vol. IV; Rome: Typographia Polyglotta, 1899) constitutes the second volume of the Acta.

52 Galbraith, The Constitution of the Dominican Order, p. 71. The details of the institutional structure of the Dominican Order have been dealt with in the second chapter of. this thesis, see above, pp. - . 53 Acta Capitulorum Generalium, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 280, 11. 3-9: "Cum ex tractatu negociorum secularium et maxime comitum et principium pericula imminent nostro ordini et personis. ex eo quod, dum favor unius partis queritur. alterius odium provocatur. volumus et dis- tricte iniumgimus prioribus et fratribus universis. quod huiusmodi negocia odiosa et periculosa ad tractandum nequaquam assumant,, nec priores provinciales nec conventuales aliquatenus dent licenciam. huiusmodi negocia assumendi."

54 Acta Capitulorum Generaliuma ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 284, 11. 14-18: ". . . in predicacionibus publicis et alias, cum fuerit opor- tunum. predicent. doceant et constanter asserant. dominum Bonifacium esse verum papam. successorem Petri, et vicarium Ihesu Christi."

55 Acta Capitulorum Generalium, ed. Reichert, vol I, p. 285, 1. 16. At the General Chapter held at Bologna in 1302, the friars were once again instructed to pray for the pope and for the welfare of the church. Each priest was instructed to celebrate six masses and each con• vent was to have six masses for the purpose also. In 1303, the friars were again given the same instruction. On this activity see, Acta

Capitulorum Generalium3 ed. Reichert, p. 316, 11. 22-24 and pa 323, 11. 23-25.

Ja Litterae Encyclicae Magistrorum Generalium, ed. Reichert, p. 169, 11. 4-9: "Sanctissimum patrem et nostram dominum Bonifacium, divina provdencia summum pontificem, tanquam verum Christi in terris vicarium ac beati Petri verticis apostolorum successorum legittimum, pre ceteris honorate, quidquid eius dignitati vel statui per quoslibet attemptaretur vel suaderetur contrarium, tamquam vaniloquium et sacri- legum detestantes."

57 Litterae Encyclicae Magistrorum Generalium, ed. Reichert, p. 177, 11. 29-33; "Cum vero de sanctissimo patre ac domino summo ponti- fice vobis loquendum fuerit in publico vel privato, sic habere vos oportet, ut convenit, labia circumcisa, quod nichil penitus inveniatur in eis, quod a veritate deviet, ab equitate declinet, irreverenciam sonet vel ipsius non redoleat sanctatatem."

5 8 Raymund Romain became Provincial in 1302 and was absolved by the general chapter held in 1306. Before becoming Provincial, he had been -182-

prior of the convent of Saint-Jacques in Paris. He received the licentiate in theology late in 1302 or in the early months of 1303. See Laurentil Pignon Catalog! et Chronica accedunt Catalogi Stamsensis et Upsalensis Scriptorum P.P., ed. G. Meersseman, MOPH, vol. XVIII, pp.. 18-19 and p. 85; also Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De_ Quatuor in quibus

Deus Praedicatorum Ordinem insignivita ed. Thomas Kaeppeli, O.P. (Santa Sabina, Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1949), MOPH, vol, XXII, p. 131. Unfortunately, no evidence is available which indi• cates the attitudes and the activities of the two Provincials who held office in the earlier stages of the conflict between Boniface VIII and Philip IV.

59 On Nicholas de Freauville, see Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor in quibus Deus praedicatorum ordinem insignivit, ed. Kaeppeli, MOPH, vol. XXII, p. 52; Quetif-Echard, SOP, vol. I, pp. 555-558; and R. P. Mortier, O.P., Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs (Paris: Alphonse Picard, 1905), vol. II, pp. 407-408. Nicholas de Freauville became the confessor to Philip IV in 1295 and held that office until 1305. In 1305, he became a cardinal and he died in 1324.

60 Quetif-Echard, S0Pa vol. I, p. 555.

6^ Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, vol. II, p. 407.

62 Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, vol. II, pp. 407-408.

63 per processus, Potthast, Regesta, no. 25230; see also,. Quetif- Echard, SOP, vol. I, p. 555; Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, p. 99

^ Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952,)p. 404. His name is fourth on the list. I have employed the texts as edited by Dondaine throughout this section of the thesis.

65 Stephanus de Salaniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De quatuor in quibus Deus praedicatorum ordinem insignivit, ed. Kaeppeli, MOPH, vol. XXII, p. 52.

66 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France; L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), p. 409. His name is ninety-seventh on the list.

67 The.letter of the Provincial, Raymund Romain is found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 153-154: "Quod utique vestrae discre• tion! significare curavi, ut et vos aperto considerationis oculo sic agatis, ne indignationem domini nostri regis incurrere, nec ab aliquo alio possitis merito reprehendi." This letter was issued jointly by the Provincial and the Prior of Saint-Jacques. Nevertheless, the letter was the responsibility of the Provincial who had the right to send it -183-

throughout his province.

68 See the dates given in the collection of documents edited by Dondaine,. "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), pp. 381-439.

69 in the month following the issue of the letter of the Provincial, nine convents signed the appeal.

70 Leclercq, Jean de Paris, pp. 20-21, Most of the clergy and the members of the Religious Orders in France signed the appeal. The notable exception was the Cistercian Order. In the ranks of the in France, there was a large number of Flemings. It is the judgement of most historians that the clergy were forced to sign the documents. There• fore, the signature of a particular person on the appeals does not neces• sarily mean that he was in favour of the royal position, it means that he did not have the courage to stand against the king.

"71 / Documents relatifs aux Etats Generaux et Assemblees reunis sous Philippe le Bel, ed. Picot, pp. 34-53. The document is also contained in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 100-109.

72 Documents relatifs aux l£tats Gene'raux et Assemblees reunis sous Philippe.le Bel, ed. Picot, p. 47.

73 The rough drafts of the documents for the appeal which were to be signed by the clerics are found in Dupuy, Histoire, Actes et Preuves, pp. 109-111.

74 On this point, see Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Prgcheurs, vol. II, pp. 412-413. He also stated that all the foreign students at Saint-Jacques signed the appeal.

75 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), pp. 385-386.

76 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII, (1952), pp. 385-386,

77 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol, XXII (1952), pp. 384-385.

78 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), p. 386.

79 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), p. 387. His estimate is based upon the royal alms given to the friars which remain constant throughout the period twenty-seven deniers per friar.

80 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), pp. 403-411. -184-

81 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), p. 411: "Et ex habundanti ex eisdem et sub eisdem modis et verbis similiter appel- larunt, slava sui ordinis obedientia reverentiaque et honore ecclesie Romane ac fidei catholice veritate, supponentes se et sua et statum suum protectioni dicti sacri congregandi concilii, et predicti veri et legit-timi futuri summi pontificis, non recedendo ab appellationibus supradictis sed eis pocius adherendo."

See Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol XXII (1952), pp. 414-416.

83 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France; L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), P. 416: "Nos autem, premissis considerationibus et causis inducti, convocationem et congregationem ipsius concilii reputantes utilem, necessariam et salubrem ac expedientem fidei negocio et ecclesie sancte Dei, eiusdem convocationi et congregationi concilii assentimus, protestantes expresse, quod partem facere super hiis nullatenus intendimus, sed salvis honore et reverentia in omnibus Sedis apostolice necnon obedientia sacrosancte Romane ecclesie, quam confitemur esse capud et ei obediendum esse, salvo etiam statu ordinis nostri et obedientia maiorum nostrorum, in quantum secundum Deum possumus predictis provocationibus et appellationibus adheremus."

84 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France; L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), pp. 430-431: "• • • quod non consentirent nec adhererent predictis convocationi et congregationi et appellationi nisi de expressa voluntate et assensu prioris generalis tocius eorum ordinis, quem dicebant se credere esse Parisius ex vocatione regia de ipso facto." Philip IV had asked the Master-General to come to Paris, but it seems that his invitation was ignored. See Mortier, Histoire des Maitres Generaux de l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs, vol. II, pp. 154-155.

85 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), pp. 430-433.

86 Dondaine, "Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France: L'appel au concile (1303)," AFP, vol. XXII (1952), pp. 435-437.

87 Although the other convents signed the appeals, there may have been a number of friars in the convents who refused as seems to have been the case at Saint-Jacques.

88 Super cathedram, Potthast, Regesta, no. 24913. On the provisions of the bull see A. G. Little, Franciscan Papers, Lists and Documents, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1943), p. 230. According to the provisions of this bull, the Mendicants could preach in their own churches at all times and in public places on most occasions. The friars had to choose members from their Order to hear confessions and these had to obtain a licence from the bishop of the diocese. Finally, -185-

the friars could bury anyone in their churches who desired it but they, had to give a quarter of all offerings and legacies received to the priest of the parish. -186-

NOTES : TO : CHAPTER•IV

1 The papacy had acted.as the protector of Henry III during his minority. The king never forgot the favours which had been extended to him at this time. His relations with the papacy were always very close. He accepted the crown of Sicily for his son, Edmund, allowing himself to be drawhiihto the papal plans.for ousting the Hohenstaufen dynasty from southern Italy. Henry III agreed to.assume the debts which the papacy had incurred in its struggle with the Hohenstaufen. When he was unable to meet his commitments, Henry III was forced to turn to the barons. The result was that they seized power and ruled England through a baronial council. Although the papacy realized that it would be unable to obtain the Sicilian throne for an English prince, it continued to support Henry during this crisis. After the death of Montfort, the papal legate, Cardinal Ottobuono, was able to use his influence.to aid.in the task of pacifying England.

2 W. A. Pantin, The English Curch• in•:the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge: University Press, 1955), pp. 76-87. The Statutes of Provisors (1351) and Praemunire (1353) were issued at the end of the period under discussion. They should not be regarded as direct attacks on papal authority. In fact, at this time, as Pantin points out, the chroniclers paid little attention to them. The reissues of these statutes in 1365, 1390 and 1393 were of much greater significance. The Statute,of Provisors was aimed at papal provisions where the ordinary ecclesiastical patrons or electors might not dare to appoint to a vacancy when faced with a papal nominee. The king himself was given the right to fill the vacancy. The Statute of Praemunire stated that cases which could be looked after in royal courts should not be taken to foreign courts (i.e. the ) thereby cutting off appeals to Rome. The king was placed in a position so that he could prevent the pope from interfering with the Church in England. Often, the king suspended these Statutes and allowed the pope to provide the royal nominee. However, if the.papacy should prove difficult, then the king could invoke the statutes and appoint to the vacancy.

3 For the provisions of the bull Clericis laicos see Chapter III above, pp. 4£ - 4^.

4 On the events of 1294, see E.J. Smyth, S-J., "The Place of Clericis laicos in the Reign of Edward I" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation University.of Toronto, 1953), chapt. VI, pp. 126-133; and, T.J. Hanrahan, C. S.B., "Edward II.and the Papacy" (unpublished Master * s dissertation, University of Toronto, 1954), p. 11. These two studies are fundamental if one is to acquire an adequate.understanding of the struggle over Clericis laicos in England. -187- x

5 Smyth, "The Place of Clericis laicos in the Reign of Edward I," p. 31.

6 Bartholemaei de Cotton, Historia Anglicana, ed. H. R. Luard (London: RS, 1859), p. 297. In the clerical summons to Parliament, Edward speaks of "communibus periculis." See also Smyth, "The Place of Clericis laicos in the Reign of Edward I," pp. 134-140.

7 Hanrahan, "Edward II and the Papacy," p. 11.

8 Clericis laicos, Reg. Boniface VIII, no. 1567: ". . . ab ipsis suorum proventum vel bonorum dimidiam, decimam, seu vicesimam vel quamvis aliam portionem . . ." and ". . .aut apud edes sacras deposita ecclesiarum vel ecclesiasticarum personarum ubilibet arestaverint . . . ."

y Walteri de Hemingburgh, Chronicon, ed. H. C. Hamilton (London: English Historical Society, 1849), vol. II, p. 113: "Eodem tempore cum audisset dominus papa non tantum Anglicanae sed etiam universalis ecclesiae afflictiones varias et oppressiones multas quasi per.omnia mundi regna, eo quod reges et principes affligebat earn, cognitavit sollicite per quam posset viam aliquod remediam adhibere When translated, this passage states: "At the same time, when the lord pope heard that not only England but also the universal Church was suffering from many and varied oppressions in nearly all the kingdoms of the world and that kings and princes had afflicted her.so much, that he anxiously considered a way in which he was able to produce some remedy . . . ." This passage immediately precedes the text of Clericis laicos in the Chronicle.

10 See Chapt. Ill above, pp. 4f - .

11 Hanrahan, "Edward II.and the Papacy," p. 15; Smyth, "The Place of Clericis laicos in the Reign of Edward I,"pp. 144-145 and pp. 183-184:. Smyth states that it seems that Winchelsey had the text of the bull Coram illo fatemur before him when he wrote to Boniface VIII in 1297 to explain the tenth which had been granted to Edward I. See Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, ed. Rose Graham (Canterbury and York Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952-56), pp.528-532. For the text of Coram illo fatemur see Reg. Boniface• VTII,. no. 2333. The justification in the letter of Winchelsey closely follows the text of the .

12 On these points see Hanrahan, "Edward II and the Papacy," p. 15. 13 Cotton, Historia Anglicana. pp. 314-315. For the details of this Parliament see Smyth, "The Place of Clericis laicos in the Reign of Edward I," pp. 153-155. I4 The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, vol. II, pp. 270-273: "Sir clers," dit le rays, "tu as parl£ folye. Promesse est dette due, si fay ne sait ublye. Mes ke jo te vays de [la] bulle saysye^ -188-

Ausint tuz les altres, par le fiz Marye! Ke purryez de ceste aide estre defublye!" "Sire," dist li erceveske, "mult trevolunter A tay, cum a.seygnur, volumes tuz aider Par conge de la pape, si tu.vols maunder Par un de tes clers of nostre nessager, Ke toun estat et nostre porrount.moustrer, Et soulom co.ke le pape nus fra remaunder, Voloums souloum nos eses volunters aider." "Sire clers," redistly rays, "jo n'ai pas mester De co ke tu me dais.. le pape counsayller. Me>s si tu voes respit en co kas ayer, Fa quant tu vodras tes clers assembler, En parlez du promesse, en parlez ent dequer; Apres le saynt Hyllere venez a Westmouster, Parfournir la promesse saunz plus en parler."

15 Fibres Historiarum, ed. H. R. Luard, (London: RS, 1890), vol. Ill, p. 289.

16 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 144-147; Cotton, His tor ia •: Anglicana, p. 315.

I? Cotton, Historia Anglicana, p. 317: ". . . aliqua via idonea media inter duo pericula, videlicet.constitutionis summi pontificis, et subversionis totius regni . . . ."

18 Cotton, His toria•Ahglicana j pp. 318-320.

19 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1292-1301, p. 237: ". . . granted a fifth . . . for the defence of themselves and their churches and to.resist the machinations and invasions of enemies who, landing in some parts of the realm, have burned churches (etc.) and are preparing to invade the realm again . . . ." The letters of protection make.it appear that the clergy were merely contributing to the defence of the realm. There was no mention of outlawry.

20 For instance,.the abbot of St. Albans thought that he had incurred a sentence of excommunication by submitting. See, Gesta Abbatum MOnasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H. T. Riley (London: RS, 1867), vol. II, pp. 26-27.

21 Cotton, Historia Ahglicanaj p. 320.

22 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 154-159.

23 Cotton, Historia Ahglicana, p. 320. 24 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1292-1301, pp. 239-240. Also see H. Rothwell, "The Confirmation.of the Charters, 1297,".EHR, vol. LX (1945), p. 24.

Annales de Dunstaplia, in Annales Monastici, ed. H.R. Luard (London: RS, 1866), vol. Ill, p. 405. -189-

26 Arinales de Wigornia in.Anriales Monastici,;ed. H. R. Luard (London: RS, 1869), vol. IV, p. 530.

27 Cotton, Historia Anglicana, p. 322'. Cotton merely states that the archbishop was unable to receive any satisfaction from the king. The author of MS N of the FlOtes Historiarum when discussing this meeting refers to Winchelsey as the "riOvus Thomas." -See Fibres Historiarum, vol. Ill, p. 292.

28 Cotton, Historia Anglicana, • p: 321.' Cotton relates that many of the clergy did not bend under the pressures exerted by the king.

29 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 162-163.

3^ Arinales.•'de Wigornia:in Anriales Monastici, vol. IV, p. 531: "Universo et singulos propriis conscientiis vos dimitto. Sed mea conscientia pro regis protectione vel alio colore dare pecuniam non permittit." Also see Cotton, Historia Anglicana, p. 323.

31 According to Rose Graham only the bishops of Llandaff and St. Asaph as well as the abbots of a few Benedictine monasteries followed Winchelsey and refused to seek the protection of the king. See Reg. Winchelsey, ed. Rose Graham, "Introduction", p. xi. It seems that Oliver Sutton, bishop of Lincoln, did not submit to the king. See Hemingburgh, :Chronicon, vol. II, p. 119.

32 Cotton, Historia Anglicana; p. 323.

33 Willelmi Rishanger, Chronica•et Arinales, ed. H. T. Riley (London: RS, 1865), p. 169: Nicholai Triveti, Anriales, ed. Thomas Hog (London: English Historical Society, 1845) , p. 354; Fibres Historiarum, vol. Ill, p. 101.

34 Fibres Historiarum, vol. Ill, p. 101.

35 Rothwell, "The Confirmation of the Charters, 1297," EHR, vol. LX (1945), p. 25.

Cotton, Historia Anglicana, p. 325; Rishanger, Chronica et Arinales, p. 173.

37 Cal. Close Rolls, 1296-1302, p. 42. The official writ stated that this favour was granted by the king at the instance of the clergy. However, Hemingburgh states that the magnates urged this course of action on the king. See Hemingburgh, Chronicon, vol. II, pp. 122-123.

38 Fibres/Historiarum, vol. Ill, pp. 101-102, p. 295.

3y Cotton, Historia Anglicanaj p. 327.-

40 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 179-180. -190-

41 The letter Sanctam Romanum Ecclesiam of the French clergy to the pope and Boniface VIII's answer, Coram illo fatemur, are found in Winchelsey's Register.immediately before the summons to the.convocation of August 10, 1296. See:Reg; Wihchelsey,-pp. 174-179.

42 Cotton, Historia Anglicana,•p. 335.

43 Smyth, "The Place of Clericis laicos in the Reign of Edward I," p. 175.

44 Flores Historiarum,.vol. Ill, p. 103 and p. 296; Cotton, Historia Anglicanaj p. 336.

45 v. H. Galbraith, "The St. Edmundsbury Chronicle, 1296-1301," EHR, vol. LVIII.(1943), p. 67.

46 B. Wilkinson, Constitutional History of Medieval England (London: Longmans, 1948), vol. I, p. 204.

47 Hemingburgh, Chronicon, vol. II, p. 152.

48 Cotton, Historia Ahglicana, pp. 337-338.

49 Flores Historiarum, vol. Ill, p. 103; "The St. Edmundsbury Chronicle,". EHR, .-vol. LVIII.(1943), p. 67; and, Rothwell, "The Confirmation of the Charters, 1297," EHR, vol. LX (1945), p. 181.

50 Reg; Winchelsey, pp. 198-200.

51 Trivet, Annales, p. 368; Rishanger, Chronica•et Annales, p. 182.

52 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 528-531. The letter bears the date December 17, 1297.;

-*3 Reg. Winchelsey, pp..536-538.

54 Statutes of the Realm, vol. I, pp. 136-141.

-*5 Annales de Wigornia in Annales Monastici, vol. IV, p. 544.

56 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 569-573-.

57 "The St. Edmundsbury Chronicle, 1296-1301," EHR, vol. LVIII (1943), p. 77.

58 Parliamentary Writs, vol. I, pp. 104-105.

59 For the details to support this opinion, see Hanrahan,"Edward II and the Papacy," pp. 25-37.

60 Rishanger, Chronica - et - Annalesp. 462. Following this notice in the chronicle is the text of Clericis laicos dated 1300. There must have been a re-issue of the bull. -191-

61 Temporalities which.were held by clerics under the same conditions as lay vassals were known:as lay fees. Temporalities.annexed.to spiri• tualities were lands acquired by the.clergy through , will or . purchase and were included in the assessment of Nicholas IV in 1291. On these points see Hanrahan, "Edward II.and the Papacy," pp. 22-24.

62 Hanrahan, "Edward II and the Papacy,".pp. 52-53.

63 Clem., 3, 15, c. 1, Corpus Iuris Carionici, ed. Friedberg, vol.TI, col. 1178.

64 C. F. R. Palmer, "The King's Confessors," The Antiquary, vol. XXII.(1890), p. 115.

6S Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. H. R. Luard (London: RS, 1875), vol. Ill, pp. 244-255.

66 Trivet, Annales, p. 221.

67 Cal. Close Rolls, 1231-1234, p. 419.

68 See Chapter III above, pp. 73 - 82 .

69 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1292-1301, - p. 244.. The full text can be found in Councils and Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), vol. II,.pt. ii, pp. 1164-1165.

70 Cal. Pat./Rolls, 1292-1301, p. 244. The full text is.in Councils and Synods, ed. Powicke and Cheney, vol. II, pt. ii, p. 1165.

71 Annales de Wigornia in Annales Monastici, vol. IV, p. 531.

72 Flores Historiarum, vol. Ill, p. 100.

73 Fibres Historiarum, vol. Ill, p. 100: "... insistunt argumentis probare clerum ipsi regi in tempore belli, non obstate constitutione apostolica . . . posse licite subvenire . . . ."

74 "The St. Edmundsbury Chronicle, 1296-1301," EHR, vol. LVIII (1943), p. 66.

75 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 533-534. For a discussion of the.details of this petition see Rose Graham, English Ecclesiastical Studies'• (London: SPCK, 1929), pp. 302-316.

76 7 Reg. Winchelsey, pp. 187-189.. Winchelsey was acting for the bishops and the clergy of his Province. Similar letters were sent to the Franciscans, and . See Reg; Winchelsey, p. 189.

M. Paris, Chronica Ma.jora, vol. V, p. 549. -192-

78 ' On these activities see Hinnebusch, The Early - English Friars Preachers, pp. 298-299 and M. H. Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans (Dublin: Brown and Nolan, 1916), pp. 298-301.

79 For details concerning this incident see the full account in Maclnerny, A History of •:the Irish Dominicans, pp. 301-306.

80 Cal. Pat. Rollsj 1247-1258, p. 457 :• "Pardon, at the instance of John de Derlinton, to John the.convert.for the death of a boy crucified.at Lincoln, when he was a Jew of that city. Mandate to Peter le Blund, constable of the.Tower of London, to deliver him from the Tower." This document is dated, January 10, 1256. 81 M. Paris, Chronica Majora, vol. Ill, p. 627. 82 Potthast, Regesta, no. 13965.

83 Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 379, and, Annales de Burton in Arinales Monastici, yol. I, pp. 446-453.

84 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1258-1266, p. 268.

85 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 463; and, Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, pp. 314-315.

86 Royal Letters (Chancery), no. 429. The text of this letter has been transcribed and is printed.in Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, pp. 319-320.

87 The following are typical examples of how Darlington used his influence with the king in order to obtain pardons and exemptions. On September 3, 1271, " Exemption for life of Roger.de Tingewik from being put on assizes, juries, or.recognitions, and from being made sheriff, etc., against his will. At the instance of Brother John de Derlinton." See Cal. Pat. Rolls ^ 1266-1272, p. 573. On April 12, 1272, the follow-, ing entry appears: "Pardon, at the instance of Brother John de Derlington, to Richard Graffard, of the King's suit for the death of William Piddi." See Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1266-1272, p. 643. Other pardons and exemptions are recorded which were obtained because of the Influence which Darlington was able to exercise over the king. For instance, see Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1247-1258;. pp. 555, 630; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1258-1266, pp. -379, 526, 557, 558, 578, 604, 623, 637, 645. These all refer to pardons for alleged murderers in the year 1266. These charges were probably made during the period of the baronial revolt.

88 Palmer, "The King's Confessors,"The Antiquary, vol. XXII (1890), p. 115. This somehow seems unlikely although Darlington was still employed by the new king on various diplomatic missions.

89 Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, vol. VI, pt. i, pp. 168-169.

90 Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. I, p. 449. -193-

91 Cal. Pat.:Rolls, 1272-1281, p. 82.

92 Cal; Pat; Rolls^ 1272-1281, p. 147.

93 Cal; of Papal Registers j-. vol. I, p. 445.

94 Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. I, p. 457.

95 Cal; Pat. Rolls, 1272-1281, p. 307; Cal. State Papers, Ireland, 1252-1284, p. 305.

96 Cal. State Papers, Ireland, 1252-1284, pp. 306-307. 97 Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 358. 98 Cal. of Papal Registers^ vol. I, p. 469. 99 Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 373. -194-

For a discussion of the other Dominican confessors in the period from 1254-1350 see Palmer, "The King's Confessors," The Antiquary, vol. XXII (1890), pp. 114-120,. pp. 159-161. See also R. D. Clarke, "Some Secular Activities of the English Dominicans during the Reigns of Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III" (unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of London, 1930), pp. 8-60. 2 On the scholastic career of Hothum see Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, pp. 386-389;.and, Roensch, Early Thomistic School, pp. 28-34. 3 Trivet, Annales, p. 364: "Erat autem jocundus in verbis, in affatu placidus, religionis honestae, in omnium oculis gratiosus ..." 4 Hothum was lecturing at Saint-Jacques, Paris, until 1282. See Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 387; and, Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 29.

5 Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 220.

Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, pp. 388-390: and, C. F. R. Palmer, "The Provincials of the Friar-Preachers, or Black Friars, of England," Archaeological Journal, vol. XXXV (1878), p. 140.

7 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1281-1292, p. 218. It should be noted that Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 29, incorrectly dates this document. He cites it for the year 1283. g Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum,ed.Reichert, vol. I, p. 242: "Absolvimus priorem provincialem Anglie G. de Odone et assignamus eum conventui Parisiensi. ad legendum." 9 This is the opinion of Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 421 and that of Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 422. See also Bede Jarrett, The English Dominicans (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1921), pp. 73-74. Jarrett suggests that this move on the part of the Dominican authorities to remove Hothum from the office of provincial was designed to placate Pecham whom Hothum had steadfastly resisted during the archbishop's attempts to re-issue the condemnation of Kilwardby at Oxford. ^ Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, vol. I, p. 246.

Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, pp. 85-86. The destination is cited as "Barcina" which Little interprets as Barcelona. 12 Palmer, "The Provincials of the Friar-Preachers, or Black Friars, of England."'Archaeological Journal, vol. XXXV (1878), p. 142 13 Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 425-426. -195-

14

Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 427 Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. I, p. 504.

Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. I, p. 526

17 September 20, 1290: Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. I, p. 519. 18 Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. I, p. 535 19 Hemmingburgh, Chronicon, vol. II, pp. 31-32. 20 Hemingburgh, Chronicon, vol. II, p. 33: "Ista petitio proposita fuit in Gallico per praedictum militem in praesentia regis et magnatum utriusque regni, et earn praeordinavit frater Willelmus de Hothom tunc prior provincialis fratrum Praedicatorum Angliae ..." 21 Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 443. 22 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p.484; and, Clarke, "Some Secular Activities of the English Dominicans," p. 175. 23 Rishanger, Chronica et Annales, pp. 254-255, 260. 24 See M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century (2nd, ed.; Oxford: Claren• don Press, 1962), pp. 644-653. 25 The Chronicle of P ierre de Langtoft, ed. T. Wright, vol. II, pp. 204 - 207. 26 The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. T. Wright, vol. II, pp. 206-207. 27 The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. T. Wright, vol. II, pp. 206-211. 28 The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. T. Wright, vol. II, pp. 210-211. 29 Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 450 30 Psalms 85:8: "Audiam quid in me loquatur Dominus, quoniam loquetur in plebam suam." An account of the sermon is given in Hemingburgh, Chronicon, vol. II, pp. 66-68. 31 A full account of this appointment is given in Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, pp. 452-459. Hothum stepped down as provincial when he was appointed to the archbishopric of Dublin. On this point see, Palmer, "The Provincials of the Friar-Preachers, or Black Friars, of England," Archaeological Journal, vol. XXXV (1878), p. 144. 32 Trivet, Annales, p. 364. -196-

33 Thomas Rymer, Foedera (London: 1713), vol. II, p. 795 34 Maclnerny, A History of the Irish Dominicans, p. 466; and Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 486. 35 Rymer, Foedera, vol. II, p. 808. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1292-1301, pp. 329, 331-332; and, Cal. Close Rolls. 1296-1302, pp. 198-199. 37 Palmer, "The Provincials of the Friar-Preachers, or Black Friars, of England," Archaeological. Journal, vol. XXXV (1878), p. 143 38 Trivet, Annales, p. 364. 39 Hemingburgh, Chronicon, vol. II, p. 160. 40 For instance, see C. F. R. Palmer, "The Friar-Preachers, or Blackfriars, of King's Langley," The Reliquary, vol. XIX (1878), pp. -37-42, for the gifts showered on this convent which became the burial place of Piers Gaveston, the favorite of the king, and, ultimately, that of the king himself. 41 Annales Paulini, in Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, ed. W. Stubbs (London; RS, 1882), vol. I, p. 337. 42 Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. II, p. 479. 43 For a discussion of this letter contained in Father Palmer's un• published transcripts, see Clarke, "Secular Activities of the English Dominicans," pp. 191-192. 44 Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. II, p. 253. 45 Annales Paulini in Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, vol. I, p. 337: "Optimus praedicator et facundus ..." 46 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1327-1330, pp. 156-157. 47 This is mentioned in a letter from John Walewyn to the chancellor. Walewyn was in charge of the castle at this time. For the letter see F. Tanquerey, "The Conspiracy of Thomas Dunheved, 1327," EHR, vol. XXXI (1916), pp. 119-120. 48 Annales Paulini in Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II, vol. I, p. 337, and, Cal. Close Rolls, 1327-1330, p. 146 49 On this point see Clarke, "Some Secular Activities of the English Dominicans," pp. 199-200. Jarrett, The English Dominicans, p. 133, notes at least 23 royal writs issued between 1240 and 1538 for the capture of vagabond friars. -197-

51 For instance see Cal. Pat. Rolls,.1301-1307, p. 123; and, Cal. Pat. Rolls. 1307-1313. p. 182 52 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1301-1307, p. 123. 53 Owst, Literature and the Pulpit in Medieval England, pp. 210-470. 54 For this idea see, Ernest Barker, The Dominican Order and Convoca• tion: A Study of Representation in the Church during the Thirteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). See also, H.P. Tunmore, "The Dominican Order and Parliament," Catholic Historical Review, vol. XXVI (1941), pp. 479-489.

55 Barker, The Dominican Order and Convocation, p. 75.

56 Post, Studies, pp. 61-90.

57 On this point see Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 491. 58 The following works have been utilized in order to compile a list of English Dominican writers and their works: Quetif-Echard, SOP, vol. I (Paris: 1719); Laurentii Pignon, Catalogi et Chronica accedunt Catalogi Stamsensis et Upsalensis. Scriptorum 0. P.; Glorieux, Repertoire; F. Steg- muller, Repertorium commentariorum in Sententias Petri Lombardi (Wurzburg: F. Schoningh, 1947, 2 vols.); A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500 (Cambridge: University Press, 1963); A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the to 1500 (Oxford University Press, 1957-1959, 3 vols.); Gilson, A History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages; and, finally, Roensch, Early Thomistic School. 59 The following MSS and editions have been utilized: Robert Kilwardby, Commentary on the Sentences, Merton College, MS 131, fois. 1-214; Thomas Sutton, Commentary on the Sentences, , MS Ross. 431, fois. 1-161; Robert Holcot, Super quattuor libros sententiarum questiones (Lyons: 1497); and Nicholas Trivet, Commentary on the Sentences, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 347, fois. 155-246. See Merton College MS 131, fois. 1-214. 61 For John Bromyard's Tractatus, British Museum, MS Royal, 10 C. x. , fois. l-146v has been utilized. 62 • Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 375. 63 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, pp. 380-382 64 Emden, A Biographical.Register of the University of Oxford, vol. II, p. 1051. ^ The best account of these aspects of Kilwardby's life is to be found in Sommer-Seckendorff, Studies in the Life of Robert Kilwardby. -198-

66 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p, 382.

67 See Chapter III above, pp.62-

68 Robert Kilwardby, Commentary on the Sentences, Oxford, Merton College, MS. 131, fol. 93 : "Deinde quaeretur cum originalis culpa tollatur quo ad culpam; quid est quod non tollitur quo ad causam." These are the opening words of the last question of the second book of Kilwardby's Commentary on the Sentences. An examination of the .full text of this question indicates that it corresponds to the dis• cussion found in distinction 32 of the second book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard. See Petri Lombardi, Sententiarum libri quatuor, in Migne, PLj vol. CXCII, cols. 726-729.

69 D. E. Sharp, "Thomas of Sutton, 0. P.: His Place in and an Account of his Psychology," Revue neoscolastique de philosophie, vol. 36 (1934), p. 332.

7^ Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, pp. 396-410; Roensch, Early Thomistic School, pp. 44-51; and, Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. Ill, p. 1824.

71 A. B. Emden, A Survey of Dominicans in England (Santa Sabina, Rome: Institutum Historicum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1967), p. 225.

72 On this point see Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 396, n. 194; and, -Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 45.

73 Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 45; and, Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. Ill, p..1824.

74 Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, pp. 68, 101, 129, 282.

7^ Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, pp. 181, 282, 289.

7^ Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, p. 282.

77 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 397; and, Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 46,

78 The most easily accessible list of his works is found in Roensch, Early Thomistic School, pp. 47-51.

79 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, pp. 397-398.

80 Hinnebusch, The Early English Friars Preachers, p. 399. -199-

81 Stegmuller, Repertoriums p. 393. The author of the manuscript is called Thomas Anglicus. This Thomas Anglicus has been identified as Thomas of Sutton. On this point see Roensch, Early Thomistic School, p. 77, n. 240.

82 The last question of Sutton's Commentary on the Sentences is "Quaeritur utrum voluntas possit vere se contra iudicium rationis." See Vatican Library, MS.Ross. 431, foi. 107. For comparison see Petri Lombard!, Sententiarum libri quatuor, in Migne, PL, vol. CXCII, col. 743, Bk. II, dist. 38: "De voluntate et ejus fine, et quo et ipsa judicatur." Finally see Thomae Aquinatis, Commentum in Lib. II Sententiarum, ed. Vives, Bk. II, dist. 38, p. 502: "De voluntate et ejus fine, ex quo et ipsa judicatur."

83 Beryl Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth Century (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960), p. 58.

84 Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, p. 283; and, Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, p. 58.

85 Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, pp. 283-284; and, Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. Ill, p. 1902.

86 Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, p. 284; and, Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. Ill, p. 1902.

87 Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, p. 58; and, Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, p. 284,

88 Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, p. 284.

89 Cal. of Papal Registers, vol. II, p. 461.

90 Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, p. 59.

91 Little and Pelster, Oxford Theology and Theologians, p. 283.

92 See Raymond Creytens, "Les commentateurs dominicains de la Regie de S. Augustine du xiiie.au xvie siecle," AFP, vol. XXXIV (1964), pp. 107-153.

93 Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952), pp. 346.-347.

94 Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. Ill, p. 1902.

95 Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 58-65. -200-

yo See Lambeth Palace Library, MS 347, fois. 154-246. In this MS the portions taken from Lombard are underlined.

97 Lambeth Palace Library, MS 347, fol. 215ra.

98 See Lambeth Palace Library, MS 347, fois. 215-216.

99 See Stegmuller, Repertorium, p. 289, where the explicit of the second book of Trivet's Commentary is given as ". . . potest fieri bona et e converso," In Lambeth Palace Library, MS 347, fol. 215ra the explicit is ". . . ratione quidam in original!." -201-

1 A. B. Emden, "Dominican Confessors and Preachers licensed by Medieval English Bishops," AFP, vol. XXXII (1962), p. 196.

9 Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. II, p. 946. o Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. II, p. 946; and, Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, p. 135

4 Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. II, p. 946; and, Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, p. 136

-* Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. II, p. 946.

Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. II, p. 946.

1 These works have been carefully studied by Beryl Smalley. See Smalley, English Friars and Antiquity, pp. 137-183; and, B. Smalley "Robert Holcot, O.P.," AFP, vol. XXVI (1956), pp. 5-97.

8 Smalley, "Robert Holcot, O.P.," AFP, vol. XXVI (1956), pp. 49-50.

9 "Exemplum datur prelatis quod non est satis generalia predicare cum curam habeant animarum, sed necesse habent in casu ad particularia descendere, quando infamia seu rebellio compellit (Sap. lect. lxxx, Bale, 1586, p. 278)," cited by Smalley, "Robert Holcot, O.P.," AFP, vol. XXVI (1956), p. 92.

10 Smalley, "Robert Holcot, P.P.," AFP, vol. XXVI (1956), p. 92 11 All references are to Roberti Holcot, Super quatuor libros sententiarum questiones (Lyons: 1497). 12 Holcot, Super qjuatuor libros sententiarum questiones, fol. 48ra "Utrum creator generis humani iuste gubernet generus humanum."

13 Holcot, Super quatuor libros sententiarum questiones, fol. 49r^ fol. 49rb.

14 Holcot, Super quatuor libros sententiarum questiones, fol. 87ra

15 Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. I, p. 278.

16 Emden, "Dominican Confessors and Preachers licensed by Medieval English Bishops," AFP, vol. XXXII (1962), p. 191. -202-

17 Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford, vol. I, p. 278.

1 8 All references are to British Museum, Royal MS 10 C. x. 19 On the Summa Praedicantium and the Distinctiones, see, Emden, A Biographical Register, of the University of Oxford, vol. I, p. 278. The Summa Praedicantium was the source of many of the illustrations utilized by Owst in his Literature and the Pulpit in Medieval England,

20 British Museum, Royal MS 10 C. x., foi. 1-fol. 8V.

21 British Museum, Royal MS 10 C. x., foi. 2iva_f0l. 2ivb. See Appendix I for a transcription of the text.

22 British Museum, Royal MS 10 C. x., foi. 7va: "Rex nativus utilior est."

23 British Museum, Royal MS 10 C. x., foi. 21va: "Et sicut tempore vacationis imperii spoliatores dominantur fidelibus et civitates et alia perdimur, . . . ."

24 British Museum, Royal MS 10 C. x., foi. 102va-fol. 103va.

25 British Museum, Royal MS 10 C. x., foi. 103vb. Bromyard goes on to state that the cardinals should live off the lands of the Templars or other revenues which were assigned to them so that they could avoid gifts and exactions which mar the glory of the Curia. The reference to the lands of the Templars would seem to indicate that the work was composed early in the fourteenth century. -203-

NOTES FOR THE CONCLUSION

Leclercq, Jean de Paris, pp. 23-24. -2014-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. PRIMARY SOURCES

A. Manuscripts

British Museum, MS Royal 10 C. X.!

Cambridge, College 347, fois. 49-71

Cambridge University Library Peterhouse MS 262 fois. 68 - 79

Lambeth Palace MS 347 fois. 156 - 246

Oxford, Merton College, MS 131 fois. 1 - 214

Vatican Library, MS Ross. 431, fois. 1 - 161

B. Printed Sources

1. Calendars and Documents

Calendar of Chancery Warrants preserved in the Public Record Office, A.D. 1244-1326. London: Stationery Office, 1927.

Calendar of the Charter Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, London: Stationery Office, 1903-1927, 6 vols.

Calendar of Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III preserved in the Public Record Office. London: Stationery Office, 1902-1938, 14 vols.

Calendar of Close Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office. Edward I. London: Stationery Office, 1900--1908, 5 vols.

Calendar of Close Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office. Edward II. London: Stationery Office, 1892--1898, 4 vols.

Calendar of Close-Rolls p re served in" the Public Record Office. Edward III. London: Stationery Office, 1896-1913, 14 vols.

Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland preserved in Her Majesty's Public Record Office. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1875-1886, 5 vols.

Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, Vol. I, 1198-1304. London: Stationery Office, 1893. -205-

Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, Vol. II, 1305-1342. London: Stationery Office, 1895.

Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, Vol. Ill, 1342-1362. London: Stationery Office, 1897.

Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, Vol. IV, 1362-1404. London: Stationery Office, 1902.

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office. Henry III. London: Stationery Office, 1901-1913, 6 vols.

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office. Edward I. London: Stationery Office, 1893-1901, 4 vols.

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office. Edward II. London: Stationery Office, 1894-1904, 5 vols.

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office. Edward III. London: Stationery Office, 1891-1916, 16 vols.

Calendar of Various Chancery Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office. London: Stationery Office, 1912.

2. Chronicles

Annales Monastici, ed. H.R.' Luard. Rolls Series, 5 vols. London 1864-1869.

Bartholomaei de Cotton, Historia Anglicana; necnon ejusdem Liber de Archiepiscopis et Episcopis Angliae, ed. H.R.' Luard. Rolls Series, 1 vol. London 1859.

Bernardus Guidonis, De Fundatione et Prioribus Conventuum Provinciarum Tolosanae et Provinciae Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. P.A. Amargier. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. XXIV. Rome 1961.

Chronica et Chronicorum Exerpta Historiam Ordinis Praedicatorum Illustrantia, ed. B.M. Reichert, 0.P. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. VII, Rome 1904.

Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. William Stubbs. Rolls Series, 2 vols. London 1882-1883. -206-

Fratris Gerardi de Fracheto, O.P.', Vitae Fratrum Ordinis Praedicatorum necnon Cronica Ordinis ab anno MCCIII usque ad MCCLIV. ed. B.M. Reichert. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. I. Rome 1896.

Fratis Galuagni de la Flamma Cronica Ordinis Praedicatorum ab anno 1170 usque ad 1333, ed. B.M. Reichert. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. II. Rome 1897.

Fratris Thomae de Eccleston, Tractatus de Adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam, ed. A.G. Little. Manchester 1951.

Flores Historiarum, ed. H.R. Luard. Rolls Series, Vol. Ill (1265-1326) London 1890.

Gervase, the of Canterbury, Chronicle, ed. William Stubbs. Rolls Series, 2 vols. London 1879-1880.

Gesta Abbatum Monasterii Sancti Albani, ed. H.T. Riley. Rolls Series, 3 vols. London 1867-1869.

Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Chronica Majora, ed. H.R.1 Luard. Rolls Series, 7 vols. London 1872-1883.

Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani, Historia Anglorum, ed. F. Madden. Rolls Series, 3 vols. London 1864-1869.

Monumenta Franciscana, edv J.S. Brewer and R. Howlett. Rolls Series, 2 vols. London 1858-1882.

Pierre de Langtoft, The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, ed. T. Wright. Rolls Series, 2 vols. London 1866-1868.

Political Poems and Songs relating to English History, composed during the Period from the Accession of Edward III to that of Richard II, ed. T. Wright. Rolls Series, 2 vols. London 1859-1861.

Stephanus de Salniaco et Bernardus Guidonis, De Quatuor in Quibus Deus Praedicatorum Ordinum Insignivit, ed. T. Kaepelli. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. XXII. Rome 1949.

"The St. Edmundsbury Chronicle, 1296-1301", ed. V.H. Galbraith. English Historical Review, Vol. LXVIII (1943).

F. Nicholai Triveti, Annales Sex Regum Angliae (1136-1307), ed. T. Hog. London 1845.

Willelmi Rishanger, Chronica et Annales, Regnantibus Henrico Tertio et Edwardo Primo, ed. H.T.1 Riley. Rolls Series. London 1865.

Ypodigma Neustriae, a Thoma Walsingham quondam Monacho Monasterii S. Albani, Conscriptum, ed. H.T.: Riley. Rolls Series. London 1876 -207-

3. Dominican Administrative Documents

Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum. Vol I ab Anno 1220 usque ad annum 1303, ed. B'j'M.'* Reichert, 0.SP,/ Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. III. Rome 1898.

Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum. Vol. II ab Anno 1304 usque ad Annum 1378, ed. B.M. Reichert, O.P. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. IV. Rome 1899.

Acta Capitulorum Provincialium Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum: Premiere Province de Provence, Province Romaine, Province d'Espagne, 1239-1302. ed. C. Douais. Toulouse 1894.

Beati Iordani de Saxonia Epistulae, ed. A. Walz. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. XXIII. Rome 1951.

"The Constitutiones of the Order of Preachers, 1359-1363", ed. G.R. Gal• braith; in The Constitution of the Dominican Order, pp. 203 - 253. Manchester University Press.

"Die Constitutionen des Prediger-Ordens vom Jahre 1228", ed. H. Denifle in Archiv fur Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte.des Mittelalters, ed. H. Denifle and F. Ehrle. Vol. I, pp. 164-227.' Berlin, Weidmann, 1885; reprinted Graz, Akademischen Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1955.

"Die Constitutionen des Predigerordens in der Redaction~Raimunds von~~ Penafort", ed. H. Denifle in Archiv fur Litteratur- und Kirchen• geschichte des Mittelalters, ed. H. Denifle and F. Ehrle. Vol. V, pp. 530-564. Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1889; reprinted Graz Akademischen Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1956.

Monumenta Diplomatica S. Dominici, ed. V.'JV Koudelka and R/J^ Loenertz. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. XXV. Rome 1966.

Humberti de Romanis, O.P., Opera de Vita Regulari, ed. J.'J*! Berthier. 2 vols. Rome 1956.

Litterae Encyclicae Magistrorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum ah Anno 1233 usque ad Annum 1376, ed. B.M. Reichert, O.P. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. V. Rome 1900.

4. Episcopal and Papal Registers

(a) Papal Registers

Boniface VIII: Les Registres de Boniface VIII, ed. G. Digard, M. Faucon, A. Thomas and R. Fawtier. 4 vols. Paris 1904-1939.

Gelasius I: Epistolae et Decreta, ed. J.Pv Migne in Patrologia latina Cursus Completus, Vol. LIX, col. 11 - Ch. 190. -208-

Gregory VII: Gregorii VII Registrum, ed. E. Caspar. • Epistolae Selectae in Usum Scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae Historicis, 2nd edition, Berlin, Weidmannsche 1955.

Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 1198-1304, ed. A. Potthast. 2 vols. Berlin, 1874; reprinted Graz, Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1957. .

Regesta Pontificum. Romanorum. ed. P. Jaffe and S. Loewenfeld. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1885; reprinted Graz, Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1956..

(b) Episcopal Registers

Henry Woodrlock: Registrum Henrici Woodlock Diocesis Wintoniensis, A^D^1 1305-1316, ed. A.W. Goodman. 2 vols. Canterbury and York Society, vols. XLIII, XLIV, 1940-1941.

John Peckam: Registrum Epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckam, Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. CvT. Martin. Rolls Series, 3 vols. London 1882-1885.

Robert Winchelsey: Registrum Roberti Winchelsey Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi A.D. 1294-1313, ed. R. Graham. 2 vols. Canterbury and York Society vols. LI, LII. 1952-1956.

5,. Record Sources and Law

Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae, ed. D. Wilkins. 4 vols. London 1737.

Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. E. Friedberg. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1879; re• printed Graz, Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt 1959.

Documents relatifs aux Etats Generaux et Assemblies reunis sous Philippe le Bel, ed. G. Picot. Paris 1901

Foedera, Conventiones, Literae . . ed, T. Rymer. London 1704-1735. 20 vols.

Select Charters and other Illustrations of English Constitutional History ed. W. Stubbs; revised H*W.JC^ Davis. 9th edition, Oxford 1913.

The Statutes of the Realm printed~by Command of His Majesty King George III. 11 vols. London 1810-1828; reprinted London 1963.

The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England commonly called Glanvill, ed. G.V^Gf Hall. London 1965. -2098

6. Theologians

Giles of Rome; De ecclesiastica potestate, ed. R. Scholz. Weimar 1929 reprinted Aalen, Scientia 1961.

John of Paris: Commentaire sur les Sentences, ed. J.TV Muller. Studia Anselmian nos. 47 and 52, 2 vols. Rome, Herder 1961-1964.

John of Paris: De confessionibus audiendis (Quaestio disputata Parisius de potestate papae), ed. L. H6dl. Munich, 1962.

John of Paris: "Tractatus de potestate regia et papali", ed. J. Leclercq. in Jean~de Paris et 1'ecclesiologie du xiiie siecle. Paris 1942. pp. 171-260.

John Pecham: Fratris Johannis Pecham, Tractatus Tres de Pauperate. ed. C.'L.' Kingsford, A.G? Little, F. Tocco. Aberdeen 1910; reprinted Farnborough 1966.

Jonas of Orleans: De Institutione Regia ad Pippenum Regem, ed. J.'P;' Migne in Patrologiae Aursus Completus, Vol CXI, col. 279-306.

Peter Lombard: Sententiarum libri quatuor, ed. J.P.' Migne in Patrologiae latinae, Vol. 192 (CXCII). Paris 1880, pp. 519-963.

Pierre Dubois: The Recovery of the Holy Land, translated by W?I,! Brandt. New York 1956.

Robert Holkot: Super quatuor libros sententiarum questiones, Lyons 1497.

Thomas Aquinas: Doctoris Angelici Divi Thomae Aquinatis, Sacri Ordinis F.F".'' Praedicatorum, Opera Omnia, vol. VIII contains, Commentum in Lib. II Sententiarum. Paris 1873.

Thomas Aquinas: Selected Political Writings, ed. A.T. D'Entreves, trans• lated J.G'.' Dawson. Oxford 1959.

Thomas Aquinas: On Kingship to the King of Cyprus. Translated G.'B. Phelan, revised Ii'T".' Eschmann. Toronto 1949.

7. Miscellaneous Documents

Chartularium Universitatls Parisiensis, ed. H. Denifle and E. Chatelain. 4 vols. Paris 1889-1897; reprinted Brussels, Culture et Civilisation 1964

"Documents pour servir a l'histoire de la Province de France l'Appel au Concile (1303)." ed. A. Dondaine, O.P.- Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, Vol. XXII (1952) pp. 381-439. -210-

Councils and Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, ed. F.M. Powicke and C.Ri Cheney. Oxford, 1964.

Histoire du differend d'entre le pape Boniface VIII et Philippes le Bel roy de France, ed. P. Dupuy. Paris 1655; reprinted Tucson 1963.

Laurentii Pignon Catalogi et Chronica accedunt Catalogi Stamsensis et Upsalensis Scriptorum P.P., ed. G. Meersseman. Monumenta Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Historica, Vol. XVIII. Rome 1936.

"Un sermon prononce pendant la guerre de Flandre sous Philippe le Bel", ed. J. Leclercq. Revue du moyen gge latin, Vol I (1945), pp. 165-172. -211-

II. SECONDARY SOURCES

a. Works directly related to the Dominican Order

Archer, T.A. "Bacon, Robert," Dictionary of National Biography, I, pp. 845-846.

Archer, T.A. "Fishacre, Richard," Dictionary of National Biography, VII, p. 53.

Aubert, Jean-Marie. Le droit romain dans l'oeuvre de Saint Thomas. Paris: J. Vrin, 1955.

Barker, Ernest. The Dominican Order and Convocation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.

Bateson, M. "Thomas Wallensis or Waleys," Dictionary of National Biography, XX, pp. 578-579.

Bennett, R.F. The Early Dominicans: Studies in Thirteenth-Century Dominican History. Cambridge University Press, 1937.

Burback, Maur, O.S.B. "Early Dominican and Franciscan Legislation Regarding St. Thomas," Mediaeval Studies, IV (1942), pp. 139-158.

Callus, Daniel A., O.P. The Condemnation of St. Thomas At Oxford. Blackfriars, 1955 (first published 1946). (A Paper read to the Aquinas Society of London on 24th April, 1946.)

Charland, Th.-M. , O.P. Artes Praedicandi: Contribution a l'histoire de la rhetorique au moyen age. Paris: Libr. Philosophique J. Vrin and Ottawa: Inst, d'etudes medievales. Publications de 1'institut d'etudes medievales d'Ottawa, vol. VII.

Clarke, R.D. "Some Secular Activities of the English Dominicans during the Reigns of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III." Unpublished Master's dissertation, University of London, 1930.

Creytens, Raymond, O.P. "Les Commentateurs dominicains de la Regie de S. Augustin du xiiie au xvie siecle: II. Les Commentateurs du xi've siecle A) Nicolas Trevet." Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXXIV (1964), pp. 107-153.

Creytens, Raymond, O.P. "L'instruction des novices dominicains au xiiie siecle d'apres le MS. Toulouse 418," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XX (1950), pp. 114-193.

Creytens, Raymond, O.P. "Une Question disputee de Galvano Fiamma O.P. sur le pouvoir temporel du Pape," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XV (1945), pp. 102^-133. -212-

Dondaine, A. "La somme de Simon de Hinton," Recherches de Theologie, ancienne et medievale, IX (1937), pp. 5-22, pp. 204-218.

Douais, C. Essai sur 1'organisation des etudes dans l'Ordre des Freres Precheurs au treizieme et au quatorzieme siecle, 1216-1342. Paris: Alphonse Picard, 1884.

Emden, Alfred B. "A Survey of Dominicans in England based on the Ordination Lists in Episcopal Registers (1268 to 1538)," Disser- tationes Historicae, fasc. XVIII, Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum, Santa Sabina, Rome, 1967.

Enden, A.B. "Dominican Confessors and Preachers Licensed by Medieval English Bishops," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXXII (1962), pp. 180-210.

Eschmann, I.T. "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers," Mediaeval Studies, XX (1958), pp. 177-205.

Feret, H.-M., O.P. "Vie. intellectuelle et vie scolaire dans l'Ordre des Precheurs," Archives d'histoire dominicaine, I (1946), pp. 5-37.

Feret, P. La Faculte de Theologie de Paris et ses Docteurs les plus celebres. Paris: Alphonse Picard et Fils, 1896, vol. III.

Formoy, Beryl, E.R. (M.A.) The Dominican Order in England before the . London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1925.

Forte, Stephen L. "The Cardinal-Protector of the Dominican Order," Disserationes Historicae, fasc. XV, Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum, Santa Sabina, Rome, 1959.

Forte, S.L. "A Cambridge Dominican collector of Exempla in the thirteenth century," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXVIII (1958), pp. 115-148.

Forte, Stephen L., O.P. "Robert Pynk, O.P. Provincial of England (c. 1361-68)," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXVII (1957), pp. 403-413.

Forte, Stephen, L., O.P. "Simon of Boraston, O.P., Life and Writings," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXII (1952), pp. 321-345.

Forte, Stephen L. "Thomas Hopeman, O.P., (c. 1350) An Unknown Biblical Commentator,11 Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXV (1955), pp. 311-344.

Gilby, Thomas. The Political Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Grabmann, M. "Le 'correctorium corruptorii' du dominicain J. Quidort de Paris," Revue neoscolastique, XIX (1912), pp. 404-418. -213-

Griesbach, Marc, F. "John of Paris as a Representative of Thomistic Political Philosophy," An Etienne Gilson Tribute, ed. Charles J. O'Neil, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1959, pp. 33-50.

Griesbach, Marc F. "The Relationship between Temporal and Spiritual Powers in John of Paris and James of Viterbo: A Study of the Early Development of Thomistic Political Philosophy." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1956.

Gumbley, Walter, O.P. The Cambridge Dominicans. Oxford: Blackfriars, 1938.

Gumbley, Walter, O.P. "Provincial Priors and Vicars of the English Dominicans, 1221-1916," English Historical Review, XXXIII (1918), pp. 243-251.

Gumbley, W. and Walz, A. "Cardinales ex ordine Praedicatorum assumpti," Analecta sacri ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum, XVII (1925-1926), pp. 331-351.

Heiman, Ambrose J. "Essence and Esse According to Jean Quidort," Mediaeval Studies, XV (1953), pp. 137-146.

Hinnebusch, William A. "The Early English Friars Preachers," Dissertationes Historicae, fasc. XIV, Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum, Santa Sabina, Rome, 1951.

Jarrett, Bede, O.P. The English Dominicans. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., 1921.

Kappeli, Th. Le proces contre Thomas Waleys, O.P. Dissertationes Historicae, fasc. VI, Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum, Santa Sabina, Rome, 1936.

Kappeli, Thomas, O.P. "Le 'Campus Florum1 de Thomas Waleys," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXXV (1965), pp. 85-92.

Kingsford, CL. "Darlington, John of," Dictionary of National Biography, V, pp. 511-513.

Kingsford, CL. "Henton, Simon of," Dictionary of National Biography, IX, p. 590.

Kingsford, CL. "John of St. Giles," Dictionary of National Biography, X, pp. 883-885.

Kingsford, CL. "Jorz, Walter," Dictionary of National Biography, X, pp. 1091 - 1092.

Kingsford, CL. "Anian de Schonau," Dictionary of National Biography, XVII, pp. 927-928. -214-

Kingsford, CL. 'Trivet, Nicholas," Dictionary of National Biography, XIX, pp. 1161-1163.

Lajard, Felix. "Jean de Paris," Histoire litteraire de la France, XXV, (Paris, 1869; reprinted Paris: H. Welter, 1898), pp. 244-270.

Leclercq, Jean. Jean de Paris et l'ecclesiologie du xiiie siecle. Paris: J. Vrin, 1942.

Little, A.G. "Provincial Priors and Vicars of the English Dominicans," English Historical Review, XXXIII (1918), pp. 496-497.

Little, A.G. "Provincial Priors of the Dominican Order in England," English Historical Review, VIII (1893), pp. 519-525.

Maclnerny, M.H., O.P. A History of the Irish Dominicans. Dublin: Browne and Nolan, Limited, 1916.

Mandonnet, P., O.P. "La Crise scolaire au debut du xiiie siecle et la fondation de l'Ordre des Freres-Precheurs," Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique, XV (1914), pp. 34-49.

Mandonnet, P. "Premiers travaux de polemique thomiste," Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques, VII (1913), pp. 46-70, pp. 245-262.

Martin, Raymond-M. "La Question de l'unite de la forme substantielle dans le premier college dominieain a Oxford (1221-1248)," Revue Neo-Scolastique de Philosophie, XXIX (1920), pp. 107-112.

Martin, Raymond-M., O.P. "Quelques 'premiers' maitres dominicains de Paris et d'Oxford et la soi-disant Ecole Dominicaine Augustienienne (1229-1279)," Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques, IX (1920), pp. 556-580.

Millar, A. "Robert Wishart," Dictionary of National Biography, XXI, pp. 726-727.

Noyon, A. "Theologiens et philosophes dominicains du moyen age," Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques, VIII (1914-1918), pp. 467-476.

Palmer, C.F.R., "Burials at the Priories of the Blackfriars," The Antiquary, XXIII (1891) pp. 122-126; XXIV (1891), pp. 28-30, pp. 76-79, pp. 117-120, pp. 265-269.

Palmer, C.F.R., "De conventibus provinciae Angliae sacri ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum," Analecta sacri ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum, II (1895-1896), pp. 352-361.

Palmer, C.F.R., "The Friar-Preachers, or Black Friars, of King's Langley," The Reliquary, XLX (1878), pp. 37-43, pp. 74-80, pp. 209-218. -215-

Palmer, C.F.R,,. "The Friar-Preachers, or Black Friars, of Oxford," The Reliquary, XXIII (1882-1883), pp. 145-159, pp. 209-219.

Palmer, C.F.R.-, "The King's Confessors," The Antiquary, XXII (1890), pp. 114-120, pp. 159-161, pp. 262-266; XXIII (1891) 24 ff.

Palmer, C.F.R., "Prelates of the Black Friars of England," The Antiquary, XXVI (1892), pp. 71-73, pp. 209-213; XXVII (1893), pp. 36-38, pp. 111-114.

Palmer, C.F.R., "The Provincials of the Friar Preachers in England," Archaeological Journal, XXXV (1878), pp. 134-165.

Quetif, Jacobus and Echard, Jacobus. Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Recenstiti. Lutetiae Pariscorum, 1719, 2 vols.

Rashdall, H. ed. "The Friars Preachers v. the University," Oxford Historical Society, vol. 16, Collectanea, Second Series, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890, pp. 193-273.

Roensch, Frederick J. Early Thomistic School. Dubuque, Iowa: The Priory Press, 1964.

Schaff, P.-M. "Jean Quidort" Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, ed. A. Vacant, E. Maugenot, and E. Amann, VIII, pt. 1, cols. 840-841.

Sharp, D.E. "The Philosophy of Richard Fishacre (D. 1248)," The New Scholasticism, VII (1933), pp. 281-297.

Sharp, D.E. "Thomas of Sutton, his and Angelology," Revue neoscolastique de philosophie, XXXVII (1935), pp. 88-104.

Sharp, D.E. "Thomas of Sutton, his Natural Theology," Revue neoscolastique de philosophie, XXXVII (1935), pp. 219-233.

Sharp, D.E. "Thomas of Sutton, O.P., his Place in Scholasticism and an Account of his Psychology," Revue neoscolastique de philosophie, XXXVI (1934), pp. 332-354.

Sharp, D.E. "The 1277 Condemnation by Kilwardby," The New Scholasticism, VIII (1934), pp. 306-318.

Simonin, H.-D., O.P. "Notes de Bibliographie Dominicaine: II - Les anciens catalogues d'ecrivains dominicains et la Chronique de Bernard Gui," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, IX (1939), pp. 192-199.

Smalley, B. "Robert Bacon and the Early Dominican School at Oxford," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, XXX (1948), pp. 1-19.

Smalley, Beryl. "Robert Holcot, 0.P.," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXVI (1956), pp. 5-97. -216-

Smalley, Beryl. "Thomas Waleys, O.P.," Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, XXIV (1954), pp. 50-107.

Smalley, Beryl.. "Two Biblical. Commentar.ies of Simon of Hinton," Recherches de Theologie ancienne et medievale, XIII (1946), pp. 57-85.

Sommer-Seckendorff, Ellen M.F. Studies in the Life of Robert Kilwardby, O.P. Dissertationes Historicae, fasc. VIII, Institutum Historicum FF. Praedicatorum, Santa Sabina, Rome, 1937.

Tanquerey, Frederic, J. "The Conspiracy of Thomas Dunheved, 1327," English Historical Review, XXXI (1916), pp. 119-124.

Tout, T.F. "Kilwardby, Robert," Dictionary of National Biography, XI, pp. 120-122.

Tunmore, Harry, P. "The Dominican Order and Parliament: An Unsolved Problem in the History of Representation," The Catholic Historical Review, XXVI (1941), pp. 479-489. -217-

b. Works not directly related to the Dominican Order

Arquilliere, H.X.1 L'Augustinisme~Politigue: Essai sur la formation des theories politiques du moyen-age. 2nd edition; Paris: J. Vrin 1955.

Boutaric, E. La France sous Philippe le Bel. Paris: Henri Plon, 1861.

Boyle, L.E. "The Constitution Cum ex ea of Boniface VIII: Education of Parochial Clergy." Mediaeval Studies.

Brooke, R.B.1* Early Franciscan Government. Cambridge: 1959.

Brooke Z.N. The English Church and Papacy from the Conquest to the Reign of John. Cambridge:1952.

Carlyle, A.J. & R.W. A History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood, 1903-1936.

Chenu, M.D. La theologie comme science au XIIIe siecle. Paris: J. Vrin 1957.

Creytens, R. "Autour de la Litterature des Correctoires" Archivum Fratum Praedicatorum, Vol. XII (1942) pp. 313-330.

De Lubac, H. "Le Pouvoir de l'eglise en matiere temporelle" Revue des Sciences Religieuses.

D'Entreves, A.P. The Medieval Contribution to Political Thought. New York, The Humanities Press, 1959.

De Wulf, M. History of Mediaeval Philosophy. Trans. E.'C. Messenger. London, Longmans, 1926.

Dougherty, T.'D. "Irnerius," New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, pp.658.

Douie, D.L. Archbishop Pecham. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.'

Douie, D.L. The Conflict between the Seculars and the Mendicants at the University of Paris in the Thirteenth Century. Aquinas Society of London, Paper No. 23, 1954.

Ehler S.Z. "On Applying the Modern Term 'State' to the Middle Ages". Medieval Studies Presented to Aubrey Gwynn, S'^J., ed. J.A. Watt, J.B-. Morrall, F.X. Martin; Dublin, Colm 0 Lochlainn, 1961 pp. 492-501.

Emden, A.B. A Biographical Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500. Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Emden, A.B. A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500. Oxford University Press, 1957 - 1959. -218-

Emery, R.W. The Friars in Medieval France: A Catalogue of French Mendicant Convents, 1200-1550. New York and London, Columbia University Press 1962.

Gibbs, M & L.J. Bishops and Reform, 1215-1272. Oxford University. Press, 1934.

Gierke, 0. Political Theories of the Middle Age. Trans. F.W? Maitland, Cambridge University Press, 1900.

GiImore, M.'P';'1 Argument from Roman Law in Political Thought, 1200-1600 Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1941.

Gilson, E. History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages. London: Sheed and Ward, 1955.

Gilson, E. . Les metamorphoses de la cite de Dieu. Louvain and Paris: J. Vrin, 1955.

Glorieux P. Repertoire des Maitres en Theologie de Paris au XIIIe Siecle. Paris: J. Vrin, 1938.

Glorieux P. "Un memoire justificatif de Bernard de Trilia". Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques.

Glorieux P. "Bernard de Trilia? ou Jean de Paris?" Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques, Vol. XIX (1930), pp. 469-474.

Graham, R. English Ecclesiastical Studies. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1929.

Hale, J.R. & Highfield, J.R.L. & Smalley, B. Europe in the Late Middle Ages. London: Faber and Faber, 1965.

Hanrahan, T.J., C.S.B. "Edward II and the Papacy", M;'A.' Thesis; University of Toronto, 1954.

Hefele C.J. & Leclercq, D.H. Histoire des Conciles. Paris, Librairie Letouzey, 1914-1915.

Kantorowicz, E.H. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1957

Kantorowicz,_E.H. "Kingship under the Impact of Scientific Jurisprudence" Twelfth-Century Europe and the Foundations of Modern Society, ed. Marshall Clagett, Gaines Post and Robert Reynolds. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961.

Kern, F. Kingship and Lawi in the Middle Ages, trans. S.B^ Chrimes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1948.

Knowles, D. The Religious Orders in England. 1948-1959, Cambridge University Press, 1961 reprint. -219-

Knowles, D. & Hadcock, R.N. Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1953.

Koch, J. "Le memoire jiistificatif de Bernard de Trilia". Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques.

Khot, H. "The Dawn of Nationalism in Europe" The American Historical Review, Vol. LII (1946-1947).

Ladner, G.B. "Aspects of Mediaeval Thought on Church and State" Review of Politics, Vol. 9 (October 1947).

Ladner, G.B. "The Concepts of Ecclesia and Christianitas and their Relation to the Idea of Papal Plenitudo Potestatis from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII". Miscellenea Historicae Pontificae.

Lagarde, G. de, La Naissance de L'Esprit La'ique au Declin du Moyen Age. Editions E. Nauwelaerts, Louvain and Beatrice-Neuwelaerts, Paris.

Langlois, Cg. "Saint Louis. — Philippe le Bel. Les derniers capetiens directs (1226-1328). "in Ernest Lavisse, Histoire de France, Paris, Hachette, 1911.

Lawrence, C."H." The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London, Burns and Oates, 1965.

Le Bras, G. "Le droit romain au service de la domination pontificale" Revue historique de droit francais et etranger, Vol. XXVII.

Lecler, J. "L'Argument des Deux Glaives dans les Controverses politi- ques du Moyen Age: ses Origines at son Developpement". Recherches de Science Religieuse.

Leclercq, J. "L'idee de la royaute du Christ au XlVe siecle" Miscellanea Pio Paschini, Rome 1948.

Leclercq, J. "Le renonciation de Celestin V et 1'opinion theologique en France du vivant de Boniface VIII" Revue de l'histoire de l'Eglise de France, vol. XXV (1939).

Lewis, E. Medieval Political Ideas. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1954.

Little A;;G.: & Pelster, F. Oxford Theology and Theologians, c. A/D^ 1282- 1302. Oxford Historical Society (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

Little A.G. The Grey Friars in Oxford. Oxford Historical Society, (Clarendon Press, Oxford)

Little, A.''G.' Franciscan Papers, Lists, and Documents. Manchester University Press, 1943.

Little, A.G. "The Administrative Division of the Mendicant Orders in England" English Historical Review.

Little, A.G. "Educational Organization of the Mendicant Friars in England (Dominicans and Franciscans). Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, New Series. -220-

Little, A.-jG;1 "The Franciscan School at Oxford in the Thirteenth Century" Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, vol. XIX.

Little, A.G. "The Friars and the Foundation of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Cambridge" Melanges Mandonnet, Paris, J. Vrin 1930.

Little, A.G. & Easterling R.C. The Franciscans and Dominicans of Exeter. Exeter: A. Wheaton, 1927.

Odon, L. Psychologie at Morale aux Xlle et Xiiie siecles. Louvain and Gembloux, J. Duculot, 1942-1949.

Lung, W.E. Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1939.

Lunt, William E. Financial Relations of the Papacy with England, 1327- 1534. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Mediaeval Academy of America 1962.

Lunt, W.E.' "Papal Taxation in England in the Reign of Edward I" English Historical Review, Vol. XXX (1915).

Mcllwain, C*H'.' The Growth of Political Thought in the West. New York MacMillan 1932.

McKisack, M. The Fourteenth Century, 1307-1399. Oxford University Press, 1959.

Mollat, G. The Popes at Avignon, 1305-1378. trans J. Love. London: Thomas Nelson, 1963. .

Moorman, J.H.R. Church Life in England in the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, 1946.

Mortier, A. Histoire des maltres generaux de 1'ordre des Freres Pr£cheurs„ Paris, 1903-1920.

Moynihan, J.M. Papal Immunity and Liability in the Writings of the Medieval Cononists. Rome, Gregorian University Press, 1961.

Murray, J.C. "Contemporary Orientations of Catholic Thought on Church and State in the Light of History" Cross Churrents.

O'Neil, C.J. An Etienne Gilson Tribute. Milwaukee, The Marquette Uni• versity Press, 1959. -221-

Owst, G. R.f Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England. Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Pantin, W.A. The English Church in the Fourteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, 1955

Poole, R.L. "Simon Burneston or Boraston:" DNB

Post, G. Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State, 1100-1322. Princeton, New Jersye, Princeton University Press, 1964.

Porwicke, F.'M.; "Reflections on the Medieval State: Transactions of the Royal Historical Satiety, 4th series, Vol XIX (1936)

Previte-Orton, C.W. A History of Europe, 1198-1378. London Metheun, 1937

Rashdall, H. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Edited F^'M.1 Powicke and A.B. Emden, Oxford, Clarendon Press,' 1936.

Riviere J. Le probleme de l'eglise et de l'e'tat au temps de Philippe de Bel: £tude de Theologie Positive. Louvain, and Paris, 1926

Riviere, J. "Le pape est il 'un Dieu1 pour Innocent III" Revue des Sciences Religieuses (1922).

Riviere, J. "In partem sollicitudinis" evolution d'une formule pontificale" Revue des sciences religienses

Riviere, J "Sur 1'expression "Papa-Deus" au moyen age" Miscellanea Fracesco Ehrle, Vol. ii.

Rothwell H. "The confirmation of the Charters 1297" English Historical Review.

Russell, J.C. Dictionary of Writers in Thirteenth Century England London, 1936.

Russell, J.C. "The Clerical Population of Medieval England" Traditio, Vol. II. -222-

Sabine, George H. A History of Political Theory (3rd edition), London: George C. Harrap, 1966).

Sharp, D.E. Franciscan Philosophy at Oxford in the Thirteenth Century. New York: Russell & Russell, 1964 (first published 1930).

Smalley, Beryl. English Friars and Antiquity in the Early Fourteenth Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, I960.

Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952.

Smalley, Beryl, ed. Trends in Medieval Political Thought. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Smyth, E.G. "The Place of Clericis Laicos in the Reign of Edward I." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, 1953.

Stegmuller, Fredericus. Repertorium Commentariorum In Sententias Petri Lombardi. Wurzburg: F. Schoningh, 1947, 2 vols.

Stickler, Alfons, M. "Concerning the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists," Traditio, VII (1949-1951), pp. 450-463.

Strayer', J. R. "Laicization of French and English Society in the Thirteenth Century," Speculum, XV (1940), pp. 76-86.

Strayer, Joseph R. and Taylor, Charles H. Studies in Early French Taxation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.

Stubbs, William. The Constitutional History of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3 vols., 4th ed., 1883-1890.

Sutherland, Donald W. Quo Warranto Proceedings in the Reign of Edward I, 1278-1294. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Tellenbach, Gerd. Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959.

Thorndike, Lynn. University Records and Life in the Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944. (Records of Civilization, XXXVIII)

Tierney, Brian. The Crisis of Church and State, 1050-1300. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

Tierney, Brian. "The Continuity of Papal Political Theory in the Thirteenth Century. Some Methodological Considerations." Mediaeval Studies, XXVII (1965), pp. 227-245. -223-

Ullmann, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages. (2nd edition) London: Methuen, 1962.

Ullmann, Walter. Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages. (2nd edition) London: Methuen, 1966.

Ullmann, W. "A Medieval Document on Papal Theories of Government," English Historical Review, LXI (1946), pp. 180-201.

Ullmann, W. "Medieval Views Concerning Papal Abdication," The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, LXXI (1949), pp. 125-133.

Van Steenberghen," F. Aristotle in the West, trans. Leonard Johnston. Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1955.

Van Steenberghen, F. The Philosophical Movement in the Thirteenth Century. London: Nelson, 1955.

Watt, John A. The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century. New York: Fordham University Press, 1965.

Wilkinson, B. Constitutional History of Medieval England, 1216-1399. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 3 vols., 1948-1958.

Wilks, M.J. The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Woolf, Cecil N. Sidney. Bartolus of Sassoferrato: His Position in the History of Medieval Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, 1913. APPENDIX I

EXTRACTS FROM JOHN BROMYARD'S TRACTATUS IURIS CIVILIS ET CANONICI

AD MORALEM MATERIAM APPLICATI SECUNDUM ORDINEM ALPHABETI,

BRITISH MUSEUM, MS ROYAL 10 C. x.

Fol. 21v - B VII

Benignitatem ostendit Deus homini pro ipso naturam humanam sumendo et moriendo. Benignitatem debet homo ostendere Deo ipsum diligendo eique obediendo et homini pro amore Dei ipsum iuvando et supportando.

B VII A

Quantum ad primum magnam benignitatem ostendit nobis Deus materiam nostram sumendo et pro nobis nascendo quia non obstante disputatione quorundam utrum melius sit habere regem nativum qui succedat et custodiat regnum iure haereditario vel electum sicut est imperator romanus, extra de electione, Venerabileml, turn bello intestina et homicidia et rapinae et alia mala quae multo plus insolescunt in Ytalia et in aliis terris .. imperii quam in terris quae habent regem nativum ostendunt quod peius est '. illis qui non habent nisi electivum; quia in illo tempore vacationis imperii inter imperatorem mortuum et electum et confirmatum, quod est nimis longum quia (sic) quia imperium non habet unum caput custodiens membra, habet tot capita destruentia quot malos potentes.

Propter quod, non solu vacatio vel absentia capitis domini temporalis sed etiam spiritualis est periculosa, extra, de electionibus, in VI.2

Sed ubi est rex naturalis non est longa vacatio quia, etsi non habet filium, habet propinquum de sanguine qui regi mortuo statim succedit et regnum gubernat.

1 X, 1, 6, 34, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II, cols. 79-82.

2 VI°, I, 6, 3, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. II. -225-

Hoc sciens Deus venit ut esset rex noster nativus quando, sicut dicitur Matt. II^': Natus est rex; et non est dubium quin multo melius fuerit postea hominibus qui ipsum regem et dominum susceperunt et honoraverunt quam fuerat aliis ante. Propter quod Apostolus, quasi miseriam praecedentium et commodum sequentium in uno verbo completens, dicit Tim. Ill: Eramus enim nos alii insipientes, increduli, errantes, servientes desideriis et voluptatibus variis, in malitia et immunditia agentes, odibiles, odientes invicem. Cum autem benignitas et humanitas apparuit salvatoris nostri Dei, non ex aperibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit.2

Et sicut tempore vacationis imperii spoliatores dominantur fidelibus et civitates et alia perdimur, sic tempore quo quis non habet imperatorem coeli qui imperat ventis et mari et obediunt ei, Matt. _8,3 sed raptores inferni habent dominum eius et multa bona perdit dicens illud, Peut. xxxi: Quia non est Deus mecum invenerunt me haec mala.4

Maiorem vero benignitatem et amorem ostendit nobis deus moriendo, quia dicit lex ff. de penis: si servorum in fine, quod solus fustium utus (sic) gravior est quam pecuniaria dampnatio quod verum fuit in illo .; qui.

foi. 21vb non redemit nos auro vel argento sed suo pretioso sanguine quod fuit ei gravius etsi non sit in avaro qui etiam sicut dicitur Ecclesiastici X: animam suam venalem habet,5 de quo in Psalmo 51, dilexisti malitiam super 6 benign itatemT"

Foi. 103rb - P III

Papa habet ingressum sanctiatis progressum potestatis et egressum paupertatis

Si Constantinus imperator paganus pro vita et sanitate corporali noluit sanguinem fundere puerorum, quare volunt illi qui animas salvare deberent tot perdere pro brevi saeculi vanitate.

1 Matthew 2:2.

2 Timothy 1: 3-5.

3 Matthew 8: 27.

4 Deuteronomy 31: 17.

Ecclesiastes 10: 10.

6 Psalms 51: 5. -226-

Sanctius igitur esset et pro seipsis et pro aliis quod pauciores essent cardinales, et de toto mundo electi, et sanctitate et scientia approbati, ut pate qui totum mundum sunt recturi in quibus ecclesiae potius quam personae vel parentelae esset provisum, qui de terris tem- plariorum vel de aliqua certa et eis assignata portione sine scandalo viverent, muneribus et exactionibus quae gloriam curiae maculant penitus derelictis.

Non diis sed peccatis detraho nec pono os in coelum sed in caenum eo modo quo Paulus reprehendit Petrum1, Gal. II2; nec tango montem sed mortem nec patris intendo revelare turpitudinem, tam timens offensam, sed potius Sem3 sequens vestigia nitor patris nudati pudenda occultare, sciens quod non omnis papa sanctus sed quandoque a Deo reprobatus etiam in praesenti punitur; di. xix, Anastasius.4

Nullus igitur offendatur considerans quod, Deo ordinate, propheta Balaam suae vesaniae reprehensorem habuit asinam; II_, q_. vii, Secuti sunt;^ et Num. xxii.

1 Psalms 72: 9.

2 Galatians 2: 11.

3 Exodus 19: 12.

4 D. 19, c. 9, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. I, col. 64.

5 II, 7, c. 31, Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. I, cols. 492-493.